Female deacons

[Don]

(I bet I get a load of rebuke at this post from all sides. )

It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out. An example is the edict, even during Shakespeare's time, that actors were all men. I don't know if this stemmed from the same view of scripture, or was simply a patriarchal viewpoint.

But one also has to ask the question: In a letter full of "you're doing this wrong," why did Paul feel the need to make note of this particular point?

 

[Revmitchell]

Deacons are to be managers of the physical plant and the distributors of helps to those in need. They are not to function as the "spiritual teachers / preachers" accept as given that opportunity under the authority of the assembly.

Elders / pastor(s) are the spiritual leaders, and no pastor or elder is to be over the physical plant and the distribution of helps to those in need. Just as all members of the assembly, they may offer help and advise to the deacons, but they are not in charge of the deacons, nor are they to be an influence over that group in the sense of distributions and helps.

I do consider that in particular the Baptists would benefit enormously from aligning themselves better to the Scriptures in this matter.

Sorry there is no passage of scripture to support this idea.

 

[preachinjesus]

There may have been female deacons, but you have no evidence that they were ordained to teach or preach to men. They were merely servants to other women.

Any church who has deacons preaching and teaching before they are serving has the NT read backwards.

Deacons are the principal servants of a congregation. They are not a board of directors, not a pastor, not a trustee, not anywhere on an organizational chart...they are servants first and foremost.

 

[agedman]

Sorry there is no passage of scripture to support this idea.

Can you show scriptures that defined the thinking that deacons are either not over the helps and physical needs of the assembly which includes the physical plant of the assembly (building and grounds care), or not to be the ones in which care of the needs of the assembly take place? For it seems to me that when the apostles told the assembly that they were to select folks out to distribute equitably to the assembly that included all that was necessary for the assemblies physical needs. Because, the early church was rather communistic in having all things commonly held and each member was sustained by each member's contribution.

As far as elder / pastor, can you show that the appointment by the assembly includes oversight of anything other than that which pertains to the spiritual aspects? Because the one difference between the elder and deacon is the fact that the elders were to be given over to study and communication of the Scriptures and were not to take time in the physical arena of help and need in the assembly.

Just asking for proof that deacons are elders and elders are deacons and preachers are plumbers, weed wacker operators, and head light bulb changers, that the deacons are authorized to oversee the preaching, and the organization of study of God's word, and the elders are to make sure the baby bottles are emptied and washed.

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you show scriptures that defined the thinking that deacons are either not over the helps and physical needs of the assembly which includes the physical plant of the assembly (building and grounds care), or not to be the ones in which care of the needs of the assembly take place? For it seems to me that when the apostles told the assembly that they were to select folks out to distribute equitably to the assembly that included all that was necessary for the assemblies physical needs. Because, the early church was rather communistic in having all things commonly held and each member was sustained by each member's contribution.

As far as elder / pastor, can you show that the appointment by the assembly includes oversight of anything other than that which pertains to the spiritual aspects? Because the one difference between the elder and deacon is the fact that the elders were to be given over to study and communication of the Scriptures and were not to take time in the physical arena of help and need in the assembly.

Just asking for proof that deacons are elders and elders are deacons and preachers are plumbers, weed wacker operators, and head light bulb changers, that the deacons are authorized to oversee the preaching, and the organization of study of God's word, and the elders are to make sure the baby bottles are emptied and washed.

It is a mistake to impose on the early church as a whole this communistic character. There is one recording occurrence of that but that hardly sets a mandate or is telling of all churches.

The Deacons are certainly in charge of seeing to the physical care of the congregation but nothing in scripture indicates the church property.

The pastor is certainly the overseer of the spiritual needs but all things in the church are related to this. When the deacons were set up they were done so my the direction and oversight of the pastors. The office of Deacons was designed to be a help to the pastor to give time to the word and prayer.

What I find that I disagree about your position is that somehow you have imposed on scripture the idea that the office of Deacon and the Office of pastor are independent of one an other.

 

[evangelist6589]

Any church who has deacons preaching and teaching before they are serving has the NT read backwards.

Deacons are the principal servants of a congregation. They are not a board of directors, not a pastor, not a trustee, not anywhere on an organizational chart...they are servants first and foremost.

I agree. Thats the way it should be.

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

Can females be deacons? I have been in churches that held to complementarianism in regarding the role of women in ministry in that they could not hold the office of pastor, Sunday school teacher, nor any position that teaches or preaches to men including the office of deacon and elder. I have been to other churches that argued that women could be deacons, they just could not preach or teach men, and so forth, as each church has their own interpretation of scripture in this regard. My own look at the scripture I would argue that a woman cannot be a elder, nor pastor, nor Sunday school teacher over men, but regarding deacon I am not sure. Are you? What say you?

I used to go to websites that had female pastors and pummel them with scriptures and arguments from Deborah to Priscilla and Aquila. Moses sister Miriam to Jezebel in Revelation 2. Hebrew / Greek / English did not matter... I pointed out how in 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul alluded to the progenitors of the human race this was not just a cultural taboo of antiquity but universal...

I short, I drove them nuts and gave them no peace when the subject came up or I was in pursuit of them and their followers.

Then one day... the Holy Spirit asked me one simple question. "Then it would be better that the Gospel is not preached than that a man should hear it from a woman?"

I was completely undone.

It was not an audible voice. But it was unmistakably the LORD. In the question itself was the disclosure of just how many ministerial callings go unheeded in the Body of Christ. For we are all priests of God (1 Peter 2:3-9 / Revelation 1:6 / Revelation 5:10). We may not all be called to be pastor teachers but many of us who are rather bought into the false division in the New Covenant (clergy / laity). That is Old Covenant after Exodus 32 which originally was intended to be (in the beginning) the priesthood of the entire nation of Israel:

Exodus 19:6 (AV)
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Whenever men did not step up (for whatever reason) God never hesitated to send a woman. As I so often pointed out the ministry of the Prophetess Deborah was to humiliate the cowardice men in their time both in ministry and in battle.

Men buried Jesus but they did not attend his body. Women did and found he was raised from the dead. Should the men never have been told he was raised because only women saw him?

There IS a very dangerous element of egalitarianism that opened the door to many perversions in the secular world (I was there I saw the feminist movement in full blossom). And we must not fall into that trap... putting a woman in the position of teaching men to promote the sisterhood of Gloria Steinem, Woopie Goldberg, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.

But we must not hinder the Gospel any longer denying the teaching and talents of the female priests of God in Christ until which time all priests of God in Christ step up. Most of us do not even know we are priests of God. Or that we should reprioritize our lives accordingly.

1 Corinthians 3:16 (AV)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19–20 (AV)
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

 

[evangelist6589]

I used to go to websites that had female pastors and pummel them with scriptures and arguments from Deborah to Priscilla and Aquila. Moses sister Miriam to Jezebel in Revelation 2. Hebrew / Greek / English did not matter... I pointed out how in 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul alluded to the progenitors of the human race this was not just a cultural taboo of antiquity but universal...

I short, I drove them nuts and gave them no peace when the subject came up or I was in pursuit of them and their followers.

Then one day... the Holy Spirit asked me one simple question. "Then it would be better that the Gospel is not preached than that a man should hear it from a woman?"

I was completely undone.

It was not an audible voice. But it was unmistakably the LORD. In the question itself was the disclosure of just how many ministerial callings go unheeded in the Body of Christ. For we are all priests of God (1 Peter 2:3-9 / Revelation 1:6 / Revelation 5:10). We may not all be called to be pastor teachers but many of us who are rather bought into the false division in the New Covenant (clergy / laity). That is Old Covenant after Exodus 32 which originally was intended to be (in the beginning) the priesthood of the entire nation of Israel:

Exodus 19:6 (AV)
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Whenever men did not step up (for whatever reason) God never hesitated to send a woman. As I so often pointed out the ministry of the Prophetess Deborah was to humiliate the cowardice men in their time both in ministry and in battle.

Men buried Jesus but they did not attend his body. Women did and found he was raised from the dead. Should the men never have been told he was raised because only women saw him?

There IS a very dangerous element of egalitarianism that opened the door to many perversions in the secular world (I was there I saw the feminist movement in full blossom). And we must not fall into that trap... putting a woman in the position of teaching men to promote the sisterhood of Gloria Steinem, Woopie Goldberg, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.

But we must not hinder the Gospel any longer denying the teaching and talents of the female priests of God in Christ until which time all priests of God in Christ step up. Most of us do not even know we are priests of God. Or that we should reprioritize our lives accordingly.

1 Corinthians 3:16 (AV)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19–20 (AV)
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

So you think that God is behind female pastors and he approves of them?

 

[agedman]

What I find that I disagree about your position is that somehow you have imposed on scripture the idea that the office of Deacon and the Office of pastor are independent of one an other.

The two "offices" are not related other than both are occupied by members of the assembly believer's who have been given oversight and care of each other. (1 Cor 10:24)

The deacons are not elders and the elders are not deacons. At the first formation of the two, the only "oversight" was the assembly. The assembly appointed both, and the function was to the two basic needs of the assembly.

