Deaconess - Scriptural or Not?

Chris, I know no liberals who deny the authority of the Bible, just its inerrancy.

This text, with its emphasis on headcoverings, is one of the best arguments for understanding Paul's instructions here as culturally located. In addition, placed in the larger context of the New Testament writings (particularly Jesus' teachings and Galatians, this text can't be a final rule for all time in the Church - otherwise it would be contradicting those texts.

They're of equal worth but only one can lead? That's doublespeak. Either you're equal or your not. In addition, the Timothy passage is typical rabbinic Midrash, of the kind found throughout Rabbinic literature. In that context, it would be equally acceptable for another rabbi to point out that it took a heavenly being to deceive Eve but no effort to deceive Adam. Reading this kind of exegesis as final and eternal is bad biblical scholarship.

This is always a convenient argument. Contemporary fundamentalists argue that they have magically resurrected the New Testament office of pastor, and that any passage that does not specifically say "elder" or "pastor" cannot be used to determine the principles by which we choose that office. In other words, they interpret away the passages where God allows women to speak with authority over men.

And I argue that you leave out the clear passages for the sake of the culturally specific ones.

Yes, but Jesus included women in all aspects of that kingdom work.

Speaking with authority is speaking with authority.

It is an excellent example, however, of Paul giving instructions that are clearly culturally located. Jus because MacArthur says it's not does not make it so. In fact, MacArthur saying it's not is a fairly persuasive argument for saying it must be.

Actually, fundamentalists begine with the a priori understanding that women cannot be pastors, and then consequently ignore the passages (in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament) where women are clearly given authority and then inappropriately elevate the Pauline texts where they are not.

Joshua

[ April 19, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

Molly, there are about 2,000 baptist churches in the Alliance of Baptists and the CBF that say women can be pastors. I don't have any resources on women as deacons because I had - quite honestly - forgetten that there were baptist churches that still argued about this sort of thing. I really don't think much about the issue of women as pastors either, but I happened to see this booklet and considered it relevant for anyone who wanted the resource.

Deacons are the servant-ministers of the church. Why, even in an oppressive patriarchal system, that role should be closed to women is beyond me.

Joshua

 

Equality has nothing to do with where or how you serve. All of us have different gifts, we are part of one body, but each of us has a different purpose.

Or are these verses in error? It is convenient to claim that the scripture, though authoritative are also in error. Makes it nice to choose your own doctrines that way.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

A couple of points here. Yes, all roles are necessary and all gifts are important. Nevertheless, saying that men who are gifted to preach/pastor can use those gifts and women who are likewise gifted cannot is not equality.

Regarding authority, the Constitution is the final, authoritative law for our country. As the makeup of our society and the needs of the citizens change, some aspects of the Constitution and its subordinate laws are interpreted differently to better reflect the core values of the Constitution.

Likewise the Bible. Much of the writing in the epistles involves a pastoral act of exigesis by Paul or other church leaders. 2,000 years later, confusing that pastoral advice with the core of the gospel is bad exegesis.

Joshua

 

I noticed noone directly commented on my last reply here(oops except for Molly...a very wise woman who realizes her worth is not attributed to a title)...God is a God of order...how can my husband lead the home if I have authority over him as a deaconess or a pastor....

...come on folks...even Jesus submitted to the Father(even tho He was equal to God). Why do women want preeminence all the time? You can be a servant without the title. The pecking order is clearly laid out: God, Jesus, Man , Woman, Child....why in this circumstance(office of pastor elder or deacon), would God mix things up.....just to create confusion...?

I THINK NOT! It's time to get real...and realize none of us are our own,,,we are bought with a price...keep yourself above reproach, and realize we don't need to have rights to be a servant of God.

[ April 19, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Carly33 ]

 

I am talking about "spiritual" gifts, not worldly talents. Just because a woman thinks she is "gifted" enough to preach doesn't mean that she has a spiritual gift from God. He gives His gifts in accordance with His Word.

Yes, but our constitution was not written by God. You know, the one that is the same yesterday, today and for ever, the one that said His Word will never pass away?

~Lorelei

 

Carly,

I agree with you about a woman's role. What I am saying is that I don't believe the title of deacon had any authority to go with it. A female deacon wouldn't be in authority over her husband or any man. Not the way I read it in the NT.

We have added the authority to the title, so you are right, in today's church a woman can't be a deacon. Not because the Bible says it's wrong, but because deacons in the Bible had no authority. They were simply Spirit led servants.

