Your View on Women as Deacons

[go2church]

What RAdam said -

"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."

And this is where this discussion comes to an end! Statements as uninformed as this reveal only a desire to hold to preconceived dogma rather then allowing scripture to speak for its self and hints at a belief that somehow the English "corrects" the original languages, which is heresy. But I'll throw another log on the fire just to keep things interesting.

You do realize that by bringing up the Corinthian instructions issue you are actually making my point and not proving your own. You see by pointing to the seeming contradiction you have highlighted the weakness of choosing one scripture to be universal (not the best word choice here but I'll go with it) while ignoring the others that don't help make your point. They are universal because you say they are, but what about these other verses?

Titus doesn't have qualifications for deacons, just overseers and would seem to indicate that slavery is OK and slaves should just get over it. Timothy needs to drink more wine and widows can't be helped by the church until they are sixty.

But then again you are making my point for me.

 

[jaigner]

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.

I'm sorry you're sad, but please don't alienate the majority of evangelical brothers and sisters who are at this position. Believe me, we're no more dishonest than any believers who earnestly seek God and listen to the Bible.

 

[dcorbett]

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.

AMEN! When something is that plainly spelled out and "man" chooses to ignore it....we are indeed in trouble in the Baptist communities.

 

[dcorbett]

Excellent, friend. Thank you for clarifying this.

Except being wrong doesn't clarify anything!!!!

 

[dcorbett]

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.

So what Bible do YOU follow and read? MINE says MEN fill those jobs. Pure and straight.

 

[jaigner]

Except being wrong doesn't clarify anything!!!!

Again, it's just not that simple. Many agree with me, including well-known conservatives. I am committed to Biblical integrity here and I'm not telling any of you who disagree that you're just plain wrong and you need to open your eyes.

At least don't deny the genuine faith and integrity of those who disagree.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I am committed to Biblical integrity here and I'm not telling any of you who disagree that you're just plain wrong and you need to open your eyes.

At least don't deny the genuine faith and integrity of those who disagree.

I went to a seminary that I don't and didn't care for by the time I finished. On one hand it was very Calvinistic(and that is why I went there) and very liberal on the other hand. By the time I finished I didn't agree with Calvinism and could not stand the liberal teachings.

One professor a conservative Calvinist would ask us how much used motor oil did we want in our spring drinking water. My answer was none but you are free to drink all of it you want, I'm not going to compromise my beliefs.

 

[go2church]

Cute story, but what exactly are you saying. In plain, straight English please. Don't give me none of that fancy Greek language double-talking stuff, just good old American English.

 

[RAdam]

What RAdam said -

"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."

And this is where this discussion comes to an end! Statements as uninformed as this reveal only a desire to hold to preconceived dogma rather then allowing scripture to speak for its self and hints at a belief that somehow the English "corrects" the original languages, which is heresy. But I'll throw another log on the fire just to keep things interesting.

You do realize that by bringing up the Corinthian instructions issue you are actually making my point and not proving your own. You see by pointing to the seeming contradiction you have highlighted the weakness of choosing one scripture to be universal (not the best word choice here but I'll go with it) while ignoring the others that don't help make your point. They are universal because you say they are, but what about these other verses?

Titus doesn't have qualifications for deacons, just overseers and would seem to indicate that slavery is OK and slaves should just get over it. Timothy needs to drink more wine and widows can't be helped by the church until they are sixty.

But then again you are making my point for me.

You are twisting my words. I never said the english corrects the greek. I said that the context of the passage shows that the english was correctly translated and that I didn't need to go to the Greek to understand what my english bible was telling me. In other words, some scholar will step up and point out the the word there simply means woman. The context, however, shows that the way Paul is using it is to mean the wives of the men who are to be deacons. Thus the english is correct, it is simple and clear, context wins again, and one doesn't need to be a greek scholar to figure it out.

In the following comments you show not only your disdain for scripture but also your ignorance of it. The bible never says slavery is ok, it simply tells masters to treat slaves properly, and the other way around. Paul didn't say that a church couldn't help a widow until sixty, he said she couldn't be supported by the church unless certain conditions were met. If she had family, let them take care of her. If she is young, let her marry again lest she be tempted to begin a relationship later. Titus is given qualifications for elders because he is to ordain elders in every city of Crete. By the way, again, the qualifications are nearly identical to those given to Timothy.

Because you can't reconcile scriptures together doesn't mean they aren't reconcilable and binding on us today. It means you need to study more and ask the Spirit of God for guidance. Really, we all need more study and more guidance from the Spirit.

 

[RAdam]

Again, it's just not that simple. Many agree with me, including well-known conservatives. I am committed to Biblical integrity here and I'm not telling any of you who disagree that you're just plain wrong and you need to open your eyes.

At least don't deny the genuine faith and integrity of those who disagree.

It is that simple. Paul simply states that the deacons and elders are to be men. If you deny this you are wrong. There are a lot of scriptures that are open to various degrees of interpretation. My aforementioned example of the last few chapters of Ezekiel are a good example. We have to be careful not to be too dogmatic on those scriptures. However, some are crystal clear and thus there is a crystal clear way to interpret them properly. Anything else is plain wrong.

 

[Revmitchell]

At least don't deny the genuine faith and integrity of those who disagree.

Wow! I hope no one falls for that trap.

 

[Mississippi John]

Bible + My interpretation = My interpretation





God calls the young and old, male and female, sick and healthy, rich and poor to his service everyday.

Just because you can't believe , does not make it a lie.

 

[jaigner]

Bible + My interpretation = My interpretation





God calls the young and old, male and female, sick and healthy, rich and poor to his service everyday.

Just because you can't believe , does not make it a lie.

Fantastic, ol' miss. Fantastic.

 

[dcorbett]

Bible + My interpretation = My interpretation

God calls the young and old, male and female, sick and healthy, rich and poor to his service everyday.

Just because you can't believe , does not make it a lie.

Yes, God has called me into his service, but NOT as a deacon, and NOT as a Pastor. THOSE ARE MEN'S POSITIONS. PERIOD.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, God has called me into his service, but NOT as a deacon, and NOT as a Pastor. THOSE ARE MEN'S POSITIONS. PERIOD.

Thus saith the Lord

 

[jaigner]

Yes, God has called me into his service, but NOT as a deacon, and NOT as a Pastor. THOSE ARE MEN'S POSITIONS. PERIOD.

Hmmm...says you.

 

[annsni]

I think I want to be a husband. I'm tired of cooking. Since there's no "male or female", I can be one if I want, right?

 

[gb93433]

I think I want to be a husband. I'm tired of cooking. Since there's no "male or female", I can be one if I want, right?

If you redefine the gender.

 

[jaigner]

I think I want to be a husband. I'm tired of cooking. Since there's no "male or female", I can be one if I want, right?

Nope. Sorry. But your husband might should help you cook.

Let's be serious here. I'm not arguing that men can have babies or something, and, especially since there is no trajectory of change in Scripture regarding homosexuality, women cannot be husbands and men cannot be wives.

I'm arguing that Paul's statements on women in leadership were efficacious in their first-century context, but we are not required to follow their letter today.

Additionally, women need to be in ministry for the very reason that men and women aren't the same or interchangeable. Ministry from an exclusively male perspective is not representative of half the population. There needs to be male and female leadership.

 

[gb93433]

Phoebe was not a deacon, she was a servant of the church. Deacons, like elders, were to be men.

Whoever said otherwise? Deacons are male and deaconesses are female. Each have a specific role. Do you call female teachers teacheresses?