• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Your View on Women as Deacons

RAdam

New Member
No, I'm doing my best to listen to what Scripture is saying. Again, Paul's words were to a specific group of people during a time when women were property and only just beginning to be educated in any way. He also instructed people how to treat their slaves, even though most of us would find slavery to be horrific today. We cannot deny that Paul wasn't writing to specific people in a particular place and time.

Please understand that this is a position I've come to after much prayer, study and struggle. I was raised believing the same as you and initially approached Scripture in the attempt to make it prove the same point, but in the end, I could no longer do that in good conscience.

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.
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

Agreed. Completely.
 

RAdam

New Member
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.

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.
 

jaigner

Active Member
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.

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.
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
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 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".
 

RAdam

New Member
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.
 

John Toppass

Active Member
Site Supporter
You won't because there was not a word for female deacons at the time. That makes about as much sense as finding the word "jet" or the word "computer" there are thousands of words in modern Greek that have been added since the days of koine Greek.

There is a distinct difference between women and men deacons. Both are servants in ministry but serve different roles and does have authority over the other.

The women have qualifications too
1. Who are the women? Look at the verses before and after.
a. We know that Phoebe in Rom. 16:1-2 is called a diakonos
Rom. 16:1 2 _ "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well."

She obviously was a servant in the church. Paul refers to her as a servant, a diakonos, the same word used for deacon. As we look at Paul's writings he does not emphasize the office, but rather the function.

b. In Hebrew there is no word for wife. The way it was expressed was "the woman of him." This very same expression is used in the NT. In Greek there is only one word for woman and it can mean either woman or wife.

"wife" - the woman of him
- the woman of a man's name

c. In the Greek text there is not a definite article before women or at least a genitive pronoun following the word "woman". This would lead one to translate that word "women" and not "wives"

d. Another point is this: if Paul did mean wives of deacons, then why did he not include a corresponding set of qualifications for the wives of pastors?

e. You might ask "if Paul meant deaconess, why didn't he use that word?" At that time there was not a word for deaconess.

f. 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

Many countries outside of the U.S. have women deacons in Baptist churches.

g. 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. "This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-woman, whom they call deaconesses." (Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)

Do you think the persecuted Christian church at the time were a bunch of liberals?

h. The relationship between the male and female deacon.
pastor-deacon-deaconess-female

If the pastor in a congregation wanted to contact a female he went through the male deacon who contacted the deaconess who then spoke to the female. Even today I was told by a missionary friend of mine that it is done much the same way in some countries. That would do a lot to prevent pastor to female contact and the appearance of evil and immorality happening.

If the pastor needed to contact a woman he did it through the channel of a deacon and the deacon contacted the deaconess who contacted the woman.

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.
 
Top