Women Deacons

gb, whoever wrote you was wrong---just because a deacon is ordained, they are not ordained as a "minister" under IRS laws, therefore, there is no tax differences. Besides, deacons are not normally paid.

I think Paul is pretty clear when he writes to Timothy--I am very suprised at the lack of fundamentalism in following the Bible by many churches. At least the SBC's statement of faith is correct, whether or not individual SBC churches follow it.

It is sad, because typically when a church compromises on one issue, they begin to compromise on other issues as well. I think this can be shown in many cases; especially churches that I am familiar with such as the church in OKC that dropped out of the SBC because of their liberalism.

By the way, being simply a "helper" in no way makes a person a deacon. There are too many specific regulations set by God, through Paul as to the requirements for this to be the case.

For instance, a person can run the sound board in a church, devoting many hours of "help" to the church and still not be a deacon--particularly if they do not meet the requirements.

I think most Southern Baptist churches have men only deacons. Some may have "deaconesses" but they are not an office of the church.

I think its pretty clear that Paul was referring to men as deacons as has been discussed above.

Originally posted by Phillip:
gb, whoever wrote you was wrong---just because a deacon is ordained, they are not ordained as a "minister" under IRS laws, therefore, there is no tax differences. Besides, deacons are not normally paid.

Click to expand...

Here is a quote from the letter, "There is a serious question in my mind as to whether our whole understanding and practice of ordination is being guided by New Testament practice or by U.S tax law which provides certain benefits for ordained persons. I believe that this is an issue which merits serious conversation by our denomination. Furthermore, we need to ask the question as to the deeper meaning of any ordination. Ordination in the Catholic Church authorizes the one ordained to perform certain sacerdotal duties such as baptism or the giving of the mass. am personally uncomfortable with the idea that one needs to be ordained to perform these duties. I view ordination as an act of the community of faith, the local church, to give echo to the sense of calling experienced by the individual. I look back on my ordination not as something that gave me authority, but rather as an act of affirmation. The church which ordained me was in effect saying something like this. 'You have sensed a call to ministry. We who know you best are saying, Yes we affirm with you that God has given you the gifts necessary to be an effective minister.'

We have women who serve in many areas in our church. The treasurer is female and does a great job. Women teach the kids Sunday School, etc. However, women are not deacons(meaning, not on the board)in my church.

Sorry to insert my opinions or beliefs so abruptly, but the Bible does not say, anywhere, that Phoebe was a deaconess. The word in the infallible Word of God is servant; that is a far cry from deaconess. Now, most people who want to have women ruling over them (Isa. 3:12) will run to the Greek texts to resurect that mess. In case some of you haven't noticed, God, or any of His true servants, have not used the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Chaldee since God finished His Word in 1611. So, the word is servant, or helper (i.e. cleaning, teaching small children, choir, etc.), and not deacon: the first deacons (Acts. 6:3) Were men! The qualifications are for a deacon to be married, get this, to a woman! Strange, huh? Not really, seeing that a woman is to be in subjection to her own husband, and is not to usurp authority over men. See? It is so simple when we simply do what God told us to do.

MC thankyou for speeking out loud and clear just like Jesus did .

Originally posted by MC1171611:
Sorry to insert my opinions or beliefs so abruptly, but the Bible does not say, anywhere, that Phoebe was a deaconess. The word in the infallible Word of God is servant; that is a far cry from deaconess.

Click to expand...

"Servant" is an English translation done by those who don't want women deacons. The Greek is "diakonon", the female form of "diakonos", which is translated as "deacon" in the KJV in Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3:8, and 1 Tim 3:12. By your screenname, I assume that the Greek is irrelevant to you and you'll only use the 1611 KJV - however, Phoebe didn't have that luxury.

Now, most people who want to have women ruling over them (Isa. 3:12)

Click to expand...

Deacons have no authority. They are simply servants for the church.

In case some of you haven't noticed, God, or any of His true servants, have not used the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Chaldee since God finished His Word in 1611.

Click to expand...

Well that's ridiculous, since there are Christians who only speak Greek.

Originally posted by MC1171611:
Sorry to insert my opinions or beliefs so abruptly, but the Bible does not say, anywhere, that Phoebe was a deaconess. The word in the infallible Word of God is servant; that is a far cry from deaconess. Now, most people who want to have women ruling over them (Isa. 3:12) will run to the Greek texts to resurect that mess. In case some of you haven't noticed, God, or any of His true servants, have not used the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Chaldee since God finished His Word in 1611. So, the word is servant, or helper (i.e. cleaning, teaching small children, choir, etc.), and not deacon: the first deacons (Acts. 6:3) Were men! The qualifications are for a deacon to be married, get this, to a woman! Strange, huh? Not really, seeing that a woman is to be in subjection to her own husband, and is not to usurp authority over men. See? It is so simple when we simply do what God told us to do.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not say anything. You must read and study it in context. My hunch is that the early church had a much better handle on matters than we ever could because they were nearer the situation. If one read early church and secular documents of the time they will find evidence that disputes your so called easy, simple believeism.

