Should women be deacons? - Page 2

Brad · #41 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

The Bayly Blog has dedicated a significant amount of time to this issue...and they've done so magnificently. This is a great post delving into the issue.

Pastor David Bayly's post sparked a follow up by his brother, Tim (linked above)...here is that post calling out the fact PCA churches are violating BCO:

Quote:

(David) Let's think for a moment about the meaning of presbyterial life.

If the essence of presbyterianism is elders willingly subjecting themselves to their brethren...

And if ordained elders should never willfully violate the PCA's standards without first submitting their teaching or course-of-action to presbytery for approval...

And if those who come to possess beliefs substantially opposed to settled portions of PCA standards should leave the PCA for a denomination sympathetic to their new convictions rather than mar PCA harmony by staying and fighting...

Then what, pray tell, are we to make of PCA churches actually laying hands upon women (and men) in services of "commissioning" to the diaconal office?

And what are we to make of this overture to the PCA's 2008 General Assembly from the Philadelphia Presbytery asking General Assembly to sanction retroactively the ordination of women to an office clearly forbidden them by PCA standards?

And finally, why has no one sought to discipline these churches and this presbytery?

The irony is so thick you could cut it.

(Thanks for the link, Andrew)

Good points, but not surprising. The PCA (of which I am a member) has been "slouching towards Gommorah" for quite awhile.

raekwon · #42 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

No, it is not scriptural.

There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.

Now, we all know what kind of issues we get into with a bald "it's never mentioned in the Bible" argument.

AV1611 · #43 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

There are no female deacons in the Bible, a Scriptural qualification for being a deacon is that you are a man, thus we should not have female deacons today.

Exactly

PuritanCovenanter · #44 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Some of those who voted that deaconesses were not scriptural come from traditions that have only an office for deacons and not elders. They believe that a deacon is one who has ecclesiastical authority to govern and rule the church, but this is not scriptural. Deacons are not rulers, authoritative teachers, or governors but servants who are given the function of ministering to the needs of others.

Well that may be true. But I am not sure who they would be. I have come from a Reformed Baptist pluralistic Elder rule understanding of the Scriptures. And I have been Presbyterian also.

I asked a few questions in the other thread before it was made into this thread and I am going to try to re-ask them.

What is the office of a Deacon?

Is this office different than being noted as one who is a servant to the Church?

Is διακονον (deaconess) an office or a description of Phoebe in Romans 16:1?

Is the office of Deacon one that has a position?

Is the postion one that has some form of authority, if it is a postion?

Can it be a neutral position in the Church? (one having no authority)

Can a woman be ordained into this office and not have authority over a man?

Here is a portion of Gill.

Quote:

Of this church Phebe was a servant, or, as the word signifies, a minister or deacon; not that she was a teacher of the word, or preacher of the Gospel, for that was not allowed of by the apostle in the church at Corinth, that a woman should teach; see 1Co_14:34; and therefore would never be admitted at Cenchrea. Rather, as some think, she was a deaconess appointed by the church, to take care of the poor sisters of the church; though as they were usually poor, and ancient women; that were put into that service, and this woman, according to the account of her, being neither poor, nor very ancient; it seems rather, that being a rich and generous woman, she served or ministered to the church by relieving the poor; not out of the church's stock, as deaconesses did, but out of her own substance; and received the ministers of the Gospel, and all strangers, into her house, which was open to all Christians; and so was exceeding serviceable to that church, and to all the saints that came thither: though it is certain that among the ancient Christians there were women servants who were called ministers. Pliny, in an epistle of his to Trajan the emperor, says (i), that he had examined two maids, "quae ministrae dicebantur", "who were called ministers", to know the truth of the Christian religion.

