Biblically, can women be deacons?

[convicted1]

But by nature and talent, they are specifically created to cook and serve it to the male members, and wash the dishes afterward.

Now, this is sound doctrine if you ask me.....:thumbs:


j/k....:laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Now, this is sound doctrine if you ask me.....:thumbs:


j/k....:laugh:

Unfortunately, it is to many on here. In fact, they probably secretly lament that these are not listed in the NT as spiritual gifts confined to women in order to serve men.

 

[annsni]

I don't have one problem with a woman being a deacon, and I would set in any presbytery they arrainged to examine her........provided she meets the qualifications stated in Titus chapter 1, and 1 Timothy chapter 3 :smilewinkgrin:

Amen.

But I would add that I've noticed the title being used for different kinds of positions and in particular churches, they were far from leadership and teaching roles and in those cases I felt women deacons were ok. They specifically would do things like get together and cook once a week for those in the church in need and would arrange for those who needed physical help around the house to get it from those in the church who could help. It was very different than our own deacons in my church who are all men because of the job that is done.

 

[glfredrick]

I think it could be argued that the women who attended to Jesus were acting the role of deaconeses albeit they were never "ordained" but rarely do we see what equates to modern "ordination" in Scripture anyway, that being rather a later development.

They "served" the Church (Christ, "I will build MY Church) in its pre-existent state and Jesus had no qualms over their service. He did not stipulate that only men perform this high service, though at times it was seen that men only did the serving (serving of the Passover, for instance). In many other cases, the women did a lot of the work and participated in the sitting at the feet of the Master, and of course, the incidents at the tomb on that first Resurrection Sunday.

That being said, I stand my my earlier point that IT DEPENDS on the particular role of deacons in any given local body. If they are servants and family ministers then there is room for women deaconesses (or wives of male deacons) to fulfill a distinct role in keeping with the commands for older women to instruct the younger, etc., but if they are seen as a board that rules the congregation, then the men are acting the role of elders and as such women would not qualify biblically.

 

[Jerome]

if [deacons] they are seen as a board that rules the congregation, then the men are acting the role of elders and as such women would not qualify biblically.

But of course, neither women NOR men "qualify biblically" to set themselves up as "a board that rules the congregation".

 

[webdog]

Phoebe was a servant (diakonos). Like most words in the original languages, a word could hold to a number of meanings. A leader must be a servant, a servant is not necessarily a leader.

Like elders, Scripture is clear that deacons MUST be the husband of one wife. This is not debatable no matter how many liberal baptists say it is.

 

[annsni]

I think it could be argued that the women who attended to Jesus were acting the role of deaconeses albeit they were never "ordained" but rarely do we see what equates to modern "ordination" in Scripture anyway, that being rather a later development.

They "served" the Church (Christ, "I will build MY Church) in its pre-existent state and Jesus had no qualms over their service. He did not stipulate that only men perform this high service, though at times it was seen that men only did the serving (serving of the Passover, for instance). In many other cases, the women did a lot of the work and participated in the sitting at the feet of the Master, and of course, the incidents at the tomb on that first Resurrection Sunday.

That being said, I stand my my earlier point that IT DEPENDS on the particular role of deacons in any given local body. If they are servants and family ministers then there is room for women deaconesses (or wives of male deacons) to fulfill a distinct role in keeping with the commands for older women to instruct the younger, etc., but if they are seen as a board that rules the congregation, then the men are acting the role of elders and as such women would not qualify biblically.

Exactly. That's why I said to define the role and then I can answer the question.

 

[The Biblicist]

Phoebe was a servant (diakonos). Like most words in the original languages, a word could hold to a number of meanings. A leader must be a servant, a servant is not necessarily a leader.

Like elders, Scripture is clear that deacons MUST be the husband of one wife. This is not debatable no matter how many liberal baptists say it is.