It boils down to this: Was Paul talking to Deacon's Wives, or Women Decons? That is what is unclear.

~Lorelei

 

I guess I do differ with you on that...the deacons of NT did have authority ...they were held as leaders of the churches. They were appointed over the business of daily ministrations.

1Timothy 3;10

" And let there also first be proved; then let them use the OFFICE OF A DEACON, being found blameless."

1 Timothy 3:13

" For they that have used the OFFICE OF A DEACON well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

One simple question: Why if a role as deacon or deaconess is simply a servant's role, are there specific requirements for the position? Clearly there has to be a high degree of authority associated with the position. After all it is referred to as an OFFICE.

 

It is only unclear lately. Everyone I have ever known or read teaches that after speaking to the Church about the two office for men in the church, Paul then speaks to the wives of both. Not sure why it is so unclear unless we want it to be unlcear so we can have our own way.

Commands are commands so where the "core" concept comes from is interesting. The core of the Gospel is salvation through the Cross, etc. Still, to maintain decency and order Paul was inspired by God to give commands that are details, if you please, dealing with church government, secular government, labor relations, marriage, child rearing, giving. roles, etc.

If you question all the "details", you have to question the core. If Paul was allowed to be sexist, narrow minded, cultural slave, etc. then maybe his "core" doctrines of justification by faith are his alone as well and we are still dead in trespasses and sins. Maybe he was a Jewish plant to warp out the Gentiles and turn off potential Jewish followers by slapping both cultures and their practices and it just backfired growing out of control by mindless saps that just believed what he said even after searching the Scriptures to see if they were so and for 2000 years, more saps have done the same until the enlightened ones of today rose up to challenge all that and mold Paul's writings to their image rather than renew their mind thus conforming themselves to the moods of their culture.

I interviewed with a church Wednesday night and they gave me 20 questions. 19 of them I flew through with flying colors. Indeed, some were amazed and intriqued by my "abilities". We were only supposed to be there a hour and it went over two. Only the question that dealt with this issue caused excitable responses from the committee. No one had any Scripture, they just pled ends justify the means since they had few men willing to teach or lead so we just had to put women in places of leadership and authority no matter what the Word might say.

I noticed none of my message posted on women drew much attention outside of the Holy Women ARE Beautiful one. I have been rather busy,so I have not been able to respond to some of the other responses on this message or some of the others I have read from time to time. Ladies, y'all should read my series. Until very recent history, my thoughts have been the "orthodox" take on the issues.

For my own self, if God did not clearly lay out the roles of men and women from Genesis to Revelation, I would not give a hoot. I heard a lady addressing other women at a rescue mission the other week and she did better than some male preachers I know. If it were biblical for women to be pastors, I would ordain her in a minute (whoops forget she has been divorced) if all other factors were equal. But they cannot be pastors biblically and I won't do it.

NT:1135 gune (goo-nay'); probably from the base of NT:1096; a woman; specially, a wife:
KJV-wife, woman.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Where do you get deaconess here? He is speaking to wives. Maybe I'll start calling my wife my sweet goonay. Naw, too close to gooney and we would have a few moments of intense fellowship if I did that.

Later it says the same phrase that clinches it for the pastor when it says let the deacons be the husband of one wife. Unless it is a gay union no woman can be a husband.

NT:4291 proistemi (pro-is'-tay-mee); from NT:4253 and NT:2476; to stand before, i.e. (in rank) to preside, or (by implication) to practise:
KJV-maintain, be over, rule.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The deacons must rule over their house well. When someone presides the dictionary says it like a chairman. There is only one chairman so if the man is chairman over the house the woman by default is not. She is the second in command in the household, but not the chairman/person. Note the reference to rank inthe Greek. Submit (huptasso) is a military term with the concept of ranking. You cannot get away from the concept honestly. Scripture stresses it. Personally, I think that man's headship may be part of the curse. Adam certainly did not communicate with Eve because where did she getthe idea of not touching it and why did she not run that by Adam? If she did, why did he not correct her or the both f them go to God for clarification? So, since Adam did not communicate with his wife and be a good head making sure she understood God's Word man is the head and given more responsibility than the woman in many ways. If nothing else, man Adam was first and so has the oldest date of rank. In the military, if two colonels of equal abilities given a task one will be in charge and if they are both bird colonels it will be given to the man with theoldest date of rank. No one is superior or inferior, but as business knows someone has to have the deciding vote in a tied situation. God gave man the tie breaking vote. With that he gets all the responsibilty of blame if he makes the wrong decision. I see far more freedom in the wive's role than I do in the man's.

