Deaconess - Scriptural or Not?

Alex,
As for Scriptural support, again I believe the women deacon advocates have little or no support.
This topic was hashed a couple of times over recently and you would find Scriptural argumentation there.

 

It all depends on how you interpret these words. If the word is deaconess, not "wives" then women can be deacons.

With that said, I agree with Dr. Bob.

This was not the intent in the NT church. Deacons were to be servants. Look at what they were "called" to do.

Yes, they did choose men specifically here, but what was the duty of a deacon? To help make sure the widows got their daily distribution of food. How does this responsibility go against the instruction for women in Timothy? It doesn't.

We are the ones that added authoritative duties to the role of deacons and thus have made it a position that a woman should not hold. Women could have, and it appears some were, deacons in the NT church, but they didn't have any authority over men in being one.

Another question I would ask you is this. Why is it more important for a deacons wife to have honorable characteristics but an overseer's wife who has no qualifications to hold up to?

The fact that overseer's "wives" are not mentioned, yet deacon's "wives" are, is another reason people believe that the word is "deaconess" not wives.

Can a woman be a deacon according to the NT?

I think the answer is yes

Can a woman be a deacon in the church today?

I think not, because we have added duties and responsibilities to that position that were not there in the NT.

That is my thoughts on the subject anyway.

~Lorelei

 

If a church has the unbilical concept that deacons are the leaders of the church,then really you are calling them the wrong term,they should be elders....no woman can lead a church,they can not serve as an elder,but as a deacon in the biblical sense and meaning,I would say it would be okay.

So,does your church have deacons,as servants, or leaders? If they are servants,then it is okay,if they are *called* deacons but are really elders(term is confused),then no,they can not usurp authority over a man.

Sorry to confuse but I think a lot of churches do not use the terms correctly.

 

Alex,

You mentioned something about women "striving for equality". If the church "asks" a woman to be a deacon, how was that her own selfish "aspiration"? Deacons don't usually nominate themselves. Don't place the "blame" on the woman who was chosen by a group of men.

~Lorelei

 

If you want to appoint Women deacons in your church go ahead even though its not scriptural and neither are Women preachers. Its your church not mine and the Old Line Primitive Baptist have never had either in the church because like I said it's unscriptural! Traditions of men brought this into the church and it never was given the approval of God... Brother Glen

[ April 12, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

What I see here is argumentation over terms and titles. With the development of language comes changes in definitions and uses of words. In any language, translation, and interpretation, the roles for men and for women are clear in Scripture. Man is the leader, provider, protector, and woman is the helper, caregiver. God forbids gender swapping and role switching in any situation, including the church.

If your church has deacons that are "leaders," then in context of the Bible, we could also call that "plurality of elders." So long as the church itself is still congregational ruled, I don't see a problem with that.

Likewise, if your church has "deaconesses," who are helpers (servants) and caregivers, it matters not if there title is from middle English translations, or if it is "president" or "director" of Ladies Ministries, or whatever it is. Her skills are used to serve the church and to help keep its ministries organized and efficient, the same as her role in the home.

Just food for thought!

 

Indeed, deacons are really elders in most places and that would disqualify them. I Tim clearly states that deacons are to be men. Now, when they go visit the widows and such their wives can most certainly help them as it is not go for any man to visit a woman alone. Appearance if for nothing else. If their is any authority in the position than the woman cannot hold the office and I Tim shows that authority is in the office of a deacon.

There are many things needed in the church that a woman can do without title or fear of usurping authority. Younger women need older women to teach them more than ever before. There is a host of women that are lonely, hurt, clueless or whatever else you want to call them and they need the love and guidance of an older woman in the faith.

Culture be damned and it will be. You do not abdicate truth for the sake of culture.

 

I have thru study of scripture a deep conviction that women should not hold the office of a deacon or be pastors....

...now that being said...I'll approach the issue from another angle:

If it is an issue of terms or titles...put that aside.
What would be the duties or requirements of the position?
If the women are serving communion, helping the pastor make decisions, helping deal with discipline matters of the church(being the pastors right hand man).....then clearly women are not to have authority over men...