:thumbsup: The elderly women have roles of service in the ministry of hospitality in the congregation (1 Tim. 5:9-10) as well as roles of leadership in the congregation among the younger women and children (Tit. 2). Phobe obviously could travel which means she was most likely one of those qualified widows in 1 Timothy 5:9-10. Paul interceded in her behalf rather than her making any claim as an ordained leader among the churches.

However, to pit such servant roles (1 Tim. 5:9-10) and leadership rolse (Tit. 2) established by Paul in the very same epistle against the prohibition of leadershp over men (1 Tim. 2:10-11) demonstrates the complete irrational mindset of the liberals.

 

[glfredrick]

But of course, neither women NOR men "qualify biblically" to set themselves up as "a board that rules the congregation".

True... Yet, in SO many congregations they do just that, which is why I am including that example.

As long as the churches are already not biblical in their practice, why all the fuss about women, which actually stands more of a chance of being biblical than the fact that many deacon boards RULE their churches?

 

[DaChaser1]

Not a liberal issue. There are women deacons mentioned in the Bible.

BUT, that also presupposes that the deacons are actually serving and not leading, which is a failed assumption in most congregations. Deacons have exceeded their biblical role in many a church, and so women dare not be deacons because they end up in positions of leadership.

Can of worms properly opened... :smilewinkgrin:

yes, bible stated Phoebe was to called a Deaconess, but as you stated here quite well...

Think that the meaning vested into that term inn bible days different then the ones invested by those whose desire is to get women placed in leadership and ministry positions!

 

[Jerome]

Likewise if you've adopted one of these elders- or pastor-centric authoritarian governance schemes rather than biblical congregationalism, those positions in your church are a far cry from what is in the Bible.

 

[DiamondLady]

I think one must also remember that when Paul said, "husband of one wife" men in Bible times often had more than one wife. Women NEVER had more than one husband. Men practiced polygamy. Women did not.

It's very clear that women were deaconesses, Paul wrote of Phoebe. In the clear Biblical example of servitude women can absolutely serve as deaconesses.

There is nothing wrong, also, with women in ministry positions. I sincerely hope ALL women are in ministry positions. Not PREACHERS but definitely ministering to those who are in need, to other women, to children and yes EVEN TO MEN. How about that ladies circle who takes meals in to widower men who have been hospitalized? That's a ministry. Those ladies who take care of the baptistry robes/towels, etc. That's a ministry.

We need to learn to discern the difference between ministering and pastoring.

 

[glfredrick]

Likewise if you've adopted one of these elders- or pastor-centric authoritarian governance schemes rather than biblical congregationalism, those positions in your church are a far cry from what is in the Bible.

I'm not sure that you can demonstrate conclusively that the only biblical model of church polity is congregationalism. I believe that is an assumption not a mandate. In fact, I see a lot of "appointing" of leaders, not "electing or calling" as is the practice of many, if not most, Baptists these days. I also see a plurality of elders presented very clearly in Scripture.

So, how do you reconcile all of that?

 

[glfredrick]

I think one must also remember that when Paul said, "husband of one wife" men in Bible times often had more than one wife. Women NEVER had more than one husband. Men practiced polygamy. Women did not.

It's very clear that women were deaconesses, Paul wrote of Phoebe. In the clear Biblical example of servitude women can absolutely serve as deaconesses.

There is nothing wrong, also, with women in ministry positions. I sincerely hope ALL women are in ministry positions. Not PREACHERS but definitely ministering to those who are in need, to other women, to children and yes EVEN TO MEN. How about that ladies circle who takes meals in to widower men who have been hospitalized? That's a ministry. Those ladies who take care of the baptistry robes/towels, etc. That's a ministry.

We need to learn to discern the difference between ministering and pastoring.

I often wonder why we can commission women missionaries, and some of the most famous ones have annual offerings named after them...

Annie Armstrong
Lottie Moon
Amy Carmichael
Mary Slessor
Elizabeth Elliot
Anna (Seward) Pruitt
Mother Theresa (a somewhat different category, yet a woman missionary)

And a host of others, famous and not so famous.