It is true that the first deacons were appointed so the apostles didn't have to spend time serving, but the apostles did not appoint the deacons, and the apostles expressed no oversight of the deacons. Such oversight is not expressed in Scriptures. (Acts 6)

And it follows that the deacons had no oversight of the elders. They did not function in the things of the elder body, and were not a part of that grouping, for they were not chosen to that appointment by the assembly.

I do not recall that pastors or bishopric were head of anything in the church. Paul uses the term "overseer" (one who guards and leads) in relationship to elders, but again, it is in the matter of the spiritual areas as shepherds, and not physical needs. (Acts 20)

As the church was brought into the gentile world, a corresponding development of hierarchy seemed to develop because (imo) the need for organization and meeting houses replaced the earliest church example of communal cooperation. The larger the assembly house, the more centralized the government of the assembly.

I am not a communist in the sense of the USSR - Lenin/Marks ungodly scheme. However, I am most certain that worldly distractions have been a tool of the enemy of believers, be it in the home, in the assembly buildings, in the worship, in the fellowship.

Huge amounts of support are generated as "offerings to the Lord" for what will ultimately be burned up. So that folks will appear attractive to this world, conform to this world's standard, and not appear as strange or foolish to the world. If the Lord did not have even a pillow to lay His head, why do the assembly have to have padded chairs to sit their butts?

The assembly is made up of believer/ priests having access individually to the high priest (Christ). There is supposedly not hierarchical structure of leadership in the early church other than assembly and apostles. The apostles (later elders) were over the spiritual aspects, and the assembly was to appoint deacons over the physical aspects and later appoint the elders (for there are no apostles) over the dissemination, teaching, and learning of the Scriptures.

 

[Revmitchell]

The two "offices" are not related other than both are occupied by members of the assembly believer's who have been given oversight and care of each other. (1 Cor 10:24)

The deacons are not elders and the elders are not deacons. At the first formation of the two, the only "oversight" was the assembly. The assembly appointed both, and the function was to the two basic needs of the assembly.

It is true that the first deacons were appointed so the apostles didn't have to spend time serving, but the apostles did not appoint the deacons, and the apostles expressed no oversight of the deacons. Such oversight is not expressed in Scriptures. (Acts 6)

And it follows that the deacons had no oversight of the elders. They did not function in the things of the elder body, and were not a part of that grouping, for they were not chosen to that appointment by the assembly.

I do not recall that pastors or bishopric were head of anything in the church. Paul uses the term "overseer" (one who guards and leads) in relationship to elders, but again, it is in the matter of the spiritual areas as shepherds, and not physical needs. (Acts 20)

As the church was brought into the gentile world, a corresponding development of hierarchy seemed to develop because (imo) the need for organization and meeting houses replaced the earliest church example of communal cooperation. The larger the assembly house, the more centralized the government of the assembly.

I am not a communist in the sense of the USSR - Lenin/Marks ungodly scheme. However, I am most certain that worldly distractions have been a tool of the enemy of believers, be it in the home, in the assembly buildings, in the worship, in the fellowship.

Huge amounts of support are generated as "offerings to the Lord" for what will ultimately be burned up. So that folks will appear attractive to this world, conform to this world's standard, and not appear as strange or foolish to the world. If the Lord did not have even a pillow to lay His head, why do the assembly have to have padded chairs to sit their butts?

The assembly is made up of believer/ priests having access individually to the high priest (Christ). There is supposedly not hierarchical structure of leadership in the early church other than assembly and apostles. The apostles (later elders) were over the spiritual aspects, and the assembly was to appoint deacons over the physical aspects and later appoint the elders (for there are no apostles) over the dissemination, teaching, and learning of the Scriptures.

The Deacons were created at the direction of the elders. Saying that there is no connection is just incorrect. The pastors are overseers of the church. This is made clear on a number of occasions in scripture.

 

[Don]

agedman - If you disagree that Stephen (Acts 6-7) was a deacon, then you don't need to read the rest of this post. It's been my experience that Moses' brother and Stephen are the examples typically pointed to as "deacons"; those that assisted the pastor (helping Moses keep his arms up) and ministering/preaching to the assembly. If I'm wrong, please feel free to educate me.

In that context, it seems that Acts 6 disagrees with the entirety of your statement. Yes, Stephen and others were chosen by the assembly; but Acts 6:3 indicates they were appointed by the apostles. Acts 6:6 indicates that the seven chosen were set before the apostles. So yes, there was "oversight" of the deacons by the apostles. Further, we see that Stephen went out and preached the Word; he didn't just take care of the physical things. He was specifically charged with "speaking words against this holy place."

So if Stephen was not a deacon, I would appreciate help in understanding what his "position," if any, was.

 

[agedman]

The Deacons were created at the direction of the elders. Saying that there is no connection is just incorrect. The pastors are overseers of the church. This is made clear on a number of occasions in scripture.

Certainly, the deacons were created because the Apostles authorized them, but that was the extent of their involvement. The assembly chose them, and the deacons were to serve the assembly, not be gofers or aids to the apostles. Neither were the deacons a leadership board making spiritual decisions for the assembly.

Later, as Paul established churches, again, the assembly chose the deacons AND the elders, and both are responsible to the assembly, but not to each other.

The picture of oversight is given even in the OT. The oversight of the spiritual is not presented as oversight over the physical in Scriptures. Rather, just the opposite. The assembly of the OT was to bring sustaining offerings in which the priests were to partake and be satisfied. But there was no "physical portion" or land grant given to the priests.

In the NT, the elders are to be sustained by the assembly but are not given control over the "land" of the assembly. Elders that rule well are worthy of double portion. The rule (oversight) is that concerning the spiritual welfare not the physical welfare and plant of the assembly.

There is no "double portion" for the deacons. They serve the physical needs of the assembly and have not double portion or even a portion offered to them.

 

[agedman]

agedman - If you disagree that Stephen (Acts 6-7) was a deacon, then you don't need to read the rest of this post. It's been my experience that Moses' brother and Stephen are the examples typically pointed to as "deacons"; those that assisted the pastor (helping Moses keep his arms up) and ministering/preaching to the assembly. If I'm wrong, please feel free to educate me.

In that context, it seems that Acts 6 disagrees with the entirety of your statement. Yes, Stephen and others were chosen by the assembly; but Acts 6:3 indicates they were appointed by the apostles. Acts 6:6 indicates that the seven chosen were set before the apostles. So yes, there was "oversight" of the deacons by the apostles. Further, we see that Stephen went out and preached the Word; he didn't just take care of the physical things. He was specifically charged with "speaking words against this holy place."

So if Stephen was not a deacon, I would appreciate help in understanding what his "position," if any, was.

There is no problem with any believer street preaching. Testifying of God's grace through Jesus Christ is not an indication of authority granted by the assembly. I don't know what I wrote that would even hint that I would place Steven as not a deacon, he was also a disciple.

You will note that after the deacons were chosen, they were prayed over, and had hands laid upon, (acts 6:6). However, there is NO statement of appointment by the apostles found in Acts 6:3, only the permission to implement the resolution to the problem presented. Neither is there any statement that the Apostles were in control of the ballot box and "approved" those the congregation chose.

Plainly, the assembly chose, the Apostles prayed and laid hands.

Here is the passage so that you can see it for review (Acts 6:1-6):

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.

So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.​

 

[Bob Hope]

Can females be deacons? I have been in churches that held to complementarianism in regarding the role of women in ministry in that they could not hold the office of pastor, Sunday school teacher, nor any position that teaches or preaches to men including the office of deacon and elder. I have been to other churches that argued that women could be deacons, they just could not preach or teach men, and so forth, as each church has their own interpretation of scripture in this regard. My own look at the scripture I would argue that a woman cannot be a elder, nor pastor, nor Sunday school teacher over men, but regarding deacon I am not sure. Are you? What say you?

Christ didn't say anything about it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Christ didn't say anything about it.

So only Words in red are inspired?

 

[Bob Hope]

So only Words in red are inspired?

Not exactly, but the words of the Messiah carry a lot more weight than those of Paul.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not exactly, but the words of the Messiah carry a lot more weight than those of Paul.

All of scripture is all of scripture and all of scripture holds equal weight. All of scripture from the words of Jesus to the words of Paul are all breathed by God Himself.

 

[Bob Hope]

All of scripture is all of scripture and all of scripture holds equal weight. All of scripture from the words of Jesus to the words of Paul are all breathed by God Himself.

Nope.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nope.

Well I am sorry for your very low view of scripture. Such unorthodox and disturbing views are very sad.

 

[Bob Hope]

Well I am sorry for your very low view of scripture. Such unorthodox and disturbing views are very sad.

What you call unorthodox was once normal among those closest to the apostles. The early church fathers quoted often from books not found in the modern cannon. There is no universal truth or stated truth from a prophet or the Messiah that states that all of Gods written word shall be contained in one perfect book.