-
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!
Female Deacons? Yes or No
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
Phoebe was a deaconess, and we have some in our church, its that they are involved in the maintenance of the church building, while Elders are the ones actually involved in the daily operations of the Church itself, a sin the spiritual and financial decisions!
Oh, so that's why Phoebe made that long journey from Cenchreae, she was sent to do maintenance work on the church building in Rome!
Last edited:
Lodic
Well-Known Member
Very likely, Brother. Do you think that may be because they see men failing in the leadership role, especially in the Church?
What about the opposite error? Rather than accepting there is no difference in Christ, some embrace the culture of the time, where women were not educated, trained, or allowed to act as equals in the culture.
The real issue is whether to understand husband of one wife as indicating an office open only to men, or to simply refer to a faithful spouse that helps manage their household well. If there is no difference in Christ between male and female, and in light of this culture has changed such that the goal is to treat male and female equally within the body, we might be on the wrong track. Food for thought
This is quite a statement. You're accusing Paul of rejecting Christ's statement of no difference.
Paul says there can be no difference in Christ and all male leadership in the Church at the same time. No conflict at all.
You say we are equal in Christ only if we allow female leadership.
I'll go with Paul.
John Calvin tackles a related Scripture, 1 Timothy 2:12 (Paul's instruction to Timothy "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.")
in Institutes IV.10.29-30
"the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like....things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.
Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided."
in Institutes IV.10.29-30
"the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like....things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.
Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided."
That is fine, Sir, you are in the majority. I was hoping for an analysis of the majority view, not yet another insult.
Or maybe you're just a little hypersensitive. I was merely defending Paul. I'm given you honest feedback on the implicit meaning of your words. You should probably apologize to Paul. That was quite an accusation you hurled at him.
And I wish I was in the majority. In today's culture, I believe you're in the majority on this issue.
Last edited:
Doubling down on insults indicates an argument without foundation.
What about the opposite error? Rather than accepting there is no difference in Christ, some embrace the culture of the time, where women were not educated, trained, or allowed to act as equals in the culture.
The real issue is whether to understand husband of one wife as indicating an office open only to men, or to simply refer to a faithful spouse that helps manage their household well. If there is no difference in Christ between male and female, and in light of this culture has changed such that the goal is to treat male and female equally within the body, we might be on the wrong track. Food for thought.
We can find places where the Bible seems to make "cultural accommodations" and then points the way forward to a better way of living. For example, bondservants are accommodated, but the Bible teaches it is better to be free than slave. Could not the limits put on women simply reflect an accommodation for the culture of that time? What is the basis of denial?
What about the opposite error? Rather than accepting there is no difference in Christ, some embrace the culture of the time, where women were not educated, trained, or allowed to act as equals in the culture.
The real issue is whether to understand husband of one wife as indicating an office open only to men, or to simply refer to a faithful spouse that helps manage their household well. If there is no difference in Christ between male and female, and in light of this culture has changed such that the goal is to treat male and female equally within the body, we might be on the wrong track. Food for thought.
We can find places where the Bible seems to make "cultural accommodations" and then points the way forward to a better way of living. For example, bondservants are accommodated, but the Bible teaches it is better to be free than slave. Could not the limits put on women simply reflect an accommodation for the culture of that time? What is the basis of denial?
Which is exactly what you're doing to Paul.
One of the many problems with liberalism is it teaches people to feel sorry for themselves and no one else. People become chronic victims, totally unaware of how they treat others. This is a debate forum. I'm trying to make a strong case, even show irony. Not trying to insult.
Last edited:
If that were true, you would be addressing the study of the topic, rather than addressing me using guilt by association blarney.
Rather than accepting there is no difference in Christ, some embrace the culture of the time, where women were not educated, trained, or allowed to act as equals in the culture.
The real issue is whether to understand husband of one wife as indicating an office open only to men, or to simply refer to a faithful spouse that helps manage their household well. If there is no difference in Christ between male and female, and in light of this, culture has changed such that the goal is to treat male and female equally within the body, we might be on the wrong track. Food for thought.
We can find places where the Bible seems to make "cultural accommodations" and then points the way forward to a better way of living. For example, bondservants are accommodated, but the Bible teaches it is better to be free than slave. Could not the limits put on women simply reflect an accommodation for the culture of that time? What is the basis of denial?
Rather than accepting there is no difference in Christ, some embrace the culture of the time, where women were not educated, trained, or allowed to act as equals in the culture.
The real issue is whether to understand husband of one wife as indicating an office open only to men, or to simply refer to a faithful spouse that helps manage their household well. If there is no difference in Christ between male and female, and in light of this, culture has changed such that the goal is to treat male and female equally within the body, we might be on the wrong track. Food for thought.
We can find places where the Bible seems to make "cultural accommodations" and then points the way forward to a better way of living. For example, bondservants are accommodated, but the Bible teaches it is better to be free than slave. Could not the limits put on women simply reflect an accommodation for the culture of that time? What is the basis of denial?
Yeah but so what? You're doing the same, addressing me. It's all good. It's the nature of debate. Try to to take it personally.
In my view, your view accuses Paul of not considering women equal in Christ. I believe this is false. I believe Paul does view women equal in Christ, while at the same time affirming male-only leadership. The fact that Paul affirmed male-only leadership has nothing to do with equality of the genders before God. That's my point.
So two wrongs make a right, and it is ok to avoid the subject and simply disparage the opponent.
To say Paul made a cultural accommodation does not suggest he did not consider equality in Christ as a given. And to repeat the question, Did Paul affirm male-only leadership as a cultural accommodation or based on something else that can be found in scripture?
Saying we should not consider the topic because mere discussion disparages Paul is simply a silly assertion. During the lead up to our civil war, some Pastor's claimed the Bible supported the idea that it was ok to have "black" slaves. We do not hear that view from the pulpit nowadays.
To say Paul made a cultural accommodation does not suggest he did not consider equality in Christ as a given. And to repeat the question, Did Paul affirm male-only leadership as a cultural accommodation or based on something else that can be found in scripture?
Saying we should not consider the topic because mere discussion disparages Paul is simply a silly assertion. During the lead up to our civil war, some Pastor's claimed the Bible supported the idea that it was ok to have "black" slaves. We do not hear that view from the pulpit nowadays.
Well, I have. There are cultural considerations for various things. I just don't believe biblical guidelines for leadership is something we subject to culture, nor do we need to. We as Christians, rather, subject our cultural to Scripture. If it's compatible we're free to keep it. If not, we drop it.
And to repeat the question, Did Paul affirm male-only leadership as a cultural accommodation or based on something else that can be found in scripture?
During the lead up to our civil war, some Pastor's claimed the Bible supported the idea that it was ok to have "black" slaves. We do not hear that view from the pulpit nowadays.
During the lead up to our civil war, some Pastor's claimed the Bible supported the idea that it was ok to have "black" slaves. We do not hear that view from the pulpit nowadays.
And to repeat the question, Did Paul affirm male-only leadership as a cultural accommodation or based on something else that can be found in scripture?
During the lead up to our civil war, some Pastor's claimed the Bible supported the idea that it was ok to have "black" slaves. We do not hear that view from the pulpit nowadays.
Yes, there is plenty of proof for the former, and none for the latter. Race based slavery is nowhere in Scripture. Kidnapping is a sin in Scripture. Case closed. The slave pushers did the same thing you do with female leadership pushing. They made up their own Scripture.