Your View on Women as Deacons

[jaigner]

No one gave you a personal attack or judged you. You are either Baptist or not. You either take the Bible for what it says in plain English or not. You either follow the rules of the forum or not. These are all simple principles that do not require a convention of top notch theologeans to figure out.

Earning advanced degrees does not require you to throw out common sense. There is no need to be vague. Statements like "I used to be a member of this group, but work for that group, and now associate with the other group" is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Are you Baptist or not? I am, and quite grateful to be one. Most Christians, believe it or not, have not studied Greek, Hebrew, and the culture of the day in order to make the meaning they read in English mean something other than what it says. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" means exactly what it says. I never thought about the possibility that Moses was drinking too much wine when he wrote it, or that the culture he was in gave that phrase a special, secret meaning.

If you are Baptist, then realize this is a debate forum. There is a difference between debate and a personal attack. You have not experienced a personal attack here.

Greetings, planets. Much of Scripture, with careful study, can be understood by the believer with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Other passages are not so easy, and its there that original language and knowledge of the day will help. Nothing in the Bible is supposed to be a secret, but being removed from its writing by nearly 2000 years puts us at a disadvantage. Therefore, having knowledge of the literary and historical context are of great help. I don't have access to these myself, as my training is strictly theological, but I don't even try to interpret difficult passages without the help of good commentary and other outside assistance.

For instance, if I take what the Bible says in plain English, then men shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't pray with their heads uncovered. And I should treat my slaves nicely. Most of us wouldn't think these things are normative for us today, but they were in the case of Paul's intended audience. That doesn't mean we can't be taught by these passages, but it means we don't take them at their "plain English" appearance.

Also, the Bible wasn't written in English and there is no one original copy in the original languages, so there is a lot of interpretation necessary. That's why we have some many translations. The KJV, though used greatly for the Kingdom for hundreds of years, falls far short today because many word meanings have changed and we have access to more reliable and earlier texts. We're always working toward a more faithful translation of God's Word.

Also, denominations are more fluid today than ever. And people like me, who have a role to play in the local church, are finding that God would have us be willing to work in different settings. It's truth, not "mumbo jumbo."

Blessings.

 

[Jerome]

We won't be hiding that we are Baptist in beliefs, will we? We're certainly not calling it Island Methodist Church!

Parish the thought!

 

[Jerome]

I was just at the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website and was suprised to read that they have a woman on their pastoral staff:thumbs:

 

[gb93433]

I was just at the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website and was surprised to read that they have a woman on their pastoral staff:thumbs:

For any churches that do not have women deacons or staff, the male deacons have wives at home who have opinions too.

 

[annsni]

For any churches that do not have women deacons or staff, the male deacons have wives at home who have opinions too.

I don't think there is one church around that doesn't have a woman on staff somewhere. If there is, I'm sure it's not working to it's full potential. I know our church would fall apart if there were no women working there!

 

[tinytim]

To answer the question of the thread, my view on women deacons is that it is up to the local church.

My view exactly.

 

[gb93433]

My view exactly.

So scripture is subjective?

 

[jaigner]

So scripture is subjective?

No, Baptists believe in local church autonomy. Therefore, different local bodies can differ in opinion and interpretation.

In any event, much of what we know about early church policy is that it was ad hoc.

 

[gb93433]

No, Baptists believe in local church autonomy. Therefore, different local bodies can differ in opinion and interpretation.

In any event, much of what we know about early church policy is that it was ad hoc.

There are more facts than one could know if they do not study.

It is not a matter of useless opinion but rather truth.

 

[jaigner]

There are more facts than one could know if they do not study.

It is not a matter of useless opinion but rather truth.

I'm not saying Scripture is untrue. Saying that many of the examples in Scripture were ad hoc.

And saying that Baptists disagree a lot. Which is true. That's why they believe in autonomy.

 

[gb93433]

And saying that Baptists disagree a lot. Which is true. That's why they believe in autonomy.

I have found that not many have studied to find the truth about this issue but rather play follow the leader. I have also found that some know the truth but out of fear do not do what they know. The truth does not disagree with itself. There is only one truth and every teacher should study to find it otherwise admit ignorance.

 

[TomVols]

I don't believe there is Scriptural warrant or mandate for them. That said, some very Christ-centered, God honoring churches out of fidelity to Scripture using sound hermeneutics do in fact have women deacons. I do not believe it an issue to die on the cross over. This is not as important as, say inerrancy of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the exclusivity of the gospel, etc.

Some very prominent SBC churches have women as deacons, btw.

 

[jaigner]

I don't believe there is Scriptural warrant or mandate for them. That said, some very Christ-centered, God honoring churches out of fidelity to Scripture using sound hermeneutics do in fact have women deacons. I do not believe it an issue to die on the cross over. This is not as important as, say inerrancy of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the exclusivity of the gospel, etc.

Some very prominent SBC churches have women as deacons, btw.

You're right. No matter how we slice it, some are going to disagree.

I know what the previous poster is trying to say, and there is one absolute Truth, but we're not always going to find it on every issue no matter how hard we try due to the parasite of sin that we cannot completely escape during this life.

 

[gb93433]

I don't believe there is Scriptural warrant or mandate for them. That said, some very Christ-centered, God honoring churches out of fidelity to Scripture using sound hermeneutics do in fact have women deacons. I do not believe it an issue to die on the cross over. This is not as important as, say inerrancy of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the exclusivity of the gospel, etc.

Some very prominent SBC churches have women as deacons, btw.

I believe there is a distinct difference between deacons and deaconesses especially in the way they served the early church.

There is plenty of evidence that the early church utilized women in ministry. There were women whose responsibility was to work with other women and children. They performed pastoral work with the sick and the poor and helped at baptism. From the earliest times deaconesses visited the sick, acted as door-keepers at the women's entrance to the church, kept order among church women, taught females in preparation for baptism and acted as sponsors for homeless children. They also carried official messages. There was a clearer line drawn between the sexes than there is today. Women deacons were not on the same level as men deacons. They could not teach and minister to mixed groups of people or men, and they were not ordained.

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is loads of evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas, the eastern church did.

The emergence of deaconesses is unclear. But in the third and fourth centuries the office of deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses (Loeb Library Series, Pliny, Book X, XCVI, 8, 289).

 

[RAdam]

This is a case where man makes difficult that which is simple. I really worry for people that cannot accept the simple language of scripture when they come to the truly difficult parts.

Phoebe was not a deacon, she was a servant of the church. Deacons, like elders, were to be men. This is clear unless you monkey around with the language by going to the Greek or Hebrew as an excuse to allow women into offices they are forbidden to hold. The elder was to be a man, and then Paul uses the word "likewise" when he moves on to deacon qualifications. Then he proceeds to limit the office of deacon to men specifically.

It's pretty hard to be a husband when you are a woman and it is pretty hard to rule your house well when you are supposed to be subject to your husband. It's real simple. Would to God people would accept the simple language of scripture rather than rejecting it because it doesn't fit the way they think things should be.

 

[John Toppass]

This is a case where man makes difficult that which is simple. I really worry for people that cannot accept the simple language of scripture when they come to the truly difficult parts.

Phoebe was not a deacon, she was a servant of the church. Deacons, like elders, were to be men. This is clear unless you monkey around with the language by going to the Greek or Hebrew as an excuse to allow women into offices they are forbidden to hold. The elder was to be a man, and then Paul uses the word "likewise" when he moves on to deacon qualifications. Then he proceeds to limit the office of deacon to men specifically.

It's pretty hard to be a husband when you are a woman and it is pretty hard to rule your house well when you are supposed to be subject to your husband. It's real simple. Would to God people would accept the simple language of scripture rather than rejecting it because it doesn't fit the way they think things should be.

Nail on the head!!!! If some of the more prominent churches have women deacons / deaconesses then they are not scriptual in that regard, but they are doing things the way the world would want them to do.

 

[Juan the Baptist]

The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) excludes women as pastors, although it leaves open the possibility of women serving as deacons. Women are excluded as pastors, although it seems to leave open the possibility of women serving as deacons. The only scripture I know of that could be read to support women deacons is Romans 16:1, where Phoebe is variously described as a deaconess and a servant of the church, depending on your translation.

However, there is plenty of scripture to the contrary. Husband of one wife, etc. Also you have Acts 6 in which seven men and no women were chosen for the office of deacon.

So, what say you? Should women serve as deacons or not? Also, do you have women serving as deacons in your church? Maybe someone smarter than I am could put up a poll.

Aren't there still women "preachers" (not necessarily pastors) serving in the SBC?

 

[dcorbett]

Because one scripture says a pastor is to be the husband of one wife that all pastors must be married? Justmaybe it was addressing a singular problem at that time.

The NT was written at a very male dominant society. Could that also be a cultural situation?

We give women a little more credit to-day!

Cheers, Jim

The Bible is our handbook....we cannot say one part applies and another doesn't. My Daddy was a deacon, and he would never even THINK of a woman filling that position anymore than he would follow a woman Pastor.
The role of the sexes has eroded through the years, but God intended men to fill those positions.

 

[RAdam]

The Bible is our handbook....we cannot say one part applies and another doesn't. My Daddy was a deacon, and he would never even THINK of a woman filling that position anymore than he would follow a woman Pastor.
The role of the sexes has eroded through the years, but God intended men to fill those positions.

Exactly. I get tired of hearing about the "male dominated society." The Bible did not take its cues from society, it set itself apart from society. The same man that said women weren't to teach or have positions of authority in the church instructed men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and stated that women had one of the most important jobs in the world: instructing the kids at home. Paul was not a sexist neither was he following societal norms, but rather he was writing under divine inspiration showing the way God wanted things done from there on out.

 

[jaigner]

Exactly. I get tired of hearing about the "male dominated society." The Bible did not take its cues from society, it set itself apart from society. The same man that said women weren't to teach or have positions of authority in the church instructed men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and stated that women had one of the most important jobs in the world: instructing the kids at home. Paul was not a sexist neither was he following societal norms, but rather he was writing under divine inspiration showing the way God wanted things done from there on out.

Paul was still writing to a society that, Christians or not, reflected its culture. It doesn't make the Bible uninspired; quite the contrary. The fact that it spoke to a particular people in a particular situation makes it all the more relevant to us today.

But the Bible did take cues from society. What about requirements for headwear? What about dietary concerns? We don't (at least, we generally don't) follow those today, but back then it was necessary, as Christians (or, previously, Jews) were expected to acquiesce to different demands of society.

This is divine accommodation. This is why God tolerated plural marriage, even though it was never part of His ideal, for instance. It means that the point itself, while still inspired and profitable for our benefit, is not binding to us today.

This is not a contrived, dishonest decision. This is where we get on a difficult issue by doing as much scholarship as possible toward understanding Scripture and what it said in its original context. I have respect for any position one comes to on this issue, as long as they do their best to be faithful in exegeting and interpreting Scripture.