I have often thought...If I were to be a deaconness or pastor, I'm obviously having authority over my husband at church,,,,but he is to be the head, I am to submit to him.....how can the two cooexist without confusion?

God is a God of order....His plan is Christ, man, women, child....how can it be interchangeable?

If however one chooses to give the title deaconness(semantics) to nursery workers, childrens' sunday school teacher or other womens' or childrens' ministries then it's only a title...(a controversial one at best).

We are all servants of the church(each other). But putting it in perspective, usually the OFFICE OF DEACON , is one that very closely helps the pastor shepherd the church......Women very clearly should not be in that position...

 

I pretty much agree,Carly33.

Molly

 

All of us are to be servants, which is what the word deacon actually means. There is an office of servant that has some authority in it and that is reserved for a man, but his wife must be a good Christian or he cannot fulfill his mission. The same as a pastor's wife. I could be the greatest pastor or deacon on the planet but if my wife came into church dressed immodestly, reeking of booze and cussed out the ushers my ministry would be severely hampered, hence the even their wives qualfications. Also, when a woman is baptized it is best for a woman to help her change and such so my wife if I am either pastor or deacon may be the one called to do that. When the deacons goes to check on the widows indeed it is best that his wife go with him thus she helps him in his ministry, but he has the title and authority (whatever that may really consist of). I would not be opposed to having the wives of the deacons and my wife present at any meeting as non-voting participants but able to give their input. I would even say have a half-time in the meeting where the couples break off to discuss the issues and then the men come back and vote. I have been in a church where onlythe men met at the business meetings andthat went well. I have been in one where the husbands and wives were both called elders and voted and it not only worked poorly, but it was a given that the wives would vote with their husbands and so though we had 12 people on the board the vote would always be easily divisible by 2. So, if we only had the men or did the women visiting the results would have been the same. In some churches though this might not be true as some women dominate their homes and may vote against their husbands and then we have a domestic fight at the deacon's meeting. Talk about confusion!!!

Is it not interesting that none of this stuff has ever been an issue for centuries until we have entered into the age of apostasy that started in 1881? And most of the issues have come from the secular world's concepts creeping into the church. Thousands of scholars far more qualified than anyone we have today had no question about the roles or offices of men and women, but now we know better than they and we twist Scripture to prove our points to appease our culture that is rapidily becoming Amazon matriarchal in some sense and in other areas totally androgynous, which makes the gays happy. Look up for our redemption draweth nigh!

 

Exactly where do you get that the "same goes for a pastor's wife"? It says he must manage his own family, but it gives no direct commands for an overseer's wife.

However, for deacons it mentions what their "wives" must be like. The word "wives" can actually be interpteted deaconesses.

I have no idea what you are referring to with what happened in 1881, but I will tell you how my opinion changed. It was because of the times. The times where we now have newer English translations and access to Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and interlinear Bibles. Now that I can see what the original texts said, now that I can read it in my own language and not the language of some very ancient ancestors, I get a greater understanding of the Word.

I am not, however, saying that women can have authority over men. The Bible clearly says she can not. I am just saying that I think that the role of deacon has changed since the NT church. If it has not, please show me where it talks of the "office of servant that has some authority in it that is observed for a man." All I can find is that they were to wait tables and make sure the widows got thier share of food. This role in no way violates a woman's place in the Church. We have changed the role of a deacon and we have made it to where a woman can not be a deacon and be in obedience to scripture. In the Bible women were able to do both.

~Lorelei

 

It's funny. The baptist circles I travel in are so far removed from this discussion (many of the CBF partner seminaries have more women than men enrolled) that I forget the issue of women as deacons is still debated in some circles. There are some excellent, lengthy books available from the pro-woman side; but last week at the Alliance Convocation I picked up a small pamphlet that some of you might find interesting (although I suspect that folks on both sides have already made up their minds on the issue).

The booklet is Why Women Ministers? - A Biblical Rationale for Women Serving in All Capacities of the Ministry of the Church" by Mike L. McKinney. It's produced by Leawood Baptist Church, Leawood, Kansas (913-649-0100). McKinney offers several reasons why he supports women ministers (these are the section headings - each section offering a few paragraphs of exegesis):

1. Because, in Jesus Christ females are reomved from the rule of males which came about as a result of the Fall of Humanity.