Here is Vincent

Quote:

The word may be either masculine or feminine. Commonly explained as deaconess. The term διακόνισσα deaconess is found only in ecclesiastical Greek. The “Apostolical Constitutions” distinguish deaconesses from widows and virgins, prescribe their duties, and a form for their ordination. Pliny the younger, about a.d. 104, appears to refer to them in his letter to Trajan, in which he speaks of the torture of two maids who were called minestrae (female ministers). The office seems to have been confined mainly to widows, though virgins were not absolutely excluded. Their duties were to take care of the sick and poor, to minister to martyrs and confessors in prison, to instruct catechumens, to assist at the baptism of women, and to exercise a general supervision over the female church-members. Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom_16:12) may have belonged to this class. See on 1Ti_5:3-16. Conybeare (“Life and Epistles of St. Paul”) assumes that Phoebe was a widow, on the ground that she could not, according to Greek manners, have been mentioned as acting in the independent manner described, either if her husband had been living or she had been unmarried. Renan says: “Phoebe carried under the folds of her robe the whole future of Christian theology.”

Just to lay my cards on the table. I do believe 1 Timothy 3:12 indicates the office of a deacon is a man's position. Not because of the ecclesiology of my denomination. But because the position described by Paul requires a man of one wife.

(1Ti 3:12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

(1Ti 3:13) For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

shackleton · #45 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:23 PM

In chapter 3:11 of his study bible: "Paul here likely refers not to deacons' wives but to the women who serve as deacons. The use of the word "likewise" suggests a third group in addition to elders and deacons. And since Paul gave no requirements for elders wives, there is no reason to assume these would be qualifications for deacons' wives."

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (3:8–13)

When God raises up people to serve His church, He looks for those whose hearts are right with him. His concern is not about talents or abilities, but spiritual virtue.

The men God has chosen to serve His people have always had hearts devoted to Him. Nehemiah 9:8 says of Abraham, “Thou didst find his heart faithful before Thee.” When Samuel searched for a successor to Saul, the Lord reminded him that “the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Saul, chosen largely because he was “a choice and handsome man, and there was not a more handsome person than he among the sons of Israel” (1 Sam. 9:2), had turned out to be a disaster. To replace him, God “raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will”’ (Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Sam. 13:14). When he turned over the kingdom to his son Solomon, David advised him to “know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind” (1 Chron. 28:9). Godly King Jehoshaphat of Judah was blessed by God because he “set [his] heart to seek God” (2 Chron. 19:3). God used King Josiah to lead a spiritual revival because his heart was tender and he humbled himself before the Lord (2 Kings 22:19). Ezra was used by God because he “set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). The apostle Paul described his conduct among the Thessalonians as devout, upright, and blameless (1 Thess. 2:10). It is such men, men of integrity, purity, and virtue, that God chooses to lead His people.

Having discussed such spiritual qualifications for elders in 3:1–7, Paul now turns to those of deacons in 3:8–13. The standard for deacons is in no way inferior to that required of elders. Elders who lead and deacons who serve perform different functions, but the spiritual qualifications required for both are essentially identical. There is no drop-off in spiritual quality or maturity from overseers to deacons. The only difference is that overseers are “able to teach” (3:2).

Diakonos (deacon) and the related terms diakoneō (“to serve”), and diakonia (“service”) appear approximately 100 times in the New Testament. Only here and in Philippians 1:1 are they transliterated “deacon” or “deacons.” The rest of the time they are translated by various English words. Only in those two passages is the deacon elevated to official status. The rest of the time the terms are used in a general, nonspecific sense.

The original meaning of this word group had to do with performing menial tasks such as waiting on tables. That definition gradually broadened until it came to include any kind of service in the church. The word group’s versatility can be seen in its divergent usage in the New Testament. Diakonos, diakoneō, and diakonia are variously translated “administration,” “cared for,” “minister,” “servant,” “serve,” “service,” “preparations,” “relief,” “support,” and “deacon,” among others. The root idea of serving food comes across in John 2:5, where diakonos is used of the waiters at a wedding. Diakoneō is used in the same sense in Luke 4:39, where Peter’s mother-in-law served a meal. Luke 10:40; 17:8; and John 12:2 also use this word group to refer to serving food.

Diakonos is used to refer to soldiers and policemen who enforce justice (Rom. 13:4). In John 12:26, Jesus equated following Him with serving Him. Anything done in obedience to Him is spiritual service. In the general sense of the term, all Christians are deacons, for all are to be actively serving Christ and His church.