Wives must support their husbands whether the lads are pastors, deacons, or firemen or they cannot be all they can be. Hence, if a man wants to be a pastor or deacon and his wife is a gossiping wino he will have severe problems even if he is a Paul or Billy Graham and hence should not be given the office until he can get his house in order. It is all so simple that it is mindboggling that it is such a controversary. It is only a controversary because we live in a society that cannot stand any kind of restrictions and has a bogus sense of equality. The Bible does not downgrade a woman, but rather exalts her. I don't get my prayers answered if I do not treat my wife right. It does not specifically say that she won't get hers answered if she treats me wrongly. I have to be willing to die for my wife. She does not have to be willing to die for me. I just have to look at a woman in lust to commit adultery. The converse may be true, but he called down the men, not the ladies. I think women got a pretty good deal there.

The one lass did not know what I meant by 1881. That was the beginning of the age of apostasy that we are now experiencing. That was when the harlot mother of the "modern" translations was birthed. Since that time, we have seen denomination after denomination fall away into apostasy and everything being challenged by the "scholars." Look around, if they have been so right we should be seeing a great revival instead of such a falling away. 3/4 of the SBC churches are static or dying and it is as bad or worse in all of the other denominations while Mormons are in the top 5 groups.

Maybe we need to return to the old paths and dump the pop theologies and bad manuscripts. Update the KJV English but use the Textus Receptus. I have no problem with that. That was all they were supposed to do in 1881, but they went far beyond their scope per their own confession and allowed themselves to be ramrodded by two men and their obviously flawed manuscripts. Age is not necessarily proof of authenticity. There are older versions with all the words and passages left out. Older lectionaries and the writings of the Church Fathers either quote verbatim "the challenged passages" or refer to them. It was not good scholarship in 1881 and it is not now.

The game plan is far more deeper than just changing giveth to give. The One World Church will need a book that pleases everyone as well as popular doctrine to unify folks. All we are seeing are the rough drafts of that book. They have taken out words, passages and now genders as well as having watered down the language so that the New Agers, Wiccans, and Satanists are happy with it. By the time it arrives it will be too late for the ones touting the current new versions of the week to retreat. Indeed, one day it will be Our Mother, who is in Heaven (and in some places that has nearly already happened in the Presbys) or Our Person. Jesus may even become Yeshuaetta. Someone will get a revelation that the truth has been suppressed for 2,000 years and the Messiah was a woman and gay at that since Mary Magdelene hung out with her so closely.

Satan asked, "Yea, hath God said" and we have the same thing today coming out of seminaries that once contended for the faith and now contend if there be anything to have faith in other than the originals. They question the Apostles like atheists or as if they are better than the Apostles and the far greater scholars that came before them. Surely, they are the people and wisdom shall die with them. Yea, right. Truth will stand and be vindicated and those lads and lassies will be found wanting.

 

Amen, amen and amen....I positively agree with you Maverick....

...satan always has to try a different angle to create division....once again he tries to get Eve to usurp authority over Adam....

 

Maverick and Carly,

Are you both KJV Onlys?

~Lorelei

 

No I am not a KJV only...I do use it, and the NKJV(which is not as good as KJV), but I don't see the relevance....

...in fact even tho now I am in an Indep. Fund. Baptist church, five years ago I was not.I was in a convention Baptist (liberal) church, and even there God convicted me thru the clear literal interpretation of the scriptures that women don't have the same role as men in the church or home.

As you can see I'm an opinionated and intelligent? woman....but it does not mean I must hold positions of authority...God allows me to use these qualities in other areas.....

....Again...God is a GOd of order....and I can't see the logic in a person switching this order and giving it God's approval.

Also...I believe scripture clearly shows that the position of deacon is an OFFICE and clearly does hold authority...(lets assume it doesn't)...in most churches today deacons are given responsibilities...so by any title...these positions of leadership should belong to men if it concerns the whole congregation.

 

It is only relevant if you are KJV only and therefore refuse to acknowledge that the word in V. 11 could mean female deacons and didn't mean wife at all.

That is all we are asking. What is meant by this word. The reason we think it might mean deaconesses rather then wife is that there are no attributes listed for the wife of the bishop.

