Women deacons

[annsni]

Mark Dever in A Display of God's Glory:

You neglected to continue the quote:

Yet because of I Timothy 2 and of the larger
Biblical picture of male headship, we would discourage
churches from recognizing women as deacons if their
office was confused with that of the elders (as deacons are

in so many churches today). It is our clarity about the dis-
tinct role of elders, and the fact that those elders must be
males, that enables us to encourage freely the service of
our sisters as deacons or deaconesses recognized by the
church.

 

[annsni]

Additionally from Dever:

At our church in Washington, D.C., we recognize our
deacons not as a deliberative body, but rather as those peo-
ple in our church who coordinate particular needed min-
istries in the church.

So they do not have an official body of deacons like we do (we have a Deacon Board), they instead call "deacons" those who are doing ministries of the church. We are not talking about the same kind of "deacon" then.

 

[Jerome]

Exactly. Your church's definition is faulty.

 

[Jerome]

capitolhillbaptist.org/we-are/led/deacons-deaconesses

 

[HeirofSalvation]

1. Because you asking us to do something we truly believe to be unbiblical...

2. Because we believe it to be unbiblical, and because we believe God does not currently call people to do things his word says they should not do, it logically follows that if a woman desires to be the next pastor of our church, we believe it is not a true calling from God. Other examples of this principle would be:
-A single 30 year old man who said the Lord was calling him to one-on-one counseling with teen girls.
-A man with 4 wives who said he felt called to be our pastor.

3. Now, this does not mean her calling to teach God's word and help people understand and apply it is invalid...simply that she must apply that calling within the bounderies Scripture has given (as we truly believe, not that we are making up because we don't like women.)

4. To attribute the entirity of complimentarianism to gender hatred or fear is simply unfair, untrue, and not helpful to the discussion...proven by the fact that there are people who truly believe that their wife to be wiser, more godly, and more gifted than them, but they also truly believe putting her in a pastoral role would violate God's revealed design.

:thumbs::thumbs: said perfectly:jesus:
I bolded your last: I know it rings true for me and my beloved bride. Thing is, it is her status as being wiser, gifted, and more godly than I that she WOULD NOT want or desire to disobey God's word.

Debating the Scriptural validity of an official office of "deacon" for women is one thing... but one will never be taken seriously so long as they insist that it can ONLY be misogynism or power-hunger which causes Godly men AND women to disagree with them. It weakens their case and frankly sounds sophomoric.

 

[annsni]

Exactly. Your church's definition is faulty.

Who says it's faulty?

 

[Jerome]

Annsni:

we have a Deacon Board

Our deacons take care of finances and have leadership responsibilities for the life of the church

9Marks Dever:

[Deacons] have evolved into a kind of executive and financial board for the church. . . . .That’s how Christians have done it. Now, do the Scriptures have any word for us by which to reform our practices?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

It does NOT clearly teach that Phoebe served in an office at all.

What do you say to 1 Timothy 3? You ignore that entire passage, don't you?

It does clearly teach that, as Dr. Bob's quotes prove beyond a doubt.

I don't ignore 1 Timothy 3, dear. I simply know that it cannot be interpreted the way you and some others here interpret it.

 

[12strings]

I don't ignore 1 Timothy 3, dear. I simply know that it cannot be interpreted the way you and some others here interpret it.

It sounds like you need to go read Luke's threads on logic...since you have just proposed the following:

1. 1 Tim. 3 CANNOT beinterpreted in a certain way.
2. There are those on this very board who DO interpret it that way.
3. Therefore, they have amazingly DONE what CANNOT BE DONE! Truly Incredible!

(Just joking around, btw):laugh:

 

[annsni]

It does clearly teach that, as Dr. Bob's quotes prove beyond a doubt.

It clearly teaches that she was a servant. That is all it clearly teaches.

I don't ignore 1 Timothy 3, dear. I simply know that it cannot be interpreted the way you and some others here interpret it.