That is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 12:5, where he writes that “there are varieties of ministries” (diakoniōn). Every Christian is to be involved in some form of spiritual service. Leaders, through both teaching and modeling, are to equip believers to perform that service (Eph. 4:12).

But diakonos, diakonia, and diakoneō are also used in a second, more specific sense. The list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6–8 includes a gift for service. Those with that gift are specially equipped for service, though they may not hold the office of deacon. Stephanas and his family were so gifted. Paul wrote of them, “they have devoted themselves for ministry (diakonia) to the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15).

The third use of this word group refers to the officially recognized responsibility of deacons. Everyone is a deacon in the general sense, some are specially gifted by the Holy Spirit for service, but still others hold the office of deacon. They model spiritual service for everyone else. They work alongside the elders, implementing their preaching, teaching, and oversight in the practical life of the church.

The only discussion of the office of deacon is in 1 Timothy 3:8–13, though there is a possible reference to it in Philippians 1:1. Some hold that Paul was officially identified as a deacon. While Paul was a servant in the general sense of the word, he held the office of apostle (Rom. 11:13; cf. 2 Cor. 10–12). Others have argued, based on 1 Timothy 4:6, that Timothy was a deacon. In 2 Timothy 4:5, however, Paul seems to identify Timothy as an evangelist. Others have proposed Tychicus (cf. Eph. 6:21), but Paul’s use of diakonos (Eph. 3:7) and diakonia (Eph. 4:12) in a general, nonrestrictive sense makes doubtful the use of diakonos in Ephesians 6:21 as a strict reference to the office. There is likewise no reason to assume that the use of diakonos in reference to Epaphras (Col. 1:7) is limited to the specific office.

Many hold that the seven men chosen to oversee the distribution of food in Acts 6 were the first official deacons. The text, however, nowhere calls them deacons. In fact, the only use of diakonia in Acts 6 is in reference to the apostles (v. 4), and to the serving of food (v. 1). That again emphasizes its general usage. Nor are any of the seven ever called deacons elsewhere in Scripture. The book of Acts nowhere uses the term diakonos (deacon), which seems strange if an order of deacons was initiated in Acts 6. Elders are mentioned several times in Acts (cf. 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4; 20:17), making the omission of any reference to deacons even more significant. All seven men were apparently Hellenistic Jews, since all have Greek names. It is unlikely that an order of deacons at the Jerusalem church would not include any Palestinian Jews. Finally, they were in many respects more like elders than deacons. Stephen and Philip, the only two mentioned elsewhere in Acts, were evangelists (cf. Acts 6:8; 8:5ff.; 21:8). These seven men were chosen for a specific task. They did not hold the office of deacon, though their function of serving certainly foreshadowed that of the later deacons.

Paul wrote 1 Timothy some thirty years after the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost. The church had grown and developed to the point that there was a need for official deacons. They would function as models of spiritual virtue and service. To ensure that those given that responsibility were worthy, Paul lists several qualifications they must be measured by. As with elders, those qualifications relate to their spiritual character, not their function. In fact, no specifics are given in Scripture as to the duties of deacons. They were to carry out whatever tasks were assigned to them by the elders or needed by the congregation. In 3:8–13, Paul lists those qualifications for both male deacons and female deacons (deaconesses). He then closes by mentioning the reward for those who serve faithfully.

Grudem and other reformed sources say that this refers to deacons' wives.

PuritanCovenanter · #46 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:28 PM

I forgot to add this....

Quote:

(1Ti 2:12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

(1Ti 2:13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

This is also a prefall reason. Not just because Eve was deceived. For Adam was first formed is a prefall reference.

This has a lot to do with the discussion I believe.

I don't have a problem with women teaching women. I think they are commanded to. Let the older women teach the younger women.

I don't have a problem with women ministering to other women. But if we have a Deborah in the ranks, shame on us men for not being Godly and holding to the things we are suppose to do.

timmopussycat · #47 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raekwon

Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.

I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard very strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.

If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #48 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by raekwon

Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.

I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard very strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.

If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.

Exactly, both the ARP and RPCNA have female deacons and neither would even be on a short list of denominations that lean towards an egalitarian worldview.