In fact if you do a little bit of work you will find that secular society referred to female deacons as deaconesses and did not put them on the same level as a pastor or deacon like you seem to accuse others of doing. In fact if you do some study you will also find that in some of the same areas of the world things are done exactly the same today as they were then. If a pastor wanted to communicate with a female in the congregation he never talked with her as American pastors do. He communicate with her through a deacon who communicated through a deaconess to the female.

See how easy that works and at the same time prevents some of the problems we have in American churches today.

Sometime when you get a chance read the Loeb Library series in a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses.
(Book X, XCVI, 8, 289)

Who do you think the women who are to have qualifications are in 1 Tim. 3:11, "Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things." If you understand Jewish culture and Hebrew sentence structure it is quite impossible to come up with that women as a wife of a deacon. There is not a genitive nor definite article used there.

[ October 17, 2005, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

Originally posted by natters:
I don't know. Was Phoebe on a church board?

Click to expand...

WHAT? You don't know?

Please explain ,I don't understand how you could not know.

Originally posted by SAMPLEWOW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
I don't know. Was Phoebe on a church board?

Click to expand...

WHAT? You don't know?

Please explain ,I don't understand how you could not know. </font>[/QUOTE]Is that sarcasm?

Scripture never talks about "church boards". Thus I don't even know if "church boards" existed in the first century, let alone if Phoebe was on one.

Well that's ridiculous, since there are Christians who only speak Greek.

Click to expand...

Notice: I said "The Greek, Hebrew, etc.," Not just Greek. Sure it is used by certain Christians today, mainly in Greece, of course. But, true followers of Christ have always recognized His Word, and as such, it needs no "correcting" by the ancient manuscripts. I believe that they are irrelavent even for definition, being that the KJV defines itself.

Oh, and I see no "diakanon" here: the Scrivener TR uses "διάκονος," or "diakonos." Not that this means anything to me, as I don't really care what the TR says anyway. It's "all Greek to me," and to think that it is what I must trust in would be to accept the private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20) of those with "Higher learning" (1 Cor. 8:1).

"I've already made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."

About Scrivener's TR, you're looking at the concordance entry (the root word), not the actual text. There is no variation here, the word is "diakonon", the female form of "diakonos"/deacon. I'm not saying "servant" is wrong, I think it's right - for in Phoebe's day a deacon/ess was simply a church servant, not the "office" it is today.

Originally posted by MC1171611:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well that's ridiculous, since there are Christians who only speak Greek.

Click to expand...

Notice: I said "The Greek, Hebrew, etc.," Not just Greek. Sure it is used by certain Christians today, mainly in Greece, of course. But, true followers of Christ have always recognized His Word, and as such, it needs no "correcting" by the ancient manuscripts. I believe that they are irrelavent even for definition, being that the KJV defines itself.

Oh, and I see no "diakanon" here: the Scrivener TR uses "διάκονος," or "diakonos." Not that this means anything to me, as I don't really care what the TR says anyway. It's "all Greek to me," and to think that it is what I must trust in would be to accept the private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20) of those with "Higher learning" (1 Cor. 8:1). </font>[/QUOTE]Please don't hi-jack this thread. If you want to talk about the superiority of the KJV and it's translators (men of Higher learning) please go to the versions forum where you will be accomodated.

natters I figure by the end of the week I'll have you right where I want you.This week is LECTURES week at the school I attend and we just happen to be in 1 st Timothy all week . I hope you will keep an open mind at least as to not hurt my little feelers. Tomorrow I'll bore you with what I've learned about the office of the DEACON .

Samplewow, let me know what they say about Phoebe being a "diakonon". If they don't mention it, ask them.

Originally posted by followinghim:
I am sorry to bring this subject up again but I am in the process of looking for a new church and finding it difficult to find one which believes in a male only diaconate.

Click to expand...

Female deacons were permitted in scripture. So a church that has female deacons is not being unscriptural. However, every church is allowed to decide these things for themselves, and I would respect each church's right to do so. I would raise a red flag whenever a church points to all other churches that do something differently (especially in regards to something scripturally benign) and says "they're not being scriptural".

Why can't the reference to deacons having a wife be merely a generic reference - not intended to specify the sex, but the commitment to a single spouse?

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Why can't the reference to deacons having a wife be merely a generic reference - not intended to specify the sex, but the commitment to a single spouse?

Click to expand...

The Bible says what it means, and means what it says. When the Bible says man/husband, it means man/husband and vise versa. If we do not specify between the sexes then that gives a homosexual a way to justify his/her sin. If we "genericaly" start referencing the Words of God then a homosexual will say that it doesnt matter if marriage is man/man or woman/woman as long as the commitment is to one single spouse. We must be careful when it comes to dealing with Gods Word. Whatever it says it means. Our assumptions, and thoughts, and bright ideas can get us into alot if trouble if we are not careful.