2. Because in Jesus Christ, the barriers come down that separate and cetegorize people into different levels of spirituality and ministry; this includes separation of male and female spirituality.

3. Because the New Covenant in Jesus Christ includes the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. (Joel 2:28-32)

4. Because women are identified as prophesying (preaching) in the early Christian church.

5. Because Jesus in his earthly ministry never limited women to a subordinate role in his kingdom work.

6. Because Jesus called upon women to be the first to proclaim the message of His revelation.

7. Because I Cor 14:34-35, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the ministry of women in the church.

8. Because I Tim 2:8-15, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

9. Because I Tim 2:15, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

10. Because Eph 5:15-33, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

11. Because I Peter 3:1-13, when understood in its biblical context, does not restrict the future ministry of women in the church.

I think these points are a safe generalization of the views of those of us whose churches do not make distinctions based on sex. In essence, we believe that not make such distinctions is most consistent with the teachings of Jesus and that the inclusiveness of Jesus' ministry requires that we place the Paul's admonitions in context.

Joshua

 

Joshua,

Can you point me to that text in the NT that affirms, supports, or defends a woman serving in the capacity of a senior pastor/elder?

 

Dr. Bob is exactly right. The problem is not with women deacons per se, it is with women and men deacons who acts as Elders. Biblical church leadership will prevent unbiblical office appointees.

The only addition I would add is that even elders are to be servant-leaders, and not lording it over the congregation.

 

There is no biblical rationale for women serving in all capacities. Interesting how liberals who deny the authority of God’s word flee to a biblical rationale when their subjective choices need “authority”.

Wrong. Male headship is not a result of the fall, but was instituted in creation with marriage, which is a type of the believer’s relationship to Christ as bride and Husband.

“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.” (I Cor 11:3-12).

There has never been a separation into different values for men and women before God; all people have the same creative value; but there is also a creative ordinance of distinction between men and women in function.

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (I Tim 2:11-14)

The prophecy of Joel has nothing to do with the offices of the local church and the particular call to the pastorate.

Again, as above, this has nothing to do with the offices of the local church and the particular call to the pastorate, unless one believes every pastor must be a prophet. However, the appeal to the NT is incomplete, leaving out the clear passages for the sake of the unclear (a reverse protestant hermeneutic):

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” (Titus 1:5-9; cf. 1 Tim 3:2–4; Titus 1:6–8)

There is a lot of kingdom work which does not involve the pastorate.

Again, does witnessing/evangelism/missions equate with the pastorate, clearly set off for males?

As understood in context, and in light of the clear passages in Titus and 1 Tim, this is a poor proof for women elders. AS MacArthur states:

“14:34, 35 women keep silent in the churches. The principle of women not speaking in church services is universal; this applies to all the churches, not just locally, geographically, or culturally. The context in this verse concerns prophecy, but includes the general theme of the chapter, i.e., tongues. Rather than leading, they are to be submissive as God’s Word makes clear (see notes on 11:3–15; Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11–15). It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongues-speaking and claim gifts of healings and miracles also permit women to lead worship, preach, and teach. Women may be gifted teachers, but they are not permitted by God “to speak” in churches. In fact, for them to do so is “shameful,” meaning “disgraceful.” Apparently, certain women were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services.”

Again, poorly exegeted. Other NT passages clearly rule women out of certain positions. And “ministry” in the church is not limited to the pastorate.

points 9. 10 and 11, same as above.

Liberals begin with an a prior, subjective determination that women can be pastors, and then twist the Scriptures to get the answers they desire.

 

Katie: you are so right!

 

It seems like one of the 12 apostles would have been a woman had the Lord called women to preach. It seems like ITim 3:1 would say "If a man or woman desires the office of a bishop, he or she desireth a good work" but it doesn't. God never called a woman to preach.

 

No one is saying a woman can or should preach,I don't think they are,except Joshua V.,maybe. That is an unbiblical concept. The deacon thing is what is unclear.