Also, the translation "Office of deacon" is not how it reads in all translations. The NIV reads:

That is why I asked the question.

I am not seeking to find justification for women as leaders. I am asking, what did the Bible really say? How was it worded in the original texts?

If you think this is wrong, then I ask you to please explain these two things:

1. Why do you think that the wives of deacons had regulations placed upon them when the wives of bishops did not?

2. Where does it say that the position of deacon has authority over men.

~Lorelei

 

As I stated before women can and do act as servants of the church, but the OFFICE of deacon implies authority.

I may not be a KJVO but I have very little regard for the NIV translation which I won't cover here as to the reasons. The KJ is a literal translation, so I take it literally.

Now....I think the real problem is arguing over words....what is God's grand design.?....

Take it all in context. Women are not to usurp authority over men....men are to be the head over their wives...God created man first then woman.

I don't personally know many churches that don't give obvious authority over temporal and spiritual things to their deacons.....this in NO way implies that women are inferior in quality or inconsequential to God or men. That's just satanic propaganda....

A womens' role in the church is no less important to the well being of the church.

Let me pose to you a question: If your church had a male pastor, no qualified men to serve as deacons....and you were the only woman....do you think it would be appropriate for you(one lone female deaconess)...to be spending time in meetings and ministering with the male pastor...why , why not?

...and if the office did not entail those duties...just what is the purpose of it?

 

No I would not feel comfortable because I would be in a position that was not intended Biblically. I don't deny that. What I Do deny is that the "office" of deacon had the same authority back then that we have given it. Deacon's didn't minister with the male pastor, he ministered to the widows so that the pastor could do his job and not be encumbered with serving tables.

How is waiting tables and making sure the widows get thier fair share of food usurping authority over men?

~Lorelei

 

The original deacons were given responsibility over financial matters(distributing among the widows)...a position of authority in my eyes....but today....the office of a deacon covers many others responsibilities......We have to suit the person to the job biblically ..even if the office has been expanded beyond its original intent...(although I'm quite certain the original deacons did way more to assist the church than wait tables...)

...to allow women to be deaconesses may very well set up an inappropriate scenario. Why can't women be happy to be a servant without the title?

It's just not logical to say it's ok in one circumstance and not another...it's either right or it's wrong.

 

They were distributing food, not money.

Exactly, so today women can not be deacons if those other responsibilities are present. We agree there.

I am just not certain those responsibilities were always there.

Like Sunday School teacher, Women's Ministry Co-ordinator? It isn't about the title, it is about the "job description". Why can't you be happy if a woman serves and has a title? What's the difference, as long as her duties don't allow her to violate God's Word.

Then we should take away all the "duties" that we have added to the "Office" of deacon. If deacons only delivered food to widows and waited tables as they did in the NT, then we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

~Lorelei

 

Regardless of which translation one is using, the word is still "servant." Bringing translations into the argument is a total straw man. The concept of an "office of deacon" is what is the modern concept. Deacons, scripturally are not a "board." Deaconship is a position and one of servitude at that. Loelei's interpretation is quite correct. There are valid arguments against female deacons, but authority is not among them (and certainly modernism and Biblical translation are not either).

[ April 23, 2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Clint, I'm not quite sure what you were saying...is it that women can have authority or not?

The scriptures say "a woman must not usurp authority over man"....

....we need to consider what the office has become and how a majority of people (saved and unsaved view that position), maybe a poll.

We have to be careful we don't leave the impression that we are violating God's order.

Anyhow...I know my conviction and you know yours...its been a good discussion. God Bless.

 

For the record, I am a TR only and the only version that uses the TR without the errors of the non-TR bogus manuscripts is the KJV so until someone can do a better job than the NKJV I will stick with the KJV.

Anyhow, this is one of those eternal messages and since I am in the midst of a move and in the midst of possibly taking a new church I will have to defer on this one. Read my ladies messages I posted and I think you will see that I am not a MCP or have some nasty motive behind my position.

I still contend that plain sense of the Timothy passage teaches that men serve as pastors and deacons, but they have to have wives of high character or they cannot serve because they could not serve effectively. There is nothing that would open the door to deaconesses and especially in the way that the office of deacon functions today,which is more of an eldership.

Should women serve the church? Yes. Can they have authority? In a women's ministry, yes, but not in a place where they are in authority over men. You can argue until He returns and place women in inappropriate roles, but you will be embarassed about it when He does return.