So how do you interpret it?

 

[Jerome]

Even the folks over at Ligonier admit:

Reformed Christians who affirm Scripture’s final authority continue to differ over whether women may be ordained as deacons. What is not up for debate is. . .

ligonier.org

 

[Thomas Helwys]

It clearly teaches that she was a servant. That is all it clearly teaches.



So how do you interpret it?

Once again, since you want to ignore and deny clear facts, here it is again:

"Phoebe (a woman in the church at Cenchrea, neighbor to Corinth) is called by the MASCULINE TITLE "deacon" (not simply as a feminine form of the word, which would be a female servant)

Phoebe was a deacon. Even though I'm an historic ifb'er and have only male deacons, I can't change Romans 16.

It is the definite masculine word referring to the OFFICE."

 

[Jerome]

'Gospel Coalition' Council member Thabiti Anyabwile admits:

I’m a Complementarian, But… Women Can Be Deacons

 

[12strings]

Anyone who wants to research this more should really look up the internal debate in the (conservative) PCA between Tim Keller (pro-female-deacons) & Ligon Duncan (against).

Google their names and the words "women deacons" and you should find some links to their articles.

 

[OldRegular]

It does clearly teach that, as Dr. Bob's quotes prove beyond a doubt.

I don't ignore 1 Timothy 3, dear. I simply know that it cannot be interpreted the way you and some others here interpret it.

Dr. Bob's quote proves nothing beyond his understanding of the passage. I presented the exegesis of three different writers earlier. I suspect they are as knowledgeable about Scripture as Dr. Bob. I don't believe either of these men argued that Phebe was a deacon in the sense indicated by Paul or by the Apostles who initially called for help.

Acts 6:3. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

Notice that the Apostles specified men. Also note that Jesus Christ did not call any women to be Apostles!

 

[jaigner]

Notice that the Apostles specified men. Also note that Jesus Christ did not call any women to be Apostles!

He didn't call any Gentiles, either. Should only Jewish men be allowed? Let's think about this, people. These writings were to a specific people in a specific cultural context. Without taking that into account, we're handicapping ourselves here.

God calls women and men alike to all functions in ministry. And it's the same in marriage. Mutual submission is the salient principle.

 

[annsni]

Once again, since you want to ignore and deny clear facts, here it is again:

"Phoebe (a woman in the church at Cenchrea, neighbor to Corinth) is called by the MASCULINE TITLE "deacon" (not simply as a feminine form of the word, which would be a female servant)

Phoebe was a deacon. Even though I'm an historic ifb'er and have only male deacons, I can't change Romans 16.

It is the definite masculine word referring to the OFFICE."

However the word is used elsewhere and is clearly NOT used as a term for the office of deacon. You can't change Romans 16 - nor can you change 1 Timothy 3. - which you still haven't addressed.

 

[annsni]

He didn't call any Gentiles, either. Should only Jewish men be allowed? Let's think about this, people. These writings were to a specific people in a specific cultural context. Without taking that into account, we're handicapping ourselves here.

Did he specifically call Jews? No. But he specifically called men. You can't compare the two.

God calls women and men alike to all functions in ministry. And it's the same in marriage. Mutual submission is the salient principle.

You call God a liar then.

 

[jaigner]

You call God a liar then.

Wow. Just wow. I would suggest you do some reading on this issue, so you're more informed about opposing viewpoints. If you still disagree, that's fine, but please don't make flippant claims like this. I would suggest starting with the work of Grenz, Stackhouse, Wright and Fee.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You call God a liar then.

Just because someone disagrees with your interpretation doesn't mean that person is calling "God a liar"!

This is an outrageous and damning accusation that has no business in Christian dialogue.

Strongly and passionately disagree, make a case for your position, or dismiss yourself from the conversation, but don't do this.

It is characteristic of someone who must get the last word and sully the character of the person they cannot convince. It says nothing about the merits of either one of your positions and only poisons the discussion.