JBaldwin · #49 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

In chapter 3:11 of his study bible: "Paul here likely refers not to deacons' wives but to the women who serve as deacons. The use of the word "likewise" suggests a third group in addition to elders and deacons. And since Paul gave no requirements for elders wives, there is no reason to assume these would be qualifications for deacons' wives."

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (3:8–13).

You haven't convinced me to change my position, however, you do make a good point. Unlike the passage above (I Timothy 3:1-7), no direct command is made for the wife of an elder (now that I think of it, that is odd). Also the word "their" which is in the KJV, is not in the original, so it can be interpreted either way. Hmmmm

PuritanCovenanter · #50 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by raekwon

Same here, but I don't know that I believe that female deacons will necessarily lead to having female elders. Case-in-point, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. They have female deacons, but hold probably the strongest complimentarian position I've ever seen in regards to male-only eldership in the church and male headship in the home. There's no way they'll ever have female elders, even after Driscoll's dead.

I do think, though, that if you're convinced that opening the diaconal office to women is biblical, that you'll need to guard very strongly and consistently against the those who come in and try to extend that opening to the office of elder.

If one's understanding is that the diaconate is a a purely serving ministry like the job the seven in Acts 6 were assigned to, then it is rather easy to maintain the line against women in eldership since such a diaconate is neither a teaching nor an authoritative ministry.

But Tim,
I do think there is authority given to these 7 men. They had to determine where the goods went and for what reasons. There is no such office or job without authority. Even a slave has to make some decisions in order to serve his master properly.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #51 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:43 PM

Of course the question becomes is authority and decision-making the same thing?

timmopussycat · #52 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

Is there a set, firm definition of "deacon" as it's being used here?

My general, knee-jerk reaction is "certainly not!" but some "deaconess" positions appear to be so service-oriented, with no authority over men (barring the "hey, please don't track mud through here!" sort), I don't see a problem with it.

Considering how humanity never seems to fail to slip rapidly down any slippery slope in a ten-mile vicinity, however, it's probably safest to refrain from providing even the slightest downward slope.

My general answer to danger of slippery slope arguments is that if God did not tell us in his word to put a fence around a particular slippery slope, we have no business adding one where he doesn't assign one to be placed. If there were women deacons in the early church (and the Scriptural evidence is such that we cannot reject the possiblity that there were), adding a fence here is not something we should do.

ISTM that adding a fence where he doesn't carries with it the inevitable suggestion that Christ is an incompetent shephed. May I suggest that perhaps more prayer for neighbours living near the slope might be something our Lord would rather see?

raekwon · #53 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Of course the question becomes is authority and decision-making the same thing?

Good point. There are plenty of women in churches -- but not in positions of office -- who make decisions. That decision-making responsibility doesn't necessarily equal (spiritual) authority.

Stephen · #54 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

No, it is not scriptural.

You have deaconesses in the Church of England.

DMcFadden · #55 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I never understand why people who are 55 or 60 refer to themselves as "middle-aged", after all, how many 110 or 120 year old people do you know?

Hey, I just had a 101 year old pass away last week in my retirement community. Remember, some of us don't hang out with kids all the time. According to the OED, middle age is "... the period between youth and old age, about 45 to 60." Others use the delimiters of 40-60.

As a 54 year old, I just found it fun that Michael said:

Quote:

The Idea is that the younger woman marry or if widowed remarry and raise a family and serve the lord... especially since the young burn with passion..

I agree with Michael's point, but enjoyed the implication that those widows who were not "young" would not have a problem with "passion." As a middle-aged person, it is comforting to know that we (both males and females) do not need to worry about that kind of stuff any longer. During my pastoral years, many of the marriage-ending affairs that I became aware of were for people who were "middle aged." One of my mentors in ministry was eventually caught (unfortunately by my testimony) having triple digit affairs/assignations (yes, as in more than 99!) and he "began" his downward practice at age 45. I am also aware of numerous of our octagenarians here who ask their docs for ED pills (e.g., Viagra, etc.).

As to the substance of the thread. Yes to deacons, based on the somewhat unspecific instructions in the Pastorals regarding the status of the "wives" of Deacons.

Stephen · #56 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter