;)
Female Deacons: A Biblical Defense
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
As far as I am able to determine, from my study of the New Testament, the role of deacon (or deaconess) was (and should be) open to women, and not exclusively men. I am also convinced that the role of elder/overseer/pastor was (and should be) reserved for men only. In this post, I will present the evidence that has led me to the conclusion that women may be deacons (or deaconesses). As it is beyond the scope of this post, I will not deal here, to any large extent, with the evidence favoring an all-male eldership (except with how it directly relates to the possibility of female deacons), nor with extra-biblical evidence in favor of female deacons.
1 Timothy 3: Qualifications for Deacons
In my opinion, the strongest evidence in favor of female deacons in the NT occurs in 1 Timothy chapter 3. The first part of this chapter is divided into two sections: qualifications for overseers/elders, and qualifications for deacons. For both an overseer and a deacon, the text says that he should be “the husband of one wife” (or, more literally, a “one-woman man”). However, v. 11, embedded in the section on deacons, gives additional (or parallel) qualifications for the γυναικας, a Greek word that can be translated either as “women” or “wives,” according to the context.
The KJV, along with various other translations, translates this term as “their wives,” implying that the qualifications given in v. 11 refer to deacons’ wives, rather than to female deacons. However, other translations (most notably, the NASB, the Contemporary English Version, and Young’s Literal Translation) translate this term as “women.” The NIV and ESV both include a footnote indicating either “deaconesses” or “women” as an alternate translation to “wives.”
How do we determine which is the best translation? First of all, it is significant that the word “their” is not present in the Greek, although it would have been an expected construction if the intended meaning were “the deacons’ wives.” Most significant of all, however, in my opinion, is the fact that there is no corresponding allusion, in the section on the qualifications of overseers, referencing the overseers’ wives, even though both sections clearly indicate that both an overseer and a deacon should be “the husband of one wife” (or a “one-woman man”). Lest this be regarded as merely an oversight, in the parallel passage in Titus, Paul, while giving the qualifications of overseers, also writes that an overseer should be “the husband of one wife,” yet says nothing regarding the qualifications of the overseers’ wives. It appears highly unlikely, to me, that, in 1 Timothy 3, Paul would single out the deacons’ wives as having special qualifications, while, in the same passage, he completely passes over the qualifications of overseers’ wives. The logical implication, from my perspective, is that Paul, in v. 11, was not referring to “the deacons’ wives,” but rather to “women” in general.
An alternate possibility is that the “women” referred to in v. 11 are neither the deacons’ wives, nor female deacons, but rather a whole separate category (e.g. women who had a recognized ministry role in the church, but were regarded as neither overseers nor deacons). The use of the word ωσαυτως (translated “even so” in the KJV, “in the same way” in the NIV, and “likewise” in the NASB and the ESV) might possibly favor this interpretation, as it may be used to indicate a whole new category of individuals. However, in my opinion, an even stronger piece of evidence militating against this interpretation is the fact that v. 11 is embedded within the section on deacons, with qualifications for deacons occurring both before as well as immediately after it. If Paul had intended to reference an entire new category, it would have made much more sense for him to do so after he had finished giving the qualifications for the deacons. Thus, I remain convinced that the best interpretation of γυναικας, in v. 11, is “female deacons,” or “deaconesses.”
An interesting sidelight to this understanding is the obvious implication that, if Paul referred to “women” within the context of the qualifications of deacons, and did not do the same within the qualifications for overseers, he did so for a reason. In my opinion, when you consider this, alongside all of the other NT evidence in favor of male-only overseers, it is likely that this was because he allowed for female deacons, but did not do so for female overseers.
Romans 16:1: The Case of Phoebe
Additional evidence in favor of the presence of female deacons in the NT church occurs in Romans 16:1, in which Phoebe is referred to as a “deacon” or a “servant of the church in Cenchrea,” depending on how you choose to translate the word διακονον (which similar to γυναικας, may be translated in one of two different ways, according to the context). Many scholars, however, see the phrase “of the church in Cenchrea” as indicative of an official church role, which would favor the translation of “deacon.”
Acts 6:1-7: The Appointment of the “Seven”
One other passage that should be taken into consideration in relation to this question is Acts 6:1-7, traditionally regarded as referring to the appointment of the first deacons in the church in Jerusalem. What is often overlooked, when considering this passage, however, is that the term διακονον (or “deacon”) never actually appears. Neither are Stephen or Philip ever actually referred to as “deacons” in the NT. It is true that the word διακονια (referring to the “service” of tables or food) does occur in vv. 1 and 2. However, the same Greek word is also used in v. 4, referring to “the ministry of the word,” as carried out, not by the seven supposed “deacons,” but by the Twelve (apostles).
It is also true that all of the “seven,” in this passage, were men. However, in light of the evidence already presented in this post, and the fact that the word “deacon” does not actually occur in this passage, it is doubtful whether this episode can be viewed as a model for all deacons in all churches. However, beyond this passage, there is very little record in the NT of the function and job description of a deacon.
The Role of Deacons in the NT Church
Several things can be safely inferred, though, about the role of deacons in the NT church. For one, their main (or only?) function, as implied by the literal meaning of the term διακονον, is that of service. In the case of the “seven” in Acts 6 (if we may regard them as “deacons”), their particular service was the task of distributing food. In the case of Phoebe in Romans 16, it is stated in rather generic terms that she had been “a help” to many people, including Paul. On the basis of 1 Timothy 3, and the specific qualifications given (parallel to those of “overseers”), it is evident that the “deaconate” (at least, in the church at Ephesus) was viewed as a recognized role within the NT church, and not merely a descriptor of all believers serving in any capacity at any time. However, I do not believe that we may regard “deacons” (nor “overseers”) as a special class of individuals set aside by “ordination” from the rest of the members of the Body (I present my argument in favor of this view here).
On the basis of all of the above, I would describe the role of a “deacon” as that of anyone within a local congregation who carries out any officially recognized ministry responsibility other than that of “overseer.” As I understand it, it is possible that this role may be on-going, to the extent of an individual being regarded generically as a “deacon” of a particular congregation (as in the case of Phoebe), or confined to the fulfillment of a specific task, which may be limited to a certain time and context (as in the case of the “seven”).
Given this understanding, I can envision certain situations and contexts in which it would be most appropriate for the role of deacon to be fulfilled by men, others in which it would be most appropriate for it to be fulfilled by women, and still others in which it might be fulfilled equally well by both men and women. What is specifically not contemplated in the NT, though, are “deacons” (whether men or women) who function as de facto “adjunct overseers,” either sharing in the overall administrative oversight of a congregation (together with the elders/overseers/pastors), or functioning as a committee for carrying out supervision and accountability over professional ministers (“pastors”) who basically function as hirelings of the congregation.
Given this understanding, it is my opinion that most Southern Baptist congregations already have female deacons functioning as such, though they are often not called by that title.
What Difference Does It Make?
If such is the case, however, one might well ask, “What difference does it make whether you call them deacons or not?” I would answer that, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, it is generally a good idea to try to emulate the practice of the NT church as closely as possible. I would also add that, wherever Scripture is either silent or neutral, it is generally a good idea to try to follow those customs that will produce the least possible stumbling blocks for the advance of the gospel, as well as prove to be the most conducive for the practice of every member’s spiritual gifts and the edification of the Body of Christ.
On matters where Scripture is clear (such as an all-male eldership), we do not have the luxury of contextualizing for merely pragmatic concerns. We must be careful to never sacrifice Scriptural principles on the altar of cultural accommodation. In the case of not allowing for female deacons, however, I think we do well to ask if we are placing an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of a society that is highly sensitized to issues of discrimination and chauvinism. While maintaining Scriptural integrity in the carrying out of a generally complementarian approach to gender roles, it is important to not go beyond what Scripture actually stipulates, stubbornly clinging to strictly cultural values and practices that are no longer in vogue. At the same time, we must be vigilant to ensure that, independent of current cultural values, in our attitudes, structures, and symbols, we are not promoting a de facto sexism that flies in the face of the eternal biblical value of the essential spiritual equality of Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Well written post.
Two questions that I think you need to answer arise, however — one from an apparent ommission in your analysis and another from a logical though progression from the implications of your conclusion.
1. 1 Timothy 3:12 says a deacon should be the husband of one wife. How does your interpretation of v. 11 fit that?
2. If you cling the to your interpretation, do you therefore support homosexual marriage since women then can be “husband to one wife.”
Scott,
I think that 1 Timothy 3:12 (as well as 3:8-10) is written with the men in mind. The only verse specifically directed toward the women is v. 11. It is possible, if my interpretation is correct, that v. 13 applies to both men and women.
Scott,
One more thing. It appears the word ωσαυτως in v. 11 (translated “in the same way” or “likewise,” as I indicate in my post) indicates that the qualifications listed in vv. 8-10 for the men (with the exception of actually being a man) also apply to the women. Since the qualification of being “the husband of one wife,” in v. 12, does not appear in this section, it is not applicable to the women.
David,
Since v. 12 is an extension and a continuation of the point brought up in v. 11 by Paul I do not understand how you can make your interpretation. To me, and understand I am no Greek scholar by any stretch, your interpretation is not in context nor does it fit with other teachings ie. homosexuality that a woman-deacon teaching must embrace by implication. You are willing to vacate the one man/one woman biblical marriage model if you move in your hypothesis of interpretation of v. 11.
If a woman is allowed to be a deacon, by your interpretation, then how can she be a husband to one wife? To do so is giving approval to homosexuality and the issues engendered there.
David: Well done. Our church spent months deliberating this issue, as well as a move to plural (male) eldership. We adopted both, raising the eyebrows of our sister churches no doubt. There was some opposition, surprisingly mainly from female members. We are a few years into it now and it is working well. Before the move, some even suggested that it was ok for women to do deacon-ey stuff, as long as we didn’t call them deacons. I suggested that God wasn’t fooled by wordplay. If women are going to be servants in the church, then lets call them servants.
I think the widespread opposition to deaconesses in the SBC is due in part to so many SBC churches mis-handling the role of deacon, confusing it with the role of elder.
Scott: I must say, your objection to female deacons because it is a tacit acceptance of homosexuality is certainly a novel one. I have never heard it before.
Scott,
You are obviously not following correctly my line of reasoning here.
I am saying:
vv. 8-10 apply to men
v. 11 applies to women (but also embraces, by way of the word ωσαυτως, the qualifications listed in vv. 8-10, with the exception of being a man, and applies them to women)
v. 12 applies to men only
v. 13 applies either to men, or to both men and women
In the post, I use the word “parallel” qualifications. I think the word ωσαυτως fits this description perfectly.
Thus, female deacons are most certainly NOT to be “the husband of one wife,” nor am I, in any way, giving approval to homosexuality. The whole question about homosexuality is a red herring anyway. The text does not say “mate of one wife,” but rather “husband of one wife.” A lesbian could never be the “husband of one wife.”
David,
Great post. This is another one of those topics that I don’t get to hear discussed much, so I am greatful for the opportunity.
I have a few observations and a question or two:
You said, “Several things can be safely inferred, though, about the role of deacons in the NT church. For one, their main (or only?) function, as implied by the literal meaning of the term διακονον, is that of service.”
What type of service to you mean? You also said, “However, the same Greek word is also used in v. 4, referring to “the ministry of the word,” as carried out, not by the seven supposed “deacons,” but by the Twelve (apostles).”
Since the same Greek word can refer to service from “waiting on tables” to the “ministry of the word,” could the main function of a deacon be the ministry of the Word? Are you suggesting that Sunday School teachers (a non-New Testament position) be called “deacons?”
David,
So, you believe that Paul changes gears for one sentence? And then goes back to his original thought process after that one sentence? And how is that not the red-herring? Your argument says a woman can be a deacon. If so then the continuing line of thought must be that a woman somehow must be able to be a husband of one wife. How is that a red-herring? It has to be wrestled with in your line of interpretation. To only say “The text does not say “mate of one wife,” but rather “husband of one wife.” A lesbian could never be the “husband of one wife.” is go counter to what you want to say in allowing women to be deacons based solely on your interpretation of v. 11. You want both to be true but that cannot happen with your v. 11.
David,
Good job! Well researched, written, and defended…
As a “Conservative” I applaud your willingness to take on this issue. Far too often Conservatism in the Southern Baptist Convention is defined by its loyalty to tradition and not by its loyalty to the Biblical text, as illustrated by the fact that most conservative Southern Baptist churches would not even entertain the idea of ordaining a woman to the office of a Deacon. Why? “Because we have never done so in the past.”
Scott,
Your use of the “husband of one wife” argument to disqualify women from serving as deacons is simply not supported by the text; as David has carefully explained above. And your whole attempt to attach acceptance of homosexuality with allowing women deacons in the church is simply “inflammatory and unnecessary rhetoric!”
Perhaps the phrase “husband of one wife” was included in the section of qualifications for men deacons because it was quite common and acceptable in the society of this time for men to take more than one wife? And perhaps “wife of one husband” was not included in the section of qualifications for women deacons because it was not acceptable for women to have multiply husbands?
Furthermore, it shows a lack of confidence in the Holy Ghost to clearly communicate in the Scriptures his wishes for the church to argue that “husband of one wife” excludes women from being deacons. If the Holy Ghost intended to exclude women from being deacons should not he have simply said “A Man” and thereby removing any doubt?
Grace Always,
Andrew: You bring up a good point. While we may argue about the qualifications of deacons, their duties are nowhere articulated in scripture. I suspect that their “service” may simply be whatever the church requires. We must remember that other than elders, there is really no structure in the early church; no “ministries” as such. All that has come after, Sunday School, music ministries, etc, could easily fall under the role of “deacon”, since these are folk specifically chosen by the church to serve. I suspect some churches do call them all deacons.
Our deacons and deaconesses are expected to participate in the “ministry of the word” in the same way that every Christian is expected to do so. Our elders are the spiritual overseers of the local body as a whole.
Greg: You also bring up an important point. This is a question of the text, and different people can come away with different ideas of what the text says. That’s fine. But the easy objection is to dismiss the idea because it’s “liberal.” That not only fails to advance the discussion, but is intellectually dishonest.
Greg,
I have complete confidence in the Holy Ghost to communicate clearly. He has. And no, I am not using “inflammatory and unnecessary rhetoric!” All I am asking is for the author of the post and those that agree with him to wrestle completely with the implications and not dismiss them out of hand. Until the Holy Ghost stops using the same word in v. 11 as He does in v. 12 for women/wives then it has to be part of the discussion.
If a woman is allowed to be a deacon and a deacon is to be the husband of one wife, then answer honestly: Can a woman have a wife? Your argument suggests yes. The entire Biblical record says no. And if a woman cannot have a wife then the suggested interpretation for v. 11 needs to be redone as it cannot, using biblical logic, be true.
Andrew,
“Service” or “ministry” (in English) and “διακονια” are all quite generic, and, to a certain degree, ambiguous terms. As Christians, and fellow members of the Body of Christ, we are all meant to serve and to minister, both to one another, as well as to the community at large, and to the Lord Himself.
However, 1 Timothy 3 seems to make a clear distinction between “overseers” and “deacons.” Though information on the function of deacons in the NT is scarce, we do have quite a bit more information on the function of “elders/overseers/pastors.”
I believe that the ability to teach is inherent with the role of “elder/overseer/pastor,” but not necessarily so with the role of “deacon.” However, just because someone is a “deacon” does not mean they may not also teach, or even be regarded as a “teacher.” Philip (if we assume the “seven” were regarded as “deacons”) was also an “evangelist.”
Just as we are all to serve one another, there is also a sense, in the NT, that we are all to teach one another. However, I believe the main responsibility for teaching, in the NT church, was in the hands of the “elders/overseers/pastors.” There is also a special sense in which the older women are to teach the younger women.
So, to answer your question, I suppose there is a sense in which our SS teachers may be called, in a biblical sense, “deacons.” I might even call them “teaching deacons,” as opposed to “table-waiting deacons” or something like that. But, overall, this would probably create more confusion than anything else, so I am fine with just calling them “teachers.” Acts 13:1 does seem to indicate that some in the NT church were known by that title. Though, then again, you have to consider the question of “pastor-teachers” in Eph. 4:11 (i.e. were these two different roles, or just one “hyphenated” role) and “prophets and teachers” (“prophet-teachers”?) in Acts 13:1.
Scott,
Yes, I believe that Paul changes gears for one sentence. That is the clear implication of the word ωσαυτως: he is changing gears.
You are the only one I have ever heard suggesting that he is not changing gears for just one sentence here. The discussion is not whether or not he is changing gears, but whether the γυναικας in v. 11 should be translated as “women” or “wives.” Greek scholars, who have translated the NT, are divided on this question. I have given my reasoning why I think the choice of “women” is to be preferred.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer.
Bill,
You said: “I think the widespread opposition to deaconesses in the SBC is due in part to so many SBC churches mis-handling the role of deacon, confusing it with the role of elder.”
I agree with you. I also think that confusion over the concept of ordination has a lot to do with it.
“Hosautos” (ωσαυτως) in 1 Timothy 3:11 indicates the introduction of a new, different, third category. Thus, the women of 1 Timothy 3:11 could not have been deacons. “Hosautos” is also found in 1 Timothy 2:9 as men and women are distinguished and in 1 Timothy 5:25 as clearly evident sins are distinguished from clearly evident good works. It is also found in Titus 2:2 as aged men and aged women are distinguished. (The aged women are to teach or admonish young women in Titus 2:4 and submit to their husbands’ leadership in Titus 2:5.) 1 Timothy 3:11 clearly does not refer to all women. The women mentioned are held to a higher standard, just as the men who serve as overseers and deacons are held to a higher standard. It is important to distinguish between deaconesses and female deacons. Some see the office of deaconess as separate from the office of deacon. Paul, however, did not describe a particular office in 1 Timothy 3:11. The Holy Spirit may have inspired Paul to leave this special category unnamed so that there would be some flexibility in the future. (For instance, my wife is a seminary graduate and serves as a paid staff member at Bellevue, and she is held to a higher standard than other women, but she does not hold a biblically named office.) In Paul’s day, he applied verse 11 to widows that were at least 60 years old (1 Timothy 5:7-10). As overseers (3:2) and deacons (3:10) were to be blameless, these widows were to be blameless (5:7). As overseers (3:2) and deacons (3:12) were to be one-woman men or one-wife husbands, the widows were to be one-man women or one-husband wives (5:9). As overseers (3:4) and deacons (3:8) were to be reverent, these women were to be reverent (3:11).
Phoebe (Romans 16:1) may have been a widow like those described by Paul, but the fact that she is called “diakonos” (διακονος) does not necessarily indicate that she held a named office. The same word is used to describe Jesus in Romans 15:8 and is usually translated as “minister” or “servant.” Jesus obviously did not hold the office of deacon. Thus, as most translations indicate, Phoebe may have simply been a minister or servant of the church in Cenchrea. In that sense, all Christians are to be ministers/servants of local churches.
Paul was probably inserting the section on women (1 Timothy 3:11) as a parenthetical remark that he intended to expand on later in the letter (5:7-10). Another example of this is the parenthetical comment in Ephesians 2:5 that he expended on in 2:8-9.
Greg,
Yes, if I have to choose between being “conservative” or “biblical,” I will go with “biblical” every time. That doesn’t mean that I don’t consider myself “conservative,” though.
David,
I don’t expect I will change your mind. I only asked that a fuller view be taken. And it doesn’t look like my suggestion is one that is easily taken by the readership regardless of how clear I feel I am on that matter — just as you feel you are being as clear as you can be.
That being said, I do not want to be divisive. I stand down from further discussion on this post.
“Grace be with you. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:21b)
Scott,
You said, “So, you believe that Paul changes gears for one sentence? And then goes back to his original thought process after that one sentence?”
You admit that David has argued the above, yet you continue to suggest that v.12 must apply to the women in v.11 under David’s interpretation. While you may have a valid point about Paul changing gears, it is muffled by the following:
Under your interpretation (that v.11 refers to the deacons’ wives), “Paul changes gears for one sentence… And then goes back to his original though process after that one sentence.”
If what you say about the passage is correct, why would Paul change gears for one sentence to talk about the deacons’ wives and then go back to his original thought process after that one sentence? Either way you look at it, from David’s or yours, Paul breaks his thought process to talk about women, either deaconesses or deacons’ wives, but he still breaks his thought process. You can’t force David’s interpretation to follow an unbroken subject line when your interpretation doesn’t.
Andrew,
See comment #19.
BT Mike,
You give a lot to think about here. However, you still don’t really answer, as far as I can tell, my objection that, if Paul intended for v. 11 to refer to a whole new category of individuals, why he doesn’t bring it up after the section on deacons, instead of embedded within the section on deacons.
Also, as I mention in my post, many Greek scholars consider the term “deacon/servant OF the church in Cenchrea” to refer to a recognized role (or “office,” if you prefer) in the church, and, for that reason, prefer the translation “deacon.”
As I also mention in my post, and as the example of your wife illustrates, the difference, in most SB churches is not so much one of actual function, but of terminology. Almost all SB churches have women carrying out “servant” roles.
However, to make a big distinction between “servants” and “deacons” is unwarranted, as best as I can make out, and only serves to communicate symbolically a sexist mindset that behooves as, as those who are trying to reach out to lost souls in the day in which we live, to leave as a relic of the past.
One more thing. Though I have intentionally avoided the discussion of early church evidence in this post, it is perhaps a point to be considered, in regard to what you say here, that the early church made a distinction between the role of “deaconness” and “widow” (in the sense of as a specific ministry in the church).
Building off what Scott wrote, since Paul specifically uses the term “deacons” in verse 12, saying that they should be “the husband of one wife,” are we to assume that Paul did not consider the women/wives of verse 11 to be “deacons” or at least something other than a “deacon?”
BT Mike,
I just got to thinking, perhaps this wording will make more sense to you.
As I see it, given the overall context, ωσαυτως does indeed refer to a new category of individuals; only, since it does so embedded within a section that refers to deacons, it is not, as you say, “a WHOLE new category.”
I am sure you know much more Greek than I do. But, I throw that out for you to consider. Is that not a viable exegetical option?
Dave,
I’ve always leaned toward the translation to be “wives”. Could you give me some examples where a deasoness would serve in the body?
I could see the position in more of a temporary basis if other deacon wives were simply not available or were not equipped to serve in a specialized capacity.
With churches growing in size we have Pastors, Associate Pastors, Elders, Music Directors, Educational Directors, Sunday School Directors, Youth Directors and Children’s Ministers. I’m sure we have additional positions with titles, too. Many of those positions are paid, some are not, and yet they are not filled by Elders or Deacons. Even if scripture does not specify “deaconess”, what prevents us from creating such a position?
Also, I would not call it traditional to maintain men as deacons, I would call it our custom, if necessary.
Bruce
Brother David,
Your exegesis is accurate and edifying to the church here. The main problem I have run into with respect to understanding these verses is that a great many people view this from person (subject) to action,…instead of action/character to subject. The Apostle is clearly defining the roles that God has assigned as the edification of the church is advanced by virtue of action. The understanding of the roles is very apparent from the location and traditions surrounding the church in Ephesus (when compared to the Acts of account of the six men at Jerusalem), which certainly places the context of the six men more narrowly in their service and traditional functions within the congregation at that point and time.
I am not quite clear what Scott is getting out with the homosexual slant. The Apostle is not giving instruction concerning “degrading passion” in this letter at all….so to infer the text has something to say about God’s created order in the relationship of marriage and passion would be unique to the text.
One last thing…as I was raised in Baptist life,…one of the most difficult tasks is erasing the ignorance associated with certain traditions. Obviously, not all traditions are bad, but the ones that have somehow elevated the male in the service to the church where roles have not been singularly defined are tough to correct. It is the responsibility of the overseer though,….to correct and set those issues in the correct direction.
Good post.
Blessings,
Chris
I think we may be placing too much emphasis on the term “deacon” as an official title. I think Paul is using it as a term meaning a servant of the church who has been officially recognized by the church for a specific role (which is not articulated). Under that reading, all our churches have women deacons. It is more than an everyday Christian servant, but less than an ordained office. As I said, I don’t think God is fooled by terminology. Is it the title that is important, or the role?
The NT spells out the role of elder very clearly, but not the role of deacon.
Bruce,
No matter who you ask, I am confident we all would agree that the structure of the NT church was much more simple than the structure of most of our modern-day SB churches. This makes it difficult, at times, to take a NT grid, and apply it to our situation today.
However, as I understand it, I would take all of the official positions we have in churches today (including, but not limited to, those in your list) and ask whether or not those in those positions are fulfilling the biblical function of elder in the church. If the answer is yes, then they are elders, not deacons. If the answer is no, then they are deacons, not elders.
Are there any officially recognized roles in the church that are not, from a biblical perspective, either elders or deacons? Perhaps. I am not sure.
I guess there are some roles of service for which we would not require the same qualifications as those given in 1 Timothy 3. If, for example, a new believer is still working on meeting those requirements, would we tell him/her that he/she cannot serve in the church, or carry out any ministry? I don’t think so. I think each and every member of the Body has at least one spiritual gift, and a corresponding role or ministry to fulfill. But, evidently, some, in addition to this, meet the spiritual qualifications to be officially recognized as “deacons” or “deaconesses” of the church.
Bill,
Would you suggest we do away with the term “deacon” and instead translate it as “servant” instead? In which case, does it matter if churches don’t have “deaconesses” if, under the specific role interpretation, most do? Food for thought.
Bill,
For the most part, I think you are correct here. The emphasis is indeed on role or function, and not the title.
However, I do think the language we use does have some implications. That is why I included the final two paragraphs in my post, on “What Difference Does it Make?”
David, you said,
“You still don’t really answer, as far as I can tell, my objection that, if Paul intended for v. 11 to refer to an whole new category of individuals, why he doesn’t bring it up after the section on deacons, instead of embedded within the section on deacons.”
Using “hosautos” Paul made it clear that there are three categories:
1. Overseers (3:1-7)
2. (Hosautos) Deacons (3:8-10, 12-13)
3. (Hosautos) Women (3:11)
I compared Paul’s style of writing in 1 Timothy 3:11 with Ephesians 2:5 and 2:8-9. In Ephesians 2:5 he briefly discussed grace, and in 2:8-9 he discussed it more thoroughly. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 3:11 he briefly discussed women who serve in special ministries in local churches and are held to a higher standard, and in 1 Timothy 5:7-10 he discussed them more thoroughly.
You also said,
“Many Greek scholars consider the term ‘deacon/servant OF the church in Cenchrea’ to refer to a recognized role (or ‘office,’ if you prefer) in the church, and, for that reason, prefer the translation ‘deacon.’”
I looked at the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, HCSV, Douay-Rheims, Good News Translation, and Young’s Literal Translation, and none of them describe Phoebe as a deacon or deaconess. The only version I found that describes her as a deaconess is the RSV. The scholar F.F. Bruce said that the RSV translators “blurred some of the finer distinctions in New Testament wording which … have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text.”
You also said,
“As I also mention in my post, and as the example of your wife illustrates, the difference, in most SB churches is not so much actual function, but of terminology. Almost all SB churches have women carrying out ‘servant’ roles.”
I believe that distinct functions are recognized. Although my wife strives to be a good spiritual influence on all people regardless of gender, she does not exercise spiritual leadership over men.
Chris,
Thanks for your affirmation. I agree that there are often traditions that get in the way of what Scripture actually teaches, and that we must gently, firmly, and patiently work to correct these, while being open, at the same time, to the possibility that we may ourselves be mistaken on a particular issue.
Dave,
It seems that the deacon position was created by the Apostles and the Holy Spirit inspired that portion of scripture to emphasize the importance of prayer and ministry of the word by those called to shepherd. The pastor position needs to handle the holy things of God and deacons were created to allow them to do so. It seems to me that the cares of the body and the cares of the world were to be insulated from those who minister the word and give them the freedom to study and pray. There is something about having the clear conscience when delivering the word and/or feeding to the flock.
David, you said,
“As I see it, given the overall context, ωσαυτως does indeed refer to a new category of individuals; only, since it does so embedded within a section that refers to deacons, it is not, as you say, ‘a WHOLE new category.’”
I would prefer to say that “hosautos” indicates a separate but related category.
I sense that some here are saying that deacons are not really officers; rather, they are simply servants. Nope, they are really officers. A higher standard is spelled out for them in 1 Timothy 3. All Christians should be servants, but not all Christians are qualified to hold the office of deacon.
What I have noticed is that if the question is stated thusly, “Can women serve in the church?” most will answer it affirmatively. “Then why can’t we call them servants/ministers/deacons, because that’s what the word means?” That’s when the conversation usually degenerates into issues of ‘Who’s in charge.’ I thought Jesus taught us that service should be removed from those issues (Matt 20:24-28).
By the way, I see no standards of character or conduct listed in 1 Timothy 3 that do not apply to all of God’s people. Those in spiritual leadership should be setting a good example, but by no means are those standards of character and conduct intended only for those in leadership.
A word can have different meanings based on its context. The word “minister,” for example, can refer to what all Christians should be, but it can also refer to non-Christian government ministers (Romans 13:4), and it can of course refer to the office of elder/overseer/pastor. Not every Christian is qualified to serve in the office of elder/pastor/overseer. A word does not always mean what its parts seem to indicate. For example, the word butterfly does not refer to flying butter or a fly covered with butter. Similarly, the word “ekklesia” means more than “called out ones.” It always refers to a gathering/assembly, as is the case with the secular assembly in Acts 19:32,39. The word also refers to local churches. In Acts 19, 32,39 the context clarifies that Luke is not referring to a local church. In 1 Timothy 3, the context clarifies that “diakonos” refers to an office.
Brother Bruce,
That is an important attitude to be recognized by the entire church. That the overseer be focused on the ministry (teaching or delivery) of the word within the church. Those serving alongside the overseers were chosen to administer other things based upon their reputation to be good servants among the congregation…which is an important role in body as she is edified by members one of another.
Act 6:4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
What an awsome sight to see a congregation led to understand the importance of the word of God through “increased service” to the body (everyone being taken care of…so that they can receive the word!). It takes both men and women serving one another, being thoroughly nourished in the word to continue maturing in that fashion.
Blessings,
Chris
BT, I understand how the NT teaches of “ministries” or “ministry roles,” but from my perspective, the concept of “office” (i.e. authority by virtue of position) is not clearly taught in the NT but instead seems to be a later development of church history. Can you point me to some biblical texts where someone has an “office” (arche) rather than a “ministry”? From my perspective, the NT has deliberately chosen not to use that term (arche), and thus the concept.
Kevin,
There are two different but related Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 that make it clear that an official office exists. “Episkope” refers to the office of overseer in 3:1, and “episkopos” refers to the overseer himself in 3:2. They are two different words.
BT Mike,
Yes, v. 11 may indeed be considered as parenthetical. However, it is still written within the context of qualifications of deacons. If Paul was referring to neither deacons’ wives, nor to female deacons, it would have made much more sense to do so after finishing his section on deacons.
On Rom. 16:1 and Phoebe, Stephen B. Clark, on an article on the website for the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Man-and-Woman-in-Christ/The-People-Service-and-Position), states the following:
“The second passage that seems to refer to the position of deaconess is in Romans 16, the passage about Phoebe. In the RSV translation the verses read as follows:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the Church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require of you, for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well. (Rom 16:1-2)
There is no doubt that Phoebe was a person of some importance in the early Christian community. There is some dispute as to whether she was a deaconess.(23) The key phrase above could also be translated “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae.” Also, the passage could be interpreted as simply a commendation for her faithful service in the Christian community rather than as a statement that she held a recognized position of deaconess. The term “servant” could even refer to Phoebe’s responsibilities as Paul’s missionary co-worker, perhaps someone he assigned to Cenchreae, rather than to her service as deaconess.(24) However, the distinction between missionary worker and deaconess is rather tenuous; since an apostle could be considered an elder (I Pt 5:1), his main female co-workers could likely be considered deaconesses (servants)if such a position existed in New Testament times. Paul also describes Phoebe as a “helper,” but this term adds little to our understanding. The Greek word (prostatis) is only used once in the New Testament. Many commentators have suggested that prostatis meant something like “patroness,” and that Phoebe was thus a wealthy woman who was distinguished for acts of charity and for financial contribution.(25) Even so, the term does little to decide whether Phoebe was a deaconess, since a patroness might or might not occupy such a position of service. The strongest indication within the text that Phoebe actually was a deaconess is the official-sounding nature of the phrase by which Paul identifies her: “a servant/deaconess of the church at Cenchreae.”
In summary, Rom 16:1-2, together with 1 Tm 3:11, provides significant support for the view that the position of deaconess existed among Christians in New Testament times. If there is no reference in scripture to deaconesses other than Rom 16:1, then it would be difficult to maintain that Phoebe was a deaconess. However, with the 1 Tm 3:11 verse, there is some possibility that Phoebe was a deaconess.”
I think this is a fairly objective and thorough treatment of this question, and one that comes from an unquestionably conservative as well as generally complementarian perspective.
BT, why couldn’t episcope simply mean “oversight” and not “office of overseer”?
Kevin & BT,
That is why I have preferred to use the term “role” rather than “office.” It seems as though “office” tends to carry along with it some extra-biblical connotations that may get in the way of what the Bible is really talking about. However, I do agree with BT Mike that there are specific qualifications for deacons, and that the role of deacon is presented as parallel to the role of elder, thus, not everyone who ever serves in any way, shape, or capacity, should be considered as a “deacon of the church.”
David, the word “deaconess” is not a biblical word. It is a word that some people use to describe the group of women who are held to a higher standard. Again, most scholars who use the word “deaconess” are not referring to female deacons, but the two designations are often confused. Because of that confusion, I prefer not to use a particular name to describe the women who are held to a higher standard and perform particular ministries in the church.
BT Mike,
The link I gave for Clark’s article doesn’t seem to work, for some reason. Perhaps it will work here:
http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Man-and-Woman-in-Christ/The-People-Service-and-Position
I agree with you about the term “deaconess.” That is why I normally use the term “female deacon” (with “deaconess” in parentheses). However, the early church did use the term “deaconess.” And, I do agree with you that there does appear to be some distinction in Paul’s mind between the “deacons” of 1 Timothy 3:8-10; 12-13, and the “women” (however we may understand them) of v. 11. Thus, I can see the reasoning behind using the term “deaconess” to highlight some distinction from the male “deacons.” All in all, though, I see them both as coming under the general heading of “deacons.”
I am somewhat surprised that no one yet has commented on my observation that the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:11 that I hold to, in addition to justifying the position of “female deacons,” appears at the same time to be a strong argument AGAINST the possibility of “female overseers.”
Not that this, in and of itself, should seal the argument; but, if you don’t agree with the translation of “women” in 1 Tim. 3:11, you lose a pretty substantial argument that may be used against “female overseers.”
Kevin, you asked,
“BT, why couldn’t episcope simply mean ‘oversight’ and not ‘office of overseer’?”
Bauer’s Greek lexicon (BAGD) places Acts 1:20 and 1 Timothy 3:1 under this definition for “episkope” (επισκοπη): “position or office as an overseer. . . . esp. the office of a bishop.” He places 1 Timothy 3:2 under this definition for “episkopos” (επισκοπος): “persons who have a definite function or a fixed office within a group. . . including a religious group.”
David,
Would support women deacons being ordained?
I have also always wondered if the husband of one wife qualification means that a single man cannot be a deacon.
Also, the quote from Clark is not actually from an article, but rather from his book “Man and Woman in Christ,” which is available on-line on the CBMW site.
Ron,
As I mention in my post, I don’t support “ordination” (at least not, as traditionally understood in Baptist churches) either for male deacons, female deacons, male elders, or female elders.
You need to go back and read my post about ordination here:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/08/25/ministerial-ordination/
Also, I think it may be safely inferred that “the husband of one wife” qualification is applicable in the case of married (or widowed) men.
Chris,
When the priest went into the holy of holies once a year I wonder what the attitude of the people was. It seems that there would be great anticipation and great joy as the bell was heard and eventually the priest came out. Similarly, we should anticipate the hearing of the word from one who has clean hands, a pure heart and been with God all week. I wonder what would happen if the church wanted to hear from God so earnestly that they would lock their preacher up for a week with instructions to pray and prepare the word. I would like to be there on that Sunday and watch the people and hear from God, too. I may be dreaming, but, you guys need the body’s committment and support to be able to concentrate solely on the most important thing. The deacons must realize that importance and the body must desire it whole-heartedly, as well.
Bruce
David, I briefly scanned the excerpt from Clark’s book. He seems to be describing church history rather than making a biblical argument as is evident from the following quote:
“The deacons were the men in the community who bore the active responsibility of caring for the needy. . . . Widows were a recognized group or order in the early church. . . . The deacons and widows served the needy in different ways. . . . There were three recognized positions of service in the Christian community during the first four centuries of the Christian church: elder/bishop, deacon, and deaconess. . . . The deacons were a group of men. . . . The third recognized position within the early Christian community was that of deaconess. . . . The order of widows and the position of deaconess were both recognized positions for women in the early Christian community. The relationship between the two positions remains uncertain. Some early sources draw a clear distinction between deaconesses and widows. In other sources the distinction all but disappears, with some (or all) widows performing the kinds of services that other sources assign to the deaconesses. . . . In order to understand the full significance of the position of deaconess in the early Christian community, one must understand how it relates to the positions of deacon and elder. First, the deaconess was a female deacon. . . . To say that deacons and deaconesses had parallel ministries is not necessarily to say that the women were ordained in the same way as the men. The ordination of deaconesses is a further question that lies beyond the scope of the resent discussion.”
BT Mike,
Though I originally considered including evidence from early church history in this post, I decided against it, since the post was already long enough, and since I believe that biblical evidence takes precedent over early church history. It is interesting, as a sidelight, however, to note that early church history does appear to support the argument I am giving.
I would pretty much agree with everything Clark says in the portion you quote in your comment, up until he brings up the question of ordination. As I mention to Ron above, and to Bill on comment 16, I think our traditional understanding of ordination clouds the issue of what the Bible actually teaches. But, then again, Clark may agree with me on this as well. I have not read the entire book.
BT Mike,
Also, here are a few versions, other than the RSV, that opt for “deacon” or “deaconess” as the correct translation in Rom. 16:1:
The Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, Today’s New International Version.
BT, as much as I appreciate Bauer, he presents no exegesis on which he bases his definition of “episcope.” I acknowledge that church tradition is pretty strong on the issue (including Bauer), but tradition must always be held up to the light of scripture.
The following phrase in 1 Tim 3:1 which sets the term’s context seems to indicate a “ministry/service” (i.e. “work”) rather than a “position” or “office.” It says, “it is a fine work he desires” rather than “it is a fine position/office he desires.”
Brother Bruce,
I think I hear your point and agree…. Yet being sequestered for up a whole week may actually be against why these overseers were having others help out in the daily administration to the needs in the congregation. I believe the overseers were earnestly about the business of teaching and recognized the importance of doing that daily. Most professional ministers think they have worn themselves out if they have to prepare two sermons a week….how pitiful. The overseers in the early church were serving tables, teaching daily (certainly more than two sermons) and spreading the good news. Maybe the reason that “overseers” (professional pastors) protect their “jobs” today is to protect the two to three sermon load….trying to make that seem like a lot of work.
As the qualified overseer set his mind to the business of overseeing,…he quickly recognizes the need for the Word to be dispensed on a daily basis (not the typical one day in the theater approach we have established today), and then he has no problem leading in the appointment of other men and women to serve the needs of the congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
Kevin,
Could you articulate what it is you don’t like about the term “office?” When I think of an “office,” I think of a “recognized ministry position,” or “official church leadership.” I’d like to dialogue with you and BT, but I’m not sure what the issue is.
Chris,
Agreed. I can tell you have been in the word with the scriptural references you have presented so quickly in many responses. You challenge me and I need that. Many others on this blog do the same.
I’ve been a “professional visitor” since early summer and have had discussions with many pastors who want to keep their “job”. I didn’t realize that I should have requested talking to both the pastor and deacon board at the same time. I realized that many pastors will sift out potential members because they pose a threat to their “ideal” job conditions and no one will ever know the difference. Some don’t, but many do.
As long as we are in alignment with God’s truth and His will we cannot go wrong no matter what our numbers are.
Bruce
I’ve always wondered if we would have been better to translate some of these terms instead of transliterating them. If we just called “deacons” servants and “pastors” shepherds, we might avoid some of the institutional baggage that has attached to some of these names.
In some Baptist churches I have seen, the deacons are a ruling body, and the idea of service is lost.
I addressed this in my last post, when I said that if the deacon ministry is properly understood, then the idea of females “serving” is not a problem.
Dave,
I agree. Unfortunately, it is not so easy, though, to dismiss 2,000 years of “institutional baggage” that has gone under the bridge with the rest of the water.
Brother Andrew,
If I might jump in here a little ….and Kevin can correct me if I stray too far, but it appears as the Apostle is instructing Timothy about men overseeing the church (which is clearly articulated why in chapter 2). The Apostle simply makes a subtle transition into the actions and character required of a man aspiring to the responsibility to oversee. The import of the concept of “office” (from an American democratic standpoint) is much different than what the Apostle has in mind here…and as such does not write into the text. Paul, on the other hand, reaches for the ongoing qualities and character of men that continually aspire to lead this burgeoning congregation (lifting holy hands, etc. chapter 2). Instead of the Apostle defending an office,…he is defending the qualities and character of a man that is led by Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, for the church.
The reason is I believe,…is so that an “office” is not constructed as was so common beforehand, but instead a man led by the Holy Spirit, and leading as such would be required to continually qualify and serve in the congregation….or he would be confronted and no longer qualified to lead, but restored as he repented and returned to Christ. Having an office (democratically or one of domineering authority) would not allow for “the office holder” to be confronted on doctrine that was opposed to Christ. The Apostle Paul was always careful to remove the curse of the Law from the working of the Spirit… i.e. his approach with Peter in the letter to the Galatians.
So “office” is not so much a bad word…but can be construed by many to be more formal and stagnant than the Apostle was willing pen by the power of the Spirit.
Blessings,
Chris
While, as I have already indicated, I have my hesitations about the term “office” as well, I do sympathize (if I understand him correctly) with the general drift behind BT Mike’s concern here.
For instance, if you were to meet someone from a NT congregation, and ask them who were the “elders” or “overseers” of their congregation, I think, from what I see in the Bible, they would be able to tell you exactly who. They wouldn’t say, “Well, Hermes does meet the qualifications, and seems to lead out in a lot of things. And, Aristobulus also. But, I’m not sure whether it would be right to call him an ‘elder/overseer’ or not.” No, they would know that there were specific individuals recognized with the responsibility of providing oversight, and watching over the flock, as those who must give account (Heb. 13:17), and would be able to tell you specifically who was and who was not.
Whether you call this an “office” or not, depends on the connotations you attach to that term. But, I would say they fulfilled a “role,” and had a recognized “position” in the church. Otherwise, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 make no sense. Why would Paul not just tell Timothy and Titus, “The overseers in the church are already qualified and functioning as such, so, no need to appoint them, or recognize them”?
Kevin, you said,
“The following phrase in 1 Tim 3:1 which sets the term’s context seems to indicate a ‘ministry/service’ (i.e. ‘work’) rather than a ‘position’ or ‘office.’ It says, ‘it is a fine work he desires’ rather than ‘it is a fine position/office he desires.’”
The office does not exclude the work. Public officials, for example, should be hard workers, not slackers. The same holds true for local church officials.
Acts 1:20 is determinative in regard to the concern you have. “Episkope” (επισκοπη) in Acts 1:20 refers to an office.
Danny Akin commented on the word: “The word episkopos occurs only five times in the New Testament. . . . The related term episkope occurs four times in the New Testament. Twice it refers to God’s visitation in judgment (Luke 19:44; 1 Pet. 2:12) and twice it refers to officeholders (Acts 1:20; 1 Tim. 3:1).”
Akin, “The Single-Elder-Led Church: The Bible’s Witness to a Congregational/Single-Elder-Led Policy,” Chapter 1 in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 43.
The word is often translated as “office of overseer” because the idea of visitation or inspection is present in the word. For instance, Marvin Vincent commented on 1 Peter 2:12 in which the word is translated as “visitation” in the NKJV:
“The radical idea of the word is that of observing or inspecting. Hence επισκοπος, an overseer or bishop. Visiting grows naturally out of this, as visitare from visere, to look at attentively. See Introduction, on Peter’s emphasis upon sight; and compare behold, in this verse. The ‘day of visitation’ is the day of looking upon: ‘When God shall look upon these wanderers, as a pastor over his flock, and shall become the overlooker or bishop of their souls’ (1Pe 2:25, Lumby).”
A. T. Robertson commented on Acts 1:20:
“Our word bishopric (Authorized Version) is from this word, office of bishop (episcopos). Only that is not the idea here, but over-seership (episkopeo) or office as in 1 Pe 2:12. It means to visit and to inspect, to look over. The ecclesiastical sense comes later (1Ti 3:1).”
BT, you can cite as many scholars as you want (as I said, church tradition is replete with such teaching), but from my perspective the case is still exegetically weak. Acts 1:20 can just as easily be translated “oversight.” I am not finding any clear NT teaching for positional authority over God’s people.
Thanks Chris. Perhaps the issue of “office” has more to do with word preference than the nature of the ministry (as a point of reference, the BF&M uses the term office, and I’ve always taken that to mean “position”).
In addition to what David said in #62 and specifically what BT said in #63, “The office does not exclude the work,” I have this to say:
My concern primarily revolves around denying the legitimacy of the positions of elder and deacon. While I may agree with Kevin that the focus in 1 Tim. 3:1 is on the “work” of the elder, I wonder if the language he uses in comment #55 implies that only “service” exists in the body to the exclusion of “positions.”
I work in the HR field, so when we list qualifications, they are for a position. Am I reading that into 1 Timothy 3 or can we legitimately view the descriptions of elders and deacons as official positions within Christ’s church?
Kevin,
I find myself somewhat in the same position as Andrew, wondering what are the real day-to-day implications of this. I agree that, as “elders/overseers/pastors,” we are not to “lord it over” the flock. As I see it, this has everything to do with our attitude, and leadership style. But, does that mean that the (or, an officially recognized) position of leadership carries along with it no inherent authority at all?
I am curious as to how you would respond to my #62.
Andrew, the Greek term “archo” (i.e. “office”) refers to an authority by virtue of a “position.” If someone is in an “office” they carry a certain authority. It is used in the NT in terms of “ruler of the synagogue” (Mk 5:22), “rulers and authorities” (Lk 12:11; 20:20), “chief priest” (Matt 26:3), “chief tax collector” (Lk 19:2), human “rulers” (Acts 4:26), “masters” (Acts 16:19), and “rulers” in the Sanhedrin (Lk 23:13, 35). Satan is called “prince/ruler” of the demons (Matt 9:34) and “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; Eph 2:2).
In all of these usages, a person has “authority” over someone/something by virtue of their “position/office.” Jesus specifically forbade his followers from desiring or exercising such (Mk 10:41-45). Only Jesus carries such authority (Matt 28:18), and He alone is “ruler” (Rom 15:12) and “Prince” (Acts 5:31) over His people. He alone is “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5).
What is distinctly absent from the NT teaching, and from my perspective, a deliberate choice of the NT writers to distance God’s people from the earthly idea that anyone has “positional authority” (i.e. “office”) over God’s people except Christ alone. The only exception I can find is where Paul claimed to be “like a wise master builder” (1 Cor 3:10) that laid a foundation upon which others would build. There the term is used as an analogy (i.e. simile), rather than stating that he actually carried the position. The case could be made that as “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:1) Paul did possess positional authority. I don’t think any today could claim such.
From my understanding of the NT, people perform “ministries” rather than fill an office. Their ministries may be in terms of leadership of God’s people (such as “leading,” “oversight,” or “shepherding”), but we have no “high priests,” “master Christians,” or “chief Shepherds” save Christ alone (1 Pet 5:4). He calls us to be “servants,” not “rulers” (Lk 22:25-27). We lead God’s people by serving, not by exercising some positional authority.
(1) So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: (2) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; (3) not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3, ESV, emphasis mine)
Kevin,
It seems to me that you are mixing the wrongful exercise of authority with any exercise of authority. Whether you use the term “office” or not is really inconsequential when it comes to authority. I think there is “clear NT teaching for positional authority over God’s people.” The problem seems to be that we’re too afraid of domineering shepherds that we try to hinder elders from exercising any oversight. I’ll be the first to admit that pastors have been guilty of the sin mentioned in 1 Peter 5:3, and fortunately, in my experience, I saw the men in that congregation stand together and vote the man out. But just because some pastors violate the command Peter gives in verse 3 doesn’t mean we can violate an elder’s right mentioned in verse 2.
What do you think about this?
Everyone, I know this has nothing to do with the deaconate, but it seems to me that Kevin is focused on authority more so than position.
I think there are two equal dangers in this whole debate. We have often tended to wield authority in worldly ways, lording it over people, just as Jesus forbade.
There is an equally troubling tendency today, to discount the legitimacy of the exercise of authority at all. The author of “The Shack” does this, and some who have adopted his mindset do as well. They say that all exercise of authority is ungodly.
I think the truth lies in between those two extremes.
(I’m not accusing anyone in the debate of either fault).
David, does the authority reside in the “person” or in their “ministry”? Even Paul’s ministry was accepted only as it fell in line with scripture (Acts 17:10-11). He repeatedly asked his hearers, “What does the scripture say?” (Rom 4:3) and based his teaching on the authority of God’s word, rather than in his “position” as apostle. As Paul’s ministry lined up with God’s word, then the people were obligated to hear and respond accordingly. God’s people are required to respond to God’s word (Deut 18:18-19).
The difference may be subtle, yet in my perspective quite distinct. Elders are expected to “rule well” (1 Tim 5:17) and to be “examples to the flock” (1 Pet 5:3). Their “authority” does not come from their position, but rather from the godly exercise of their ministry. Those who continue to sin are to be “rebuked” (1 Tim 5:20).
Don’t get me wrong, leadership of God’s people has always been, and will always be, necessary. That’s why God specifically gifts people in these areas of ministry. The “diligent labor” of these people particularly pertains to “instruction” (1 Thes 5:12-13; Heb 13:7), teaching God’s people what God has spoken on the issue (2 Tim 3:16-17). My point, and I don’t seem to be making it well, is that the people have just as much access to the chief Shepherd and God’s word as does the undershepherd. The undershepherd is not to be respected because of his position, but because of the importance of his ministry and how well he fulfills it. The idea of “office” and “positional authority” tends to place more emphasis on the person rather than the ministry they perform, whether or not they perform it well. Those in leadership will be held to a “stricter judgment” (Jas 3:1).
Kevin,
I’m still interested in your response to my comment #62.
Also, maybe this gets at the nuance that seems to be provoking all the questions a little better:
Would you say that there are certain ways of “exercising oversight” (per 1 Peter 5, and Andrew’s comment) that would be appropriate for certain individuals, due to their recognized position of overseer, and, at the same time, inappropriate for others, due to their lack of having a recognized position of overseer?
The very first words recorded by Jesus was, “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. There is nothing more authoritative than the Word of God even if it is spoken by and thru a child. The pastor preaches the word and it is up to the recipiant to respond to God unless the recipiant is being disciplined. Authority beyond that would be lording as I understand it.
After I was saved I served with Pastor Johnny Pope here in Houston. We were going hunting one Saturday morning and he met us at the church at 4:30 AM and told us that God disturbed his sleep. He strongly recommended that we not go hunting and pointed out three (3) young men and said, “Especially, you.” Needless to say, we went and it was a disaster. We were caught by the game warden and threatened with $500 fine each. What saved us was that the three (3) young men were lost in about 5000 acres of fenceless forest. They were found by the next morning and much repentance occured. Did the pastor have authority to stop us? Maybe the three (3) young men needed a 40 year wilderness experience in one night. We need to know our pastor and his walk with God so when he speaks to us we hear God.
Brother Andrew,
Aspiring to overseer implies a role complicit with the qualifications set forth by the Apostle to Timothy and Titus and generally throughout all his other letters. There is no doubt a clear indication to the church that the Holy Spirit maintains and sustains men in the church to lead by feeding the Word for edification of all in the fellowship. In fact, the Apostle encouraged many of the men in the congregation to be qualified as such in order that everyone in the church knows how to conduct himself as they work together to support and testify to the truth.
So there is recognition of who these men are…. some call it an “office”. The Apostle seems to clarify it more as those that remain qualified. This certainly would upset and did upset the current leaders within the synagogues, because the “office” was not sustained like their “office”. This tension existed in the Roman church as well as others that Paul visited….and for good reason. If the “office” was not maintained by qualifications and the Spirit’s leading, then it was easy to fall back into the older more traditional legal structures.
But I do agree with you ….that the role of the overseer was held in high esteem based upon the qualifications of the men and their ability to rightly divide the Word of God for the edification of the congregation.
And then really all congregates are encouraged to aspire to live as Christ so that their lives qualify them to serve (as being servants, deacons) their brothers and sisters in all things especially being nourished in the Word of God. Obviously, some in the church needed to be served and many in the church did not qualify to be the ones doing the serving, just like today.
Blessings,
Chris
Let me give the following absurd example to illustrate what I am talking about. I am aware that many situations in our modern-day church life don’t match up to the NT context, so it is difficult to transpose them. But, just bear with me on this one.
Suppose that in FBC, Anytown, USA, Brother Johnny Jacobs, who is not recognized as pastor, or deacon, or anything else, but is a good faithful brother, with a good reputation, goes up to the pulpit at the beginning of the service (before the pastor is able to get there) and begins to welcome the people, leads out in prayer, and calls on Deacon Fred to come up and share a testimony. All of these things, in and of themselves, may be perfectly fine. But, since this is Johnny Jacobs doing this, and not the pastor, the people in the congregation will feel it is inappropriate. They will feel he is “usurping authority” (to use a good KJV term) that belongs to the pastor.
I guess there are “Quaker meetings” where everyone arrives, sits down, and waits on the Spirit to move, and each one leads out, one by one, as they sense the Spirit moving. Personally, I think this may not be a bad thing, every now and then. But, if church meetings were always this way, I think people would eventually grow tired of a lack of recognized supervisory authority. It is generally a good thing that the people know who is “in charge.” Yes, at the bottom line, it is God Himself who should be “in charge.” But, I believe He gifts certain people with leadership and administrative capabilities, and then, through the practice of due processes, expects them to exercise the gifting with which He gifts them.
Kevin, you said,
“What is distinctly absent from the NT teaching, and from my perspective, a deliberate choice of the NT writers to distance God’s people from the earthly idea that anyone has ‘positional authority’ (i.e. ‘office’) over God’s people except Christ alone.”
Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to equate office with dictatorship. I agree that Christ is to be the only dictator in our lives. He did, however, set an example for us in the area of servant leadership. The husband is to be the servant leader in the home (not a dictator), and pastors and deacons are to be servant leaders in the church (not dictators). The two biblical offices in the local church have particular qualifications and responsibilities, but whatever authority the officers have is delegated to them by the congregation. The congregation can remove people from their offices if they abuse their delegated authority. I’m sure you would agree with me that various leaders have differing leadership styles. Some are indeed oppressive dictators. That is not the biblical model. Interestingly, one of the spiritual gifts is that of administration/government (1 Corinthians 12:28). A key verb is in 1 Timothy 5:17: “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (NASB). The word “proistemi” is described by Robertson:
“That rule well – Presiding well, or well managing the spiritual interests of the church. The word rendered ‘rule’ – προεστωτες – is from a verb meaning to be over; to preside over; to have the care of. The word is used with reference to bishops, Tit 1:5, Tit 1:7; to an apostle, 1 Pe 5:1; and is such a word as would apply to any officers to whom the management and government of the church was entrusted.”
The word “rule” here clearly does not refer to a dictatorship.
P.S.: The same verb “proistemi” is used in 1 Timothy 3:4: “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity” (NASB). Thus, the candidate for the office of overseer should first be a good servant leader in his home before he is selected to be a servant leader in his local church. Robertson commented on verse 4:
“Ruling (proistamenon). Present middle participle of proistemi, old word to place before and (intransitive as here) to stand before.”
David, I will be glad to continue the conversation if you would like, but this seems to have turned into a tangent issue to the point of your original post. Obviously, from the NT teaching, certain people were designated as “elders,” “deacons,” “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelists,” “pastor/teachers,” etc. I consider all of these (as well as others) as God’s gifts to the church, with a specific calling, gifting, and responsibilities from God. But it seems to be the NT teaching that each of these people are known for what they do, rather than for a position they hold (cf. 1 Cor 12). Overseers “exercise oversight,” teachers teach, prophets prophesy, evangelists evangelize, pastors shepherd and teach, and deacons “deak.” The body recognizes the giftedness and calling, and empowers that person for service (Rom 12:4-8). But no matter whom they may be or what ministry role they play in the church, their authority comes simply from the word of God from which they minister. That’s why the teaching and preaching gifts are so important to the church.
What is interesting is that the NT deliberately leaves certain OT “authority metaphors” behind – as if they are inappropriate expressions among the NT church. As biblical as the metaphor of “king” was in the OT, it was deliberately left behind in the NT (as well as “prince” and “ruler”). This is my main problem with CEO model of the pastor so prevalent today. We find the same thing with the metaphor of “priest,” a mediator between God and people. With the great High Priest, we need no other mediator (1 Tim 2:5).
One OT metaphor for leadership that was deliberately carried over to the NT is that of “shepherd” (John 21:15-17; 1 Pet 5:1-5). By my interpretation, the multi-faceted and beautiful nuances of that metaphor stand today (lead, feed, protection, seeking the lost, etc.), specifically as we see them modeled by the Good Shepherd Himself. But we would also do well to beware foreign aspects (displayed in the other metaphors) that were deliberately left behind (Mark 11:41-45).
Kevin,
As you word it here (in comment 77), I have no problem at all. Perhaps (and I imagine this is the case), we have been saying the same thing all along. It’s just I have heard others saying things similar to what it seemed you were saying, and never really totally understood it. That is why I have pursued this so much. I wanted to be sure I understood the point you were making, which I had heard others making before.
For my part, I am fine to agree we have “beat this horse” enough. I am not sure if BT or Andrew (or anyone else) still have points they are interested in pursuing related to this. If so, I (as the author of the post) am perfectly fine with that. This “rabbit trail” has been instructive for me.
If not, let’s get back to discussing deacons…
Sorry, David, I was writing this as you were writing yours in 78. I think I spoke to your illustration in 74 in that the church needs to recognize the gifts. After all, God is not the author of confusion – especially not in worship. It is also the church’s responsibility to empower members for service and find appropriate outlets for them to use their gifts.
Now let me toss a scenario at you. I hold no ministry “position” in any of our churches, although I am quite universally recognized in my teaching ministry. Several years ago I was called upon by another church with which I had been sort of an “interim pastor” off and on for over six years. They were being beat up an abused by their present pastor, lauding his “authority” because he was the pastor. In one of the most heart-breaking times in my entire ministry, having no authority but the word of God, I confronted the pastor (which he spurned). I then led the church (against the pastor’s wishes) through a series of Bible studies I called “God’s Plumb Line for Ministers.” We studied many of the passages we have discussed today. At the end of this study, I asked them one question, “What is God’s judgment on this man and his ministry?” I felt the most telling remark was as we walked through the aspects of love in 1 Corinthians 13, one of the leaders said, “I don’t think our pastor has a one of these.”
Unanimously the church sensed that God had clearly removed His hand of blessing from this man and his ministry – regardless of his “position” as pastor. He held no “authority” over God’s people, because his life betrayed the very scriptures that he taught. His authority was not found in his office or his position, it was “ministry” he was called by God to perform. He betrayed that ministry, so the church dismissed him. Today he is out of the ministry, but he still insists on carrying the title of “pastor.”
Now, on to deacons . . .
BT, obviously “oversight” carries the connotation of leadership and management. Those ministries are clearly taught in the NT. In my opinion, however, what is not clearly taught is that these ministries are “offices” that carry inherent authority by virtue of a position.
By the way, I believe the “husband” metaphor has already been co-opted by someone who obviously does carry authority over the church (Eph 5:25-27). I don’t see that metaphor being used in the NT towards church leadership. The “father” metaphor may carry some more weight (1 Tim 3:4).
With your permission, I will now bow out of this discussion. Let’s allow David’s fine post on female deacons have its due consideration.
David and Kevin,
I would think that first we would want to establish whether or not there are New Testament offices, and later we could discuss whether or not women qualify for one or more of those offices. Under “Article VI. The Church” of the 2000 BF&M is the following:
“Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
Our confession of faith does not say whether women can be deacons, but it does specify that two offices exist. I am a pastor and meet the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, but I do not have all the relevant spiritual gifts. I wish I had the administration gift. All overseers must be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2), but they may not have a spiritual gift related to teaching. Thus, church offices are not defined by spiritual gifts; rather, they are defined by character, servant leadership, etc. Similarly, all Christians are to share the plan of salvation even though they may not have a spiritual gift specifically dealing with verbal proclamation.
Kevin, I have seen situations very similar to what you mentioned in comment 79 – the abuse of the office, the love of the power, becoming enamored of power, position and prestige rather than service and ministry. All too common.
Authority and the right to lead are earned. When I started my current role as pastor, I was given a certain amount of leadership power and authority. It did not last more than a few months. Any real authority I have after that has to be earned by serving the people of God for the glory of God.
David:
What would Adrian Rogers think?
I don’t mean this an evildoer or smart donkey’s rear end; but if the Bibleis inerrant and never changes and the conservative resurgence and its leaders were perfect diviners of its inerrant meaning, how come there were no women deacons at Bellevue in the 70′s and 80′s in the heart of things.
Looks to me like this is same slippery slope as Wade Burleson is on.
To change the subject a little; I thought Robert Parham and FBC Memphis were magnificent with their National showing on many ABC affiliates of http://www.differentbookscommonword.com documentary.
See what our Muslim brother Sayyid said in the presence of Roy Medley of BWA, Charles KimballofFurman and WakeForest in the clip at the site.
For timing andsignificance, I think itranks as Gettysburg Address stature for sentiment and simple eloquence.
Kevin,
I believe that an “elder/overseer/pastor” who abuses his authority should be dealt with according to 1 Timothy 5:19-20:
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”
From the way you describe the situation in comment #79, it appears to me you and the folks at the church who called you in were dealing with it accordingly. There are biblical checks and balances to a pastor’s authority, but that doesn’t mean that the position, in and of itself, has no corresponding authority at all. I would also agree that an “elder/overseer/pastor” may forfeit his authority by failing to live a life in accordance with the qualfications in 1 Timothy and Titus, and/or by teaching things that are not in accordance with the Word of God. Thus, the authority of the Word trumps any authority inherent in the position. As I said earlier, though, I think we are basically saying the same thing.
Stephen,
It is true my father did not have women identified by the title “deacon” at the churches he pastored. I don’t remember hearing him ever argue forcefully against women deacons, though, especially if understood in the way I am explaining it here. It is possible I am forgetting something here, or that I was just not present, though. In any case, I have never claimed to agree on 100% of every detail of biblical interpretation with my dad, and I never sensed that he would be ashamed of me because of that. Also, I think my father would admit that, in some practices, he (and the churches he pastored) were led by traditions, and not strictly by Scripture. I do think, however, he tried, as best as possible, to not go against Scripture. I also think that we all (including myself) have blind spots where we don’t see how we are not clearly following Scripture on this or that.
I don’t agree with you that I am on any “slippery slope,” especially since I have held this view of “female deacons” for some time now. If anything, I am continually trying to understand Scripture better, and more consistently put it into practice. Thus, any “slope” I am on, hopefully, is a slope towards being more biblical.
Also, I think it is significant (though not crucial, for me) that the view I espouse here is not inconsistent with the BF&M 2,000, nor with the view held by the majority of the scholars connected with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (at least from what I can tell, from browsing their website, and doing a search on “deaconess” and “Phoebe”).
As far as Wade Burleson is concerned, I will have to let him speak for himself.
Kevin,
I haven’t been able to be online since yesterday afternoon, so to sum up what I’m saying, I agree wholeheartedly with David’s comment in #84.
Any positional authority that the pastor has comes from the Word, and the Word is the ultimate authority for all matters of faith and practice. Likewise, any authority the congregation has over the pastor comes from the Word. Because of the supremacy of the Word in establishing authority, pastors can exercise authority in accordance to their position (1 Pet. 5:2) and congregations can reign in pastoral authority when it steps outside the bounds (1 Pet. 5:3).
That’s my view, and like David said, I think we’re basically in agreement once we get past the semantics.
Stephen,
“but if the Bible is inerrant and never changes and the conservative resurgence and its leaders were perfect diviners of its inerrant meaning”
Surely this was written with sarcasm?
Dave: I like your comment about transliteration vs translation. If the words had simply been translated I doubt we’d be having this discussion. You are wiser than I would normally credit a Yankee’s fan.
The Claremont Pulitzer and David Rogers
David: Thanks for you thorough reply to my assertions above.
Sincerely, I do think the Fall 99 Claremont Review of novels and essays of Marilynne Robinson would be well worth your time as we both have high regard for the “traditions”, the baptist religious culture passed on to us by our fathers. We differ about the politic of it all in the last 30 years.
Miller in the Claremont Review grounded in the work of Robinson is as eloquent as anything I have seen on that matter.
Call the Memphis Barnes and Noble and have them hold a copy for you. I saw the issue as recently as 7 days ago.
It is not online, though Claremont has a website.
Would love to see you blog on the article; if the likes of you, Jim Henry’s daughter Kate Campbell, and famed UVA proff and Civil Rights journalist and author Charles Marsh were as Southern Baptist Preacher’s children of your era ever to panel on the era you and I have skirted on occasion, a working conversation of Robinson’s notions as reviewed in Claremont would add considerable substance.
As for Wade Burleson speaking for himself; even though you both signed the Memphis Declaration just a few years ago, I think you would have to agree the guts of what your Dad sat in motion in the Conservative Resurgence, has sidelined his “free conscience” in the shaping of the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention as it has evolved just in thelast ten years, the era of BFM 2000.
Stephen,
Sorry, but the Fall 99 edition of the Claremont Review doesn’t rank anywhere near the top of my priority reading list for the time being, unless you can do a better job of convincing me why it should.
As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I don’t really understand what you are trying to say.
Correction; Fall 2009 on Newstands now
I said 99 and I apologize. Hopefully you or some friend who sees this will see it on Newstands and encourage you to put it on your reading list very soon.
After the recommend I explored the website. It is a very conservative publication and I was taken aback a little.
Even so, I was favorably impressed with Cheryl Miller’s review and highly recommend.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/
I don’t know if it will happen, but would be very interesting to have the likes of you, Kate Campbell and Charles Marsh in open public discussion. All of you are civil folks, in fact you and Kate are children of members of the SBC Peace Committee; and Marsh’s Dad was pastor of key SBC PC Member Charles Pickering, the Laurel, Ms judicial nominee of President Bush 43
For lack of other Biblical examples, should we assume that “The Seven” should be considered the model for deacon ministry? That is, should the idea of caring primarily for physical needs within the church be the responsibility of the deacons?
I know you didn’t want to add extrabiblical evidences from the early church, but did they have any writings pertaining to the specific activities of deacons?
Andrew,
As I stated in my post, I don’t think the Seven should be considered as “the model” for deacon ministry. That doesn’t mean, however, that they cannot be considered as “a model.” In other words, I think the type of ministry to which they dedicated themselves was one specific example, of among a number of possible tasks to which deacons might dedicate themselves. In our churches, today, there are many more practical tasks than just caring for physical needs. However, we should definitely do our best to take care of physical needs. And, as I understand it, deacons should indeed lead out in doing this.
As far as your question on early church history, the following long quote from Clark’s book, “Man and Woman in Christ,” which I have referenced earlier, may be helpful. The link again, if you want to read it in context is:
http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Man-and-Woman-in-Christ/The-People-Service-and-Position
Here is the quote:
“Charitable Service
Charitable service focuses on care for the needy-the poor, the sick, and travelers (visitors). Charitable service was a major activity among the early Christians and was perhaps the main form of Christian service. In an affluent society with an institutionalized welfare system, the significance of directly helping the needy is often overlooked as a form of Christian service. Yet descriptions of the life of the early church indicate that charitable service demanded more time and energy from the Christian people than anything else except raising families. As with prophecy and teaching, both men and women participated actively in charitable service.
Much charitable service among early Christians flowed directly from the life of the family. As noted in the previous discussion of family life, the household would serve the needy through the distribution of alms and through taking in guests and orphans. However, the Christian community as a whole also did charitable service. The people who assumed a special responsibility for charitable service were the deacons (servants) and the widows (possibly with deaconesses). . It cannot be said decisively that deacons and widows were the only ones who actively performed charitable service on behalf of the community, although there is no evidence of others doing so before the rise of the ascetic movement and the Christian charitable institution in the fourth century.(8) The evidence for charitable service in the wider Christian community of the early centuries points solely to the work of deacons and widows.
The deacons were the men in the community who bore the active responsibility of caring for the needy. The deacons were responsible for many other matters as well, but the early church orders indicate that the care of widows and orphans was the most time-consuming of their responsibilities. The New Testament passages that speak about the activity of men in charitable service are likely speaking about deacons when they are not referring to heads of households. In Acts 6, the “seven” are appointed to care for the daily distribution to the widows. The passage itself is not completely clear in its interpretation, since the seven may not have been deacons. But since the time of Irenaeus, Acts 6 has been commonly viewed as the description of the appointment of the first deacons. Regardless of title, the “seven” must have performed some kind of diaconal service. The other indication we have of men doing charitable service is Romans 12:8, again a passage that is not perfectly clear in its interpretation, but which likely refers to deacons.(9) These sketchy indications in scripture can be filled out by later descriptions of deacons. While much charitable service in the early Christian community was conducted through the household, some needs were not easily handled by households. The deacons administered the community care for the needy. The bishop received contributions and distributed them through the deacons to the widows, orphans, and other needy. The deacons, working under the bishop, saw that people were provided for and they distributed financial and material resources to those in need.
Two passages, one in Acts and the other in the pastoral epistles, treat the women’s activity in charitable service. Acts contains the following description of Tabitha:
Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas or Gazelle. She was full of good works and acts of charity. (Acts 9:36)
Her works of charity or mercy had something to do with making clothes for the poor (v. 39), and the way the other widows gathered around her (v. 39) indicates that she was probably one of the widows in the community.(10) The second passage occurs in 1 Timothy and concerns the enrollment of widows. The text reads:
Honor widows who are real widows. If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; whereas she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command this, so that they may be without reproach. If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband; and she must be well attested for her good deeds, as one who has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, relieved the afflicted, and devoted herself to doing good in every way. But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, gadding about from house to house, and not only idlers but gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her assist them; let the church not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are real widows. (1 Tm 5:3-16)
Widows were a recognized group or order in the early church. The passage reveals that widows were enrolled so that they could be supported financially, but also that all widows were not provided for in this way. The order of widows had some further functions in the life of the Christian community than just to provide for needy widows. The description of the “true widow” in verse 5 makes it clear that a central part of the widow’s activity was prayer and intercession. Post-New Testament descriptions of the order of widows in the early Christian community confirm that prayer and intercession was one of the main, if not the main, activity of the widow. In addition, the qualifications of a good candidate include a reputation for charitable work. Once more the later descriptions of the order of widows confirm that widows were responsible for much charitable service to the needy.(11)
The deacons and widows served the needy in different ways. In general, they served in a way consistent with the distinction-made in Chapter Four—between the provider and the one who serves the immediate need. The deacons, who were men, filled the role of 11 provider.” They supervised the help given to the needy in the community, making sure that money, food, and other supplies were distributed. The widows served the needy more immediately. They made clothes for them, nursed the sick, visited homes, and notified the bishop or deacons when they discovered cases of need. Both men and women did charitable service, but their roles in this service differed. This role difference was analogous to the role difference in the family.”
David,
During the last fifteen years I usually travel to Los Angeles and Grace Community Church for a Shepherd’s conference to learn and worship with other men from around the world. Grace Community is a good example of deacons (around 700) in the church, of which a portion of those (several hundred) serve us during the week of our visit.
One thing that is important in the life of the deacon at Grace is their affirmation process. All men and women that are qualified and do serve are affirmed and inspected each year by the entire congregation through prayer and encouragement as they minister. So, it is important that godly men and women remain qualified to serve Christ and His flock.
Good discussion going here….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Back a number of years ago, I listened to the audio files (cassette tapes, actually) of one of the Shepherds Conferences. Pretty good stuff. That is interesting to know about how they handle deacons. I appreciate the effort to be as biblical as possible, and not bound to tradition.
Stephen,
Okay, I clicked on the link to the Claremont Review. I’m sure that, in it’s category, it is interesting stuff. Mostly, politics, economics, etc. It’s just that it’s not really within my main areas of interest, which center more around biblical theology, ecclesiology, evangelism, discipleship, missions… And, as we each have a limited amount of time and energy… Hope you understand.
David, thanks for taking a look at the Claremont site. The ideology of the publication and think tank is not the point; the point is the Cheryly Miller review of Marilynne Robinson listed in the Fall 2009 issue.
The review is not online, but should still be available in your local Barnes and Noble; about a 30 minute read.
It is strong and goes to the heart of where you and I many children of ministers are, though the novels are not our particular story. But her novels as parable speak to us specifically and the things that haunt us, often for the good as we succeed and falter carrying on versions of a glorious tradition.
Like you, I often resist the suggestions of other folks cause like you I have a pretty good idea of what interests me and have strong notions of what is worthy of my time.
Not trying to convert you to be a follower of a Pulitzer novelist; just hoping you will risk this one exploration as I am convinced you will find some resonance there and we can find some common ground; even a fertile reference for future conversation maybe even an anchor in marginal community as we continue to agree to disagree about a myriad of other particulars.
Selah
Stephen,
Thanks. That approach is indeed a bit more intriguing to me. Maybe, next time I’m in Barnes and Noble, I’ll try to remember to check it out. My oldest son likes to go with me to Barnes and Noble, by the way. They have a Starbucks, too.
Everyone,
I have not read all the comments, but would you folks agree that the issue [I think you'll know what I am talking about] comes down to this?:
Only Functional vs. both Functional and Positional
Everyone,
Now that I have seem more of how the comment stream has evolved, I think it might be better to ignore answering my question.
I really like how you folks [at least most of you I think] discuss things.
Benji,
Are you referring to churches that allow women to function as deacons vs. churches who also recognize these women as occupying the position of deacon? If so, I agree that is pretty much the issue. I think just about all SB churches allow women to function as deacons, at least, in the way I understand what that means. Do you have any further input?
(sorry in advance, David)
CB Scott – be glad that you get to play a patsy like Texas on Thursday instead of having to face the true talent of the Iowa Hawkeyes. Ingram wouldn’t gain more than 30 yards.
David,
Maybe what I was talking about could be applied to that particular issue, but I was talking about the more broad topic of “offices vs. no offices” in the N.T issue.
Benji,
OK. That makes more sense, now.
David,
Do you think that the church (whether male or female) is better off by thinking that since anyone can serve, (in other words, anyone can get assigned a task within the body), it is healthy for the body to refer to them as deacon, kind of in the sense as some might say “we already have those folks but don’t refer to them by that name”.
The reason that scenario comes to mind, is that I have seen men or women be given tasks in the church just to keep them busy, not necessarily that they meet the Apostles qualification to serve. There is an important need for the church to have “qualified and prayed over deacons” (not necessarily “ordained” – which means many things to many people)
I know in my earlier years of ministry, I would sit idly by watching our deacons (men in most cases in the SBC) be voted into a program of rotation, because of popularity or whatever else, even though their lives were a mess, and many in the community and the church viewed their sin on a daily basis. What if those guys are in place when you arrive, and “they” vote you in as pastor?
Have you seen this before? And, if so, what are some potential downsides of having unqualified deacons?
Blessings,
Chris
I think another piece that Chris brings up (whether intentionally or not) is the fact that deacons had to meet certain qualifications to serve. I know that we have plenty of people in our church who didn’t necessarily go through a “1 Timothy 3″ qualification process to serve, such as women in the nursery or people on the music team.
I know it’s been stated that most churches have people functioning as deacons without the title, but should we really have people “functioning” as deacons without going through a “1 Timothy 3″ qualification process? Shouldn’t these people know they are going to be (or should be) judged by those standards?
I guess my issue is that we are all called to serve one another, but we are not all called to serve as deacons. We’ve mentioned how the Scriptures don’t give us a lot of guidance on a deacon’s ministry, which has lead to some comments basically saying that anyone with an official role in the church is a “deacon,” but we recognize that the deaconate has high standards placed upon it, so there should be a distinction between “Christian service” and “Deacon ministry.” How do we determine what is officially a “deacon ministry” and what is not? Do we hold the janitor to the same standards as the guy who organizes inner-city food & clothing donations?
My last question brings up another one: Have we “contracted out” the deacon ministry to parachurch organizations? I’m thinking in regard to homeless shelters, food pantries, etc.
Chris & Andrew,
Good questions. While everyone in the church ought to be striving to meet the biblical qualifications for deacons (or even for overseers, for that matter), we know that not everyone does. At the same time, all of the members of the Body have at least one spiritual gift, and Paul, in Eph. 4:16, says: “the WHOLE BODY, joined and held together by EVERY supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as EACH PART does its work.”
I don’t know about you, but I feel a bit of a biblical tension here. Not a contradiction, but a tension. We should seek to get as many as possible (ideally, every member) plugged in, and involved in ministry. Yet, there are certain spiritual qualifications for occupying a position of recognized ministry. Maybe it is just this tension that opened the door for some of the excesses we have now, such as ordination, special privileges for certain groups, and the clergy/laity divide.
I could foresee a problem if everyone in the church who was spiritually qualified was recognized as a deacon, and everyone who has not, was not. You would basically, then, have a two-class system, the spiritual “haves” and the spiritual “have-nots.”
I’ve got to go, now, so I’ll leave it there for now. More to come later…
It seems to me that the person was first to be full of the Spirit and the qualifications separated them in order for their service to be pure. At least, that is what I see into the whole scheme of things. When I think of the first step being filled with the Spirit I have to assume that those who were selecting or recommending would be too. Because it would take one to know one. (That’s in the Bible somewhere) With that, a church that functioned along those guidelines would have an advantage over one who scrutinized the qualifications for a deacon more.
Andrew,
Yes, it was intentional…. Remaining qualified to serve the body, whether overseer or deacon, in leading and/or serving the Saints in other words, is the premium I believe the Apostle is bringing to the surface for Timothy and Titus.
As believers, we are commanded to love one another. Which certainly implies showing love one to another as well as serving. Yet, not all are qualifying daily to lead Christ’s church. The church must be very deliberate here.
Sometimes we may miss that it is God’s kind intention to allow us to qualify and serve in the church…thus by His intent and His premium we see the church edifying and growing up in Christ when we pay attention to His commands and to His qualifications.
All the church is held to uphold what God has laid out for the church through the Apostle in 1 Timothy. If she does not, she suffers and will not bring glory to God in the process. So qualified men and women that lead and serve the body in accordance to God’s standands should be a high priority.
Blessings,
Chris
I agree with Scott. There’s no way that a woman can be a Deacon and be true to the teachings of Scripture. I also can see BT(Mike Morris) view of “women” in 1 Tim. 3 as being a whole separate thing. I can see what he’s saying that these may be the women who are older in the faith who should teach the younger women to love their husbands and to raise their children, etc. I can see them being addressed here, as BT says. He could be right. I personally believe that it’s talking about the Deacon’s wife, but I can see his point.
I cant see anyone’s point justifying a woman as a Deacon, and them being true to the clear teachings of the Bible. To have women as Deacons is just another attempt to melt the clear teachings of the Bible to fit into today’s “women’s lib” philosophy.
David
I use the analogy given in the “Parable of the Talents” in Matt 25:14-29. The master gave a certain measure of responsibility to each servant, “each according to his own ability” (v. 15). As each servant proved “good and faithful,” they were rewarded and given more responsibility. Any that proved unfaithful with their responsibility, lost even that privilege of service (vv. 28-29).
I assume that part of our responsibility as Christ’s servants is our own personal holiness. We are daily to “work out” our salvation “with fear and trembling” because God is purposing to do that through us (Phil 2:12-13). In the church we are to seek to provide responsibilities for service according to the ability of each. As the members prove good and faithful in their responsibility (including their personal spiritual walk) the church should recognize those and give them more responsibility. This is part of the “testing” process for deacons (1 Tim 3:9). The expectation is that they will “serve well” (v. 13), and this is best determined beforehand by their faithfulness of service up to that point.
I’ll pick up here where I left off in comment 107…
One thing almost all of us who have been in positions of responsibility in a local church have had to wrestle with is who do you allow to carry out certain ministry tasks in the context of church life. Some cases are no-brainers. Everyone, in their day-to-day life, should be constantly carrying out random acts of kindness to those around them, both within the congregation, as well as without. It would make no sense to say that, since believer “X” does not yet meet the biblical qualifications for being a deacon that he/she cannot serve others in these day-to-day practical ways.
Another thing is giving people responsibilities for certain ministries. But, within the church, there all sorts of different ministry responsibilities. These range from sweeping floors, cleaning toilets, playing instruments for music in church meetings, running the sound equipment, collecting and counting offerings, to making suggestions and decisions about church budgets, teaching Bible studies, leading the congregation in singing, etc., etc. To say that the spiritual qualifications for each and every one of these roles is the same is probably a stretch, as well.
I understand well the concerns of those who get all antsy whenever we talk about pragmatic factors influencing the way we do things in church. However, I think there are certain things Scripture is clear about. On these things, we can never let pragmatic concerns overrule. But then, there are other things on which Scripture is not so clear, and on which, it seems to me, we have a certain degree of liberty to carry out in a way that best suits the NT purposes and functions of the church in general.
What are these purposes and functions? We could do a whole series of posts (or a book) on this. But, in general, we could include the 5 purposes mentioned by Warren in The Purpose-Driven Church (and others in other places): worship, teaching, service, evangelism, and fellowship (I don’t remember off-hand if that is exactly how he worded it). We could talk about whatever leads to mutual edification. We could talk about whatever helps the greatest amount of members to put their spiritual gifts into practice. We could talk about what puts the least amount of unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of the people we are trying to reach with the gospel.
So, all in all, I don’t think the NT gives us set rules for exactly who may carry out each and every one of the various ministry roles in everyday church life. But, we do have these general principles. And, each one of us, from within the particular context in which the Lord has placed us, must do the best job we can at consistently applying these principles in the decisions we make.
Volfan, what you will find here in the discussion is neither an “attempt to melt the clear teachings of the Bible to fit into today’s ‘women’s lib’ philosophy” nor an attempt to escape “the clear teachings of the Bible.” For one, I don’t believe that anyone here in this discussion is seeking to import a foreign philosophy to the scripture, nor are they seeking to discount any biblical teaching on the subject. Rather, we are seeking to wrestle with what we perceive as a “biblical tension” (as David used the term in another context in #107).
The tension actually comes from the teaching of Paul. “Deacons must be husbands of one wife” (1 Tim 3:12), therefore, obviously a man. Yet Paul commends “Phoebe, who is a deacon (not “deaconess”) of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Rom 16:1). The weight of the biblical evidence is that the term here means “deacon” and not simply “servant.”
Now, Volfan, dedicated Christians and Baptist brethren around the world have struggled with that tension. Many have women deacons in cultures that have never heard of “women’s lib.” For one passage to overrule the other is a matter of biblical interpretation, because “the clear teachings of the Bible” are in tension. You are welcome to state your interpretation and give your reasons for it, but please be more gracious in your critique of those who interpret the tension differently than you. Both are probably valid attempts to be true to the teachings of scripture.
Volfan David,
You say you agree with Scott. That is fine. That is your prerogative as a Bible student trying to understand and submit to Scripture as well as you know how. I have no problem with that.
However, here you provide no real evidence for your reasons for taking the view you do. Scott was attempting to give his reasons. And, I was attempting to discuss with him the reasons why his reasons didn’t make sense to me. I don’t know if Scott is still reading this comment stream, but, if he is, he is welcome to continue to dialogue about his points.
In any case, David, if you want to pick up where Scott left off, please feel welcome. But, I would ask you to answer the points I made to him, and not just say, “I agree with Scott, and that settles it,” or something like that.
Also, as I see it, Scott’s position, and BT Mike’s position, are mutually contradictory. So, it is inconsistent to try to play both sides to the middle. Personally, I see more validity in BT Mike’s position than I do in Scott’s. But, for the reasons I gave to BT Mike, I don’t think his solution is as good as mine, either.
In any case, if you want to discuss from Scripture, with sound exegetical evidence, this matter, I am more than happy to oblige you, and even (as best as I am able to know my heart before God) am open to changing my mind on this, if you can show me where I am wrong.
But, I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I am attempting to “melt the clear teachings of the Bible to fit into today’s ‘women’s lib’ philosophy.” Once again, as best as I am able to know my heart before God, that is most assuredly not what I am trying to do. I am just trying to understand Scripture, and be as faithful as possible in consistently carrying out what it really says.
Brother Vol,
I agree with you in the fact that a deacon is either a male only, or is a male and/or female. If one believes that the best interpretation and translation of 1 Timothy 3:11 is “wives of”, instead of “women”, then it is obvious that the translation that the teacher will choose and teach from is “male only”.
On the other hand, if “wives”, or “so must their wives” is not the best translation, then it is best to examine why.
The Greek word translated “even so” is same word translated “in like manner” in verse 8, and it indicates that we are now introduced to a third category of people. The King James Version says, “Even so must their wives.” This assumes much…because there’s no word in Greek we could always translate as “wives.” Verse 11 uses gunaikeios, which means “women.” Paul didn’t say, “their women,” as if referring to the deacons wives. The Greek text literally says, “Likewise women.” The question though (and where teachers will lay their foundation for or against at this point) is what women is Paul referring to?
Yet as the KJV poorly translates the Greek text, since it’s very unlikely there’d be qualifications for the “wives of deacons” and not for the wives of elders. Additionally, the use of “likewise” in verse 11 helps us understand that Paul is introducing a new category, just as he did in verse 8: first overseers, likewise deacons, likewise women. So it is entirely possible that the church is to recognize that there are women in the church who may serve in a “qualifying servant” capacity.
To avoid confusion, why didn’t Paul refer to those women as deaconesses? Because there’s no Greek word introduced. Phoebe is called a deacon in Romans 16:1 because there’s no feminine form of diakonos. The only other word Paul could have used would have been diakonos, but we would not have known that he was referring to women. Another has put it this way…. “clearly Paul introduced another category of deacons: what we have come to know as deaconesses. I prefer to call them women deacons because that maintains the New Testament terminology.”
If the service of deacon is seen as overseeing….I can certainly agree with you that confusion would ensue. But the deacon is not an overseer. The role of overseer is clear and distinctive from that of deacon. There is a lot of confusion among SBC churches when it comes to deacons and overseers. Many churches use the deacon board to censure and control the overseer / pastors (and if the pastors don’t like it…suddenly it becomes God call on their life to move to another building down the road),…so there is no doubt a lot of confusion on the subject, yet for the wrong reasons.
Blessings,
Chris
Everyone,
In my rude, abrupt way, I told you what I think. I think that Scott is right on this issue. I do think that it’s talking aobut the wife of a Deacon in this passage. If Paul was talking about women Deacons, or Deaconettes, then why would he divide the women from the men. In other words, he was talking about Deacons starting in v. 8. If women were included, why would he feel the need to mention “women” in v. 11? And, if women were included in the Deacon body, then why would Paul go from women in v. 11, and then say very clearly that Deacons should be one women men????????? To make v. 11 mean women Deacons is a huge stretch…so big of a jump that it falls into the canyon. Thus, my rude statement, which I believe is behind much of why people try to have women as Deacons or Pastors in this modern age, about women’s lib. Was this a discussion 1800 years ago? Was this something that was debated 250 years ago? Was this something that was debated 100 years ago?
Bart, are you out there? in the history of the Church, how often was this debated, or how often was someone wondering if women should be deacons or pastors? Can you help me here? Cuz around my neck of the woods, this was not even something that people debated until the 1960′s ushered in the big changes to our culture here in the USA. And then, all of a sudden, people are concerned with such matters. In the 70′s and 80′s around my area, the only Churches that had women Deacons were very liberal.
Now, David R., about the Mike Morris thing. What I said was that I can see where Mike Morris is coming from. I dont agree with him. I never said that Scott’s position and Mike’s position go together. What I said was that I can see where Mike is coming from. In other words, I can see how his theory of these verses could be true. I dont agree with Mike, which I also said in my comment above, but I can see where his view has Biblical validity. I can see where this might mean a totally different group of people…”the Women.” I dont agree with him, but I do think that someone could see it this way, and still be true to the teachings of the Scripture. That’s all.
So, in my blunt, rude way…which I did not intend, BTW…I was sharing with you what I thought. I agree with Scott. I can see where Mike is coming from. I dont agree with Mike. And, I think that people trying to see women being Deacons stems from our societies obsession with women being allowed to fulfill different roles than which the Bible tells them to fill….not saying that David R. has these motives, but that he has been influenced by our society to think that way…maybe even a subconscious thing; but still what drives these types of discussions by different people. Kind of like Wade’s insistence that women can be Pastors.
David
Chris, you said,
“Verse 11 uses gunaikeios, which means ‘women.’”
Bauer’s Greek Lexicon (BAGD) says the word can mean women or wives. For “women” he uses the following passages as examples: Acts 5:14, 8:3; 1 Corinthians 11:1-15. For “wives” he uses Matthew 5:28,31; Matthew 14:3; Matthew 18:25; Luke 1:5,13,18,24; 1 Corinthians 7:2, 9:5; Ephesians 5:22ff; Colossians 3:18ff.
Of these passages, the ones talking about Elizabeth (Luke 1:5ff) being the wife (not a mistress or a kept woman) of Zacharias are particularly convincing, as is 1 Corinthians 9:5 in mentioning Peter’s wife.
You also said,
“Phoebe is called a deacon in Romans 16:1 because there’s no feminine form of diakonos.”
Again, remember that Jesus was called a servant or minister using the word “diakonos” in the previous chapter (Romans 15:8). The word does not always refer to the office of deacon.
Brother Vol,
Certainly, most bible scholars will want to argue that women have been deacons from the first century. The SBC BFM2000 has used wisdom in its approach of the subject in the section about the church in that it does not throw a shadow on the women serving the church in this capacity. Although there is prejudice from church to church in the covention concerning the subject. But it is clearly delineated in the BFM, per scriptural context, the role and gender of the overseer compared to the deacon to be separate and distinct. I’m fairly sure that this controversy over deacons though will no doubt remain in the church until she is glorified.
Blessings,
Chris
P.S.: The passage on divorcing one’s wife is also convincing (Matt. 5:31-32). How can you divorce a woman who is not your wife?
BT,
If v.11 should be translated as “wives,” why do you suppose there are no qualifications for the wives of elders?
Brother BT,
I with you here….especially on the last point.
I would put “women” in the first position over “wives” at this point though with the Apostles treatment of “women” that spiritually qualify to service in the church. There are definitely good arguments in both directions. I tend to agree with the term “women” in this context based upon the foundation text in chapter 2 leading up to the qualifications.
It seems to me that most of the argumentation and emotion on the subject is centered around the official “office” terminology, and not so much the qualification to serve in an official capacity as affirmed by the church.
Blessings,
Chris
I found this online commentary from a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. He lists each of the views we’ve discussed (that the Greek word refers to either 1) deacons’ wives, 2) women deacons, or 3) other women in the church). Perhaps it will help you clarify your thoughts. Perhaps not.
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/1timothy.pdf
Another thing, BT, is this: a wife is always a woman, but a woman is not always a wife. I don’t think this passage necessitates “wives” as being the proper rendering.
Brother BT,
I use 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the contextual foundation for interpreting the following segment from 1 Timothy 3:1-13. It is almost like the Apostle never took more than two breaths as he was explaining this to Timothy.
In the previous section (chapter 2), the Apostle uses the same terms and the manner of interpretation is consistent (throughout most translations) with respect to “women” that follow all the way through 3:13. Several translations seem to change the use of “women” from chapter 2 into “wives” in chapter 3, which are probably more culturally biased in 1611AD than was written in 55AD.
The fact of the usage of women and woman in chapter 2 also carries forward definitively the exclusivity of men as overseer…..so God through the Apostle Paul has not changed his mind about a woman’s role in the church. Specifically and normatively that she not oversee the church.
Blessings,
Chris
I find it interesting that on Biblegateway every version in Spanish, with the exception of the NIV’s counterpart, tranlsate the word as “women,” including the Reina-Valera, which predates the 1611 KJV.
Deacons are servants. Woman are servants. Women are deacons, whether we call them that or not. The question has been asked several times: Why have standards for deacon’s wives and not elder’s wives? That makes absolutely no sense.
A church can have women deacons and still be bible believing, inerrantist, conservative, and in line with the BFM.
I’d like to see someone answer Dave Miller’s earlier comment. If the translators of our various versions (who I think we can agree are not inerrant) use the word servant rather than the transliteration “deacon”, do you think we would be restricting women?
Andrew,
I think the deal with the Spanish translations is that the term “mujeres” in Spanish can mean either “women” or “wives” according to context, just like γυναικας in Greek. So, it is generally seen as a preferable translation to “esposas,” which could only mean “wives” (or “handcuffs,” but that’s another discussion
).
David Volfan,
As I have mentioned earlier, I do think Paul was making some distinction between deacons who were men, and deacons who were women. That is the explanation for why, in v. 8, he originally addresses the men, in v. 11 addresses the women, and then, in v. 12, addresses the men again. They are two different sub-groups (male deacons, and female deacons) within one general category (deacons). I don’t see that as a far stretch. And, neither have plenty of Greek scholars (including many with very conservative convictions, and even supporters of the general agenda of Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) with far more knowledge than either you or me. Do you want to accuse these scholars of making “so big of a jump that it falls into the canyon,” as well?
And, by the way, from my research, 1800 years ago, there were plenty of people who accepted “deaconesses” in the church. The references to deaconesses are quite common in the first 3 to 4 centuries of the early church. Do you have any evidence that shows anything different?
Also, before you write me off as liberal on this question, I think it might be good for you to think: #1) do you have women who function as “deacons” (in the way I am describing them here in this post) in your church, even though you don’t call them that? If so, what’s the big deal about calling them “deacons,” which is really just a synonym for “servants”?: #2) Do you not see the point I am making about how translating γυναικας as “women” instead of “wives” really makes a strong case against female elders/overseers/pastors? Is it really in your interest to throw out this evidence, if that is what the Bible really does seem to be saying?
For what it’s worth, here is a section from the article “Paul and His Coworkers” written by E. Earle Ellis in the “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters” (IVP, 1993), 185.
Minister (Diakonos). The term “diakonos” occurs in close connection with the above designations [i.e. coworker (synergos), brother (adelphos)] (1 Cor 3:5, 9; 2 Cor 6:1, 4) but has a somewhat more specialized meaning. It is probably best rendered “minister” since it refers to workers with special activities in preaching and teaching, both among Paul and his coworkers (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; Eph 3:7-8; Col 1:7, 23; 1 Tim 4:6) and among his opponents (2 Cor 11:15, 23). Like “the brothers,” the diakonoi serve in local congregations (Rom 16:1; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8) as well as on missionary circuits and, as teachers, they are mentioned as deserving of pay (Gal 6:6).
Andrew, you asked,
“If v.11 should be translated as ‘wives,’ why do you suppose there are no qualifications for the wives of elders?”
I prefer “women” over “wives” in verse 11. My point was that the word can have either meaning, depending on context. Sometimes the context is very clear. In verse 11, the context is not as clear as it is in other passages. I opt for “women” in verse 11.
Chris, you said,
“I use 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the contextual foundation for interpreting the following segment from 1 Timothy 3:1-13. It is almost like the Apostle never took more than two breaths as he was explaining this to Timothy.”
I agree. The close proximity of the two passages is important. The word “women” makes more sense than “wives” in the first passage, and it seems to me that Paul would have been consistent in his usage in two passages so close together.
BT,
Not trying to be obnoxious, but I can’t remember if you ever gave me a reason why you think (according to your interpretation) Paul inserted v. 11 in between vv. 8-10 and 12-13, instead of immediately after v. 13. Do you have a viable explanation for this?
David, I can’t do anything but speculate about that brief statement on women in verse 11. He did something similar in Ephesians 2:5 where the NASB puts the following in parentheses: “By grace you have been saved.” He then expands on that brief statement in 2:8-9. Possibly the Holy Spirit inspired him to briefly mention women in 1 Timothy 3:11 as a third, unnamed category so that there would be flexibility in the future for church staff members like my wife. He probably had the widows in mind in his historical era as I said in comment #17:
In Paul’s day, he applied verse 11 to widows that were at least 60 years old (1 Timothy 5:7-10). As overseers (3:2) and deacons (3:10) were to be blameless, these widows were to be blameless (5:7). As overseers (3:2) and deacons (3:12) were to be one-woman men or one-wife husbands, the widows were to be one-man women or one-husband wives (5:9). As overseers (3:4) and deacons (3:8) were to be reverent, these women were to be reverent (3:11).
The parallels in the three categories (overseers, deacons, women) are unmistakable.
BT Mike,
Now, I remember what you said earlier. As Agrippa said to Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me…”
But, I will make my point on this once more, and then desist. Even if Paul was making a parenthetical point in chapter 3 that he picks up on later in chapter 5, when he talks about the widows, it would still have made better sense for him to have brought these women up (whether female deacons or widows) after finishing giving the qualifications of deacons. There is no reason I can think of for including this reference embedded within the section on deacons, other than that Paul regarded these women as “deacons” (in one sense or another) themselves.
Also, I think I already mentioned that the early church seems to have distinguished between deaconesses and widows (in the sense you are talking about them here).
If it were not for these points, I could easily be persuaded to accept your view.
David, I’ll let you have the last word.
David R.,
AGain, if these “women” were supposed to be looked upon as Deacons, then why were the Deacons told to be “one woman men” ???????
There is no way that a woman can be a “one woman man” and be true to the Bible. No way. And, it’s very clear here that Deacons were to be “one woman men.”
So, when you interpret this passage to mean wives, then it fits. And, when you interpret this passage to mean “widows, or older women” as BT talks about, it fits. But, it absolutely does not fit women deacons.
David
Volfan David,
Once more, I don’t believe that, in v. 12, Paul is addressing the women. It is obvious he is not. No one in their right mind believes that.
I guess there is a possibility that Paul included, in v. 11, qualifications for deacons’ wives, but absent-mindedly forgot to say anything, in vv. 1-7, about overseers’ wives. I am not sure what this would say about inerrancy. I, for one, am a bit uncomfortable with the implications of this. But, I will have to let the experts sort that one out.
Or maybe, Paul meant to say there are special qualifications for deacons’ wives, but none for overseers’ wives. Do you, perhaps, think this? Personally, it makes no sense to me. If anything, the qualifications for overseers’ wives ought to be more important than those for deacons’ wives.
Can you think of a third possible explanation for why Paul would mention qualifications for deacons’ wives, but not for overseers’ wives? If so, we may well have a basis for continuing this discussion. If not, I remain convinced that my explanation is the best one that fits what we actually find in the text.
Brother Vol,
David, I know you were addressing David R,..but are you trying to make the case that deacons must be married….when Paul said that deacons must be husbands of one woman?
It appears to me that the Apostle did not address the deacon initially concerning a marriage relationship as he is discussing those that serve in the church. So he moves forward to set the qualification as consistent that a deacon man when married, be married to only one woman. I don’t think he was trying to say a deacon can only be a deacon if married….nor was he putting into place that the deacon is only a male, because of the one woman limit….nor is he saying that a deacon must be married, period. Nor is he advocating homosexuality (even more bizarre).
BT line of thinking certainly makes some sense, but the order that the Apostle if flowing through this short conversation is very instructive. Chapter 2 addresses men and women in the midst of the congregation, Chapter 3 addresses men and women leading and serving in the midst of the congregation, and Chapter 5 introduces older men and widows and how they are handled. To reassess the order of those things for the sake of making widows appear in Chapter 3 does not seem to work very well.
Again, the BFM2000 has it right so far on this subject….I hope the lines don’t get changed anytime soon.
Blessings,
Chris
David W.: Would you allow women in your church to be involved in benevolence ministries, or church maintenance, or preparation of the Lord’s Supper?
If yes, suppose a church decided that those functions and only those functions would be what their deacons would be responsible for. Should that church restrict those functions to be performed only by men?
I’m not trying to lure you into a trap. I’m trying to discover whether you object to women serving as deacons or being called deacons.
Some people who strictly interpret “aner” as husband and “gune” as wife in 1 Timothy 3:2,12 say that only married men can serve as overseers and deacons. If we interpret “aner” as man and “gune” as woman, however, then we get the expression “one-woman man” (μιας γυναικος ανδρα = mias gunaikos andra), which can be interpreted as a one-woman kind of man (a man who is or will be faithful to one woman). This second interpretation more easily allows for single men to serve as overseers and deacons.
I find it remarkable that the same Greek construction is found for the widows in 1 Timothy 5:9 (one-man woman; ενος ανδρος γυνη = henos andros gune). “Henos” (ενος) is the genitive singular masculine form of “eis” (εις), meaning the cardinal number “one” in this verse. The word “mias” (μιας) used with “one-woman man” is the genitive singular feminine form of “eis” (the cardinal number one in this verse).
David R.,
I am saying that women deaconesses does not fit that passage, at all.
Chris, I agree with you that a Deacon does not have to be married. But, if he is married, he should be a one woman man. Thus, there can be no women deacons.
Bill, of course, women do works of service in the Church. That does not make them a Deacon. Deacons are men, who are set apart, to help the Pastor/Elder take care of problems and make sure that everyone in the Church is being ministered to. They are not a Board of Directors. They are not a Board of Elders. They are not just people, who serve in the Church. They are a group of men, who have been called out by the Church, due to thier walk with God, to help the Pastor minister and solve problems in the Church. They are to be an example to the Church, as well. So, good ole Sally, who faithfully keeps the nursery every week, may be a wonderful servant of God; but she’s not a Deacon.
David
Volfan David,
Okay. We all know, now, that David Worley believes that “women deaconesses does not fit that passage, at all.”
I guess that, along with all the other evidence one way or another on this issue, we will have to take that into consideration as well.
Volfan,
Oh yeah, does that mean we are to assume that you cannot think of a third possible explanation for why Paul would mention qualifications for deacons’ wives, but not for overseers’ wives?
David R.,
Okay, we all know that David Rogers believes that there is a group called women deaconesses.
I guess that, along with all the other evidence one way or another on this issue, we will have to take that into consideration as well.
David R., on David W.’s behalf I will mention that the interpretation of the women in verse 11 as deacons’ wives has been strongly defended by John Hammett, systematic theology professor at SEBTS:
“Of the two sets of arguments, the arguments in favor of deaconess appear to be the weaker. As to why the wives of elders are not mentioned, Alexander Straunch sees the reason lying in the differing roles of elders and deacons. An elder is charged with the responsibilities for teaching and leading, responsibilities Paul does not give to women (1 Tim. 2:12), but a deacon is charged with responsibilities his wife may and should share. . . . Therefore, it seems that 1 Timothy 3:11 is not a biblical basis for the office of deacon, but rather, adds another qualification for the office of deacon. To be qualified for the office of deacon, a man must have a wife of character, who can be trusted to assist her husband in the diaconal ministry.”
Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 200.
As I have stated, however, I hold a third position–that the women in verse 11 form an unnamed category (not deacons, deaconesses, or wives of deacons).
David R.,
I do not know why nothing is mentioned about Elders wives. I dont know. You dont know, either. There is no way to know. All we can say is that he didnt mention it.
And, as I said above, I can see how Mike(BT)’s view can be Scriptural. It can fit. This very well could be a third group that’s being talked about here….the women…not the Deaconettes. The “women.” Of course, the women of the Church could be the widows, or the older women, who were told to teach the younger women to love thier husbands and take care of thier home. Mike very well could be right about this. BUT, to say that this means women deaconesses is a streeeeeeeetttcccchhhh….oh, it broke.
David
David,
I think you probably understand what I am saying. I have used this entire post, and my responses in this comment stream, to present the evidence for why I hold the view I do. However, I am willing to entertain evidence to the contrary. But, in the end, it seems to me that the evidence you are presenting pretty much boils down to “because I think so.”
I am giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong on this. As I said before, if you can think of a third possible explanation for why Paul would mention qualifications for deacons’ wives, but not for overseers’ wives, we may well have a basis for continuing this discussion.
I would love to continue to discuss this, if you are able to present evidence beyond merely, “because I think so.”
I wrote 147 before I was able to read 145 and 146.
BT Mike,
Thanks for sharing the info on Hammett and Strauch’s view. I have both of those books, so I should have remembered to look that up again.
In any case, yes, indeed, they do present a third alternative here. Personally, I don’t think the likelihood of what they say is as great as what I say. But, then, we are back to “because I think so,” I guess.
I have laid out my thinking. And, with this last bit of information you have provided, it seems like we have the various possible alternatives. Who knows? perhaps there are even more.
In any case, as I do my best to objectively analyze and compare these different alternatives, mine makes the best sense to me. Others will have to judge for themselves.
David W.:
I’m still trying to piece this together. You seem to know what the specific duties of deacons are. I don’t think that is quite so clear from scripture. I find nothing about their duties in the books that discuss their qualifications.
Can a church give the duties of benevolence and maintenance to the deacons? If so, what is the difference between a church whose deacons are in charge of benevolence and maintenance and a different church who has committees in charge of benevolence and maintenance? Can women serve on these committees?
Volfan David,
My view is a stretch for you. And, your view is a stretch for me. We both appear to be in agreement that Mike’s view is less of a stretch for each of us. Does that mean we should all just compromise, and accept Mike’s view, for the sake of unity? I suppose not. We must each remain true to our own convictions. But, I think we are all still equally brothers in Christ, and this difference of opinion on this particular matter should not get in the way of our unity.
Brother BT,
The language of chapter 5 where one man woman is considered has to do with the “honor” shown, by way of reputation, found in the word translated indeed (ontōs).
Qualities (chapter 3), when compared to reputation as we see in chapter 5 were given for different purposes. The reputation was to be for qualifying for assistance….while qualifications (chapter 3) is more in line with current ongoing service. In other words, the widow being a one man woman (although no longer married because of death), has significance for being on a list and honored within the church. Where a woman serving in the church (seen in chapter 3) is based upon current and ongoing qualities before the church….she is the one delivering, not receiving.
This seems to be the progression that the Apostle is consistently following through His letter as he reaches what we know as chapter 5. Paul has definitely addressed widows in a specific way, which is also very instructive for our churches. I’m not sure we pay enough attention to our widows, who are “widows indeed”, by way of honor.
Blessings,
Chris
I haven’t been very involved in this discussion (didn’t really have anything to add), but I have read it. It is an incendiary topic, but I would commend everyone for the tone and spirit of the debate. It has been a quality model of how to discuss difficult topics on debates. A quality blog discussion.
David R.,
In comments 116 and 136 and others, you look upon that as just “Volfan thinks so.” You cannot see any reasoning there at all? No Scriptural reasoning at all? When I say that I believe as Scott was saying, and all that he said about why he believed that, you see it as just “Volfan thinks so.” lol Wow.
Ok…I guess my comments dont count in this discussion.
Thanks, BT, for bringing in that quote in comment #145. But, that comment doesnt count, either. It was just them “thinking so.” lol But, thanks for bringing that into the discussion for me.
Bill, I have no idea how to answer you better than what I said in comment #141. I have no idea how I can possibly answer you any better than that. The first Deacons, mentioned in Acts, help the Elders solve problems and helped the Elders to minister to the Church. If they were not Deacons, as someone suggested, then what were they? Why were they picked out? Why were they set apart for this ministry? If anyone could do what they did, then why did they have to have certain qualifications? and, why were they set apart as a distinct group? and, notice that they were all MEN????!!!!???? Imagine that? Could not women help to minister to the widows of the Church?????? Why was it only men?
David
Bill,
Also, maintenance and benevolence can be given to the Deacons to do…if the Church wants them to have it. Or, these two things can be given to a whole committee of women. It can be a committee of 25 women…if the Church wants it to be. But, they would still not be Deaconettes.
David
Brother Vol,
No one here is trying to hold you back. What you have stated is understandable and is an argument used by many that preach the word day in and day out. What you have stated was taught to me as well from as early as I can remember….the only problem is that there exists other texts within scripture that the Apostle Paul has penned that recognize women serving the church in similar aspects. At least Paul didn’t dream up new greek words to try to explain a deacon. I think there are good reasons for Acts 6 to read six men, while in Ephesus (1 Timothy) women are included and then women are depicted in the book of Romans. It is a difficult thing to shed poor tradition. The BFM2000 seem to recognize the tension on this subject.
Whether you or I think women should or should not be recognized as serving faithfully in the church,…and whether titles really make any difference while trying to define the translated terminology of “office” makes little difference to the Apostle Paul….since he has clearly recognized their service in the churches and what keeps those women qualified to serve. And, it is because of the Apostles words that we have a clear understanding that the role of elder/overseer is restricted to men only, despite the efforts of some to teach otherwise.
Your right about one thing IMHO,…there are no “deaconettes”,….only women that qualify and are recognized as a servant (deacon) in the church.
Blessings,
Chris
Volfan,
I was never meaning to say you never presented any argumentation at all. It was just that, when I asked you a question, which, to me, seemed to be pivotal, and on which the discussion (if we were truly trying to reason things out) hinged, you didn’t have any answer, except that that was just what you believed, and that what I believe was a stretch.
Now, BT Mike did come up with an answer to my question, which I recognized right away as a point worthy of consideration. But, since he himself doesn’t actually follow the line of reasoning of Hammett and Strauch on this, it is difficult to continue the discussion with him (as a surrogate representative of their view?).
Now, if you want to pick up the argument of Hammett and Strauch, and are able to defend it, I wouldn’t mind continuing to pursue this point with you. Who knows? I might end up learning something. But, if you are not really conversant with Hammett and Strauch’s argument here, we might have to wait till either of them joins the conversation, or, at least, someone who has carefully given consideration to their argument.
Chris, you said,
“The language of chapter 5 where one man woman is considered has to do with the ‘honor’ shown, by way of reputation, found in the word translated indeed (ontōs). Qualities (chapter 3), when compared to reputation as we see in chapter 5 were given for different purposes. The reputation was to be for qualifying for assistance….while qualifications (chapter 3) is more in line with current ongoing service. In other words, the widow being a one man woman (although no longer married because of death), has significance for being on a list and honored within the church. Where a woman serving in the church (seen in chapter 3) is based upon current and ongoing qualities before the church….she is the one delivering, not receiving.”
I think the word “ontos” (indeed) indicates that such women were widows in the fullest sense. Albert Barnes commented on 1 Timothy 5:3:
“That are widows indeed – Who are truly widows. We associate with the word ‘widow,’ commonly, not only the idea of the loss of a husband, but many other things that are the usual accompaniments of widowhood – a poor and dependent condition; care and solicitude; sadness and sorrow. This idea is implied in the use of the word employed here – χηρα chera – which means properly one who is ‘bereaved,’ (from the adjective χηρος cheros, ‘bereaved’), and which, as Calvin says, conveys the idea of one in distressed circumstances. What Paul regarded as constituting true widowhood, he specifies in 1Ti 5:4-5, 1Ti 5:9-10. He connects with it the idea that she had no persons dependent on her; that she was desolate, and evinced true trust in God; that she was so aged that she would not marry again; and that by her life she had given evidence of possessing a heart of true benevolence; 1Ti 5:10.”
There’s not much said in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 about what overseers, deacons, and the group of women did in the way of church-related duties. The overseers must be able to teach (3:2), and the deacons should “serve” (1 Timothy 3:13 — the same verb we find in Acts 6:2 — “diakoneo”). Just as those who were widows “indeed” were worthy of honor (1 Timothy 5:3), so the elders who ruled well were worthy of double honor (1 Timothy 5:17). The widows that formed the special unnamed third category in Paul’s day were “on the list” (1 Timothy 5:9, NASB), and they apparently received support from the local church. The elders also were worthy of their wages (1 Timothy 5:18). Again we see the parallels between the categories of overseer and widow. There were apparently church-related duties expected of these widows who had time and support. They were already doing “good works” (1 Timothy 5:10), and part of their duties probably also included encouraging younger women (Titus 2:4-5).
P.S.: Another bit of evidence that the “widows indeed” received support from the local church is 1 Timothy 5:16.
BT Mike,
I may be misunderstanding you here. But it seems like you may be inferring that, in the NT church, if you were a woman, the only chance of occupying an official ministry role would be if you were to become a widow. Would that be correct?
Brother BT,
I think Barnes and Calvin have spelled it out correctly. Moreover, the basis for the Apostles comments in chapter 5 were to give assistance and honor these two groups…. specifically the elderly and the widows of good reputation. This makes sense.
I’m not implying that widows over sixty years of age are not serving as well. But it appears hear, that Paul is describing how we reach to them…not that they be qualified to reach or assist in our direction at this point in his letter.
Blessings,
Chris
David W: Here’s my point. What you seem to be suggesting isn’t that women can’t serve as deacons, only that they can’t be called deacons.
The 7 in Acts were not called deacons, but let’s suppose for the sake of discussion that they were the first deacons. The 7 were chosen for one purpose, to equally distribute food to widow women.
One thing that complementarians stress over and over again is that one thing women are absolutely allowed to do in the church is to minister to other women, even going so far as to teach them doctrine. And yet the only task given to the 7 first deacons, men only, as you point out, is to minister to women.
What is there about the serving food to women that makes it a man-only job?
Bill,
Women can serve in many ways in the Church. Deacons are a group of men, who are set apart to help the Pastor minister and solve problems. They are also to be an example to the Church…their service…their marriage…their family life…their life.
You seem to always want to dwell on what people do…on the actual serving…on the actual things that a man or a woman are doing. I’m saying, according to the Bible, that these men were set apart to help the Pastor and to be an example to the Church; thus they had to be men, who were full of the Holy Spirit, and who walked with God, and who were mature in thier faith, etc.
It’s not about who does what in the Church.
I hope that helps.
David
David, you said,
“It seems like you may be inferring that, in the NT church, if you were a woman, the only chance of occupying an official ministry role would be if you were to become a widow. Would that be correct?”
It depends on how you define “official ministry role.” If you define teaching a women’s Sunday School class (after accepting the nominating committee’s request to teach and the approval of the nominating committee report by the church) as an official ministry role, then I would say that there are many such roles outside the category mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11. The category in verse 11, as is the case with the overseer and deacon, calls for a high standard of character and actions. A divorced woman, for instance, might qualify as a Sunday School teacher, but she would not qualify for the category in 3:11 which I think today would apply to a woman such as my wife who is serving as a salaried church staff member. I hope I haven’t opened another can of worms with the word “divorce.” To me, however, the key word relating to divorce is the word “blameless.” As overseers (3:2) and deacons (3:10) were to be blameless, these widows were to be blameless (5:7). If you guys want to discuss the divorce issue, I am willing to do so after the Alabama/Texas game tonight. (My wife and sons are Alabama fans. I am the lone Ole Miss fan.)
BT Mike,
Actually, we already had quite a discussion here on the divorce issue with Dave Miller’s post “Are Divorced Men Fit for Church Leadership?” (which, incidently, is the 5th most commented post on SBC Impact. If we keep it up on this post, we might just catch him, though :>) ).
I am still trying to get a handle on how you arrive at the position of considering teaching a Sunday School class as calling for a lesser standard of character and actions than being a servant. But, then again, as I mentioned in one of the other comments here, “being a servant” potentially includes a very wide range of activities.
Also, you say the position your wife occupies, as you understand it, corresponds to the position referred to in 1 Tim. 3:11, right? But, if that is the case, I must be misunderstanding, when I interpret you to say that this is referring specifically to widows. Could you please explain?
Would you, perhaps, say that the position or “office” your wife occupies (would you say your wife occupies an “office”?) is extra-biblical, but not anti-biblical? Or, do you find other church positions or “offices” in the Bible than elder/overseer/pastor, deacon, and widow? What about committee members? Do you see any NT basis for church committees?
You ask how I define “official ministry role”? I think that it would include any specific responsibility that has been conferred through due process of church approval (which may vary, according to the way a particular congregation operates). How would you define “official ministry role” or “office”?
I’m having trouble deciding on who to root for tonight. I guess, if Alabama wins, it makes the Gators look a little better. But, then again, I don’t know if it would be good for our Brother CB to be on such a high. It might be more than he can handle.
David W:
Of course I’m focusing on what people do. What is a deacon except a person who does things in the church? A servant doesn’t serve except by doing things. The first 7 deacons (by your interpretation) were chosen to DO something, that is feed widow women. That is the only task given to a deacon in the New Testament (again, conceding that the 7 were deacons for the sake of discussion).
But you suggest (I think) that the ONLY task for which the first 7 deacons were chosen (feed widows) could in fact be done by women. I don’t know how that follows, I really don’t. You seem to be extrapolating the role of deacons from what is specifically stated in Acts to something vague and nebulous (solve problems, be an example) that CANNOT be done by women, as if women cannot or should not help the pastor or be an example.
I wish you would just admit that it is the title of deacon that you think should be denied to women. If our argument isn’t about what people do, then that is the only thing left. That is what I have heard in other circles, that women can do any task a deacon can do, as long as we don’t call them deacons.
Vol,
Here is what I believe is the disagreement (or at least where I come down). I believe in male authority in the church (though I do not completely understand it, I believe it is commanded.) I believe only men should be pastors/elders, etc.
I do not believe that the deacon body is an oversight body (though it is in most churches).
So, the way deacons are configured in most churches, I would not promote women deacons.
If a deacon body were set up as I believe it should be, then I would have little problem with female deacons.
I think that some of us are looking at deacons as we think they should be configured and you are looking at deacons as they are configured.
Make any sense?
Bill,
I’m saying that the Deacon body is more than just what they do. It’s about being an example to the Church…thus, the qualifications. The 7 men in Acts were picked to do the task they were chosen to do based on the fact that they were filled with the Spirit, etc. And, the other qualifications are given to us in 1 Timothy 3. So, Deacons should serve, and they are also chosen as an example…an influence…an inspirtation to the rest of the Church.
Do you understand what I am saying now?
David
David R., that Gator thing runs in your family, I know. I seem to remember hearing your dad say something about wanting to use blue and orange banners in the Bellevue parking lot. . . .
You said,
“I am still trying to get a handle on how you arrive at the position of considering teaching a Sunday School class as calling for a lesser standard of character and actions than being a servant.”
I know that in one sense all Christians are “full-time” servants. In another sense, however, a salaried full-time church staff member is normally held to a higher standard than is a Sunday School teacher.
You also asked,
“Also, you say the position your wife occupies, as you understand it, corresponds to the position referred to in 1 Tim. 3:11, right? But, if that is the case, I must be misunderstanding, when I interpret you to say that this is referring specifically to widows. Could you please explain?”
I dealt with this a bit in comment #17:
“The Holy Spirit may have inspired Paul to leave this special category unnamed so that there would be some flexibility in the future. (For instance, my wife is a seminary graduate and serves as a paid staff member at Bellevue, and she is held to a higher standard than other women, but she does not hold a biblically named office.) In Paul’s day, he applied verse 11 to widows that were at least 60 years old (1 Timothy 5:7-10).”
In 1 Timothy 3:11 the women are mentioned without naming a particular office. The verse does not refer to all women; rather, it refers to particular women held to a higher standard. In Paul’s era, the widows fit into this category. In our era, I am arguing that church staff members such as my wife fit into this unnamed category.
You also asked,
“Would you, perhaps, say that the position or ‘office’ your wife occupies (would you say your wife occupies an ‘office’?) is extra-biblical, but not anti-biblical? Or, do you find other church positions or ‘offices’ in the Bible than elder/overseer/pastor, deacon, and widow? What about committee members? Do you see any NT basis for church committees?”
Neither she nor I believes that she occupies an office. I agree with the 2000 BF&M that there are only two offices in the local church–pastor and deacon. I believe that she fits into the category mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11, but I don’t think that biblical category is an office. Ideally all local church members should have ministry roles — special niches in which they can fully exercise their unique gifts and talents. Such roles might include Sunday School teaching roles, committee roles, choir roles, etc.
Dave Miller,
No, I do not believe that Deacons should be a Deacon Board. I do not believe that they should be an overseer. But, in their role, they are to be advisors to the Pastor, helping the Pastor deal with Church problems, helping the Pastor to minister to the people, and they are to be an example to the Church family of what it means to be a mature Christian.
Now, as I said, I can see Mike(BT)’s view of a totally different group in the Church, set apart for a purpose…the widows, or the older women. I absolutely would not call them Deacons. Thier role would be different. If I’m understanding Mike right, and if I’m seeing the role they would have, if they exist, it would be to teach and minister to the women who are younger in thier faith…teaching them to love thier husbands and to make thier house a home, etc.
But, they absolutely should not be called Deacons…not if a Church wants to stay true to the teachings of Scripture.
David
“they are to be advisors to the Pastor,”
David: I don’t see where you can find this in scripture.
So the important thing about deacons is not what they do, but the fact that they are Men and have a Title?
I seem to be getting the impression that the actual work of a Deacon can be done by anyone. It isn’t anything particularly special.
If that is the case, wouldn’t a church be better off if they didn’t have the office of deacon? They could still get everything done that needed doing and wouldn’t have to worry about whether it was man’s work or women’s work. After all, the NT doesn’t say that a church MUST have deacons, only what their qualifications are if they have them.
Surely women can advise the pastor and help solve problems. It happens all the time in even the most conservative churches.
BT Mike,
You said:
“I know that in one sense all Christians are ‘full-time’ servants. In another sense, however, a salaried full-time church staff member is normally held to a higher standard than is a Sunday School teacher.”
I presume you are talking here about how things actually (or, at least, oftentimes) are, and not the biblical ideal. We could potentially go off on all sorts of tangents here about being “salaried,” “full-time,” “church staff,” etc. I think you would agree that all of these are modern-day categories, and not biblical ones. Personally, I think it is better to think, first, in strictly biblical terms, and then, and only then, seek to apply the biblical principles to our modern-day context.
You said:
“The Holy Spirit may have inspired Paul to leave this special category unnamed so that there would be some flexibility in the future. (For instance, my wife is a seminary graduate and serves as a paid staff member at Bellevue, and she is held to a higher standard than other women, but she does not hold a biblically named office.) In Paul’s day, he applied verse 11 to widows that were at least 60 years old (1 Timothy 5:7-10) … In 1 Timothy 3:11 the women are mentioned without naming a particular office. The verse does not refer to all women; rather, it refers to particular women held to a higher standard. In Paul’s era, the widows fit into this category. In our era, I am arguing that church staff members such as my wife fit into this unnamed category.”
1. It seems it would have been rather inconsistent on Paul’s part, to talk about category, which is not an “office,” embedded in the middle of a passage talking about qualifications for two “offices.”
2. It also seems to me rather arbitary to claim, as you do: “In Paul’s era, the widows fit into this category. In our era, I am arguing that church staff members such as my wife fit into this unnamed category.” Why specifically “church staff members” and not “committee members” or “Sunday School teachers” or anyone else?
You said:
“Neither she nor I believes that she occupies an office. I agree with the 2000 BF&M that there are only two offices in the local church–pastor and deacon. I believe that she fits into the category mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11, but I don’t think that biblical category is an office. Ideally all local church members should have ministry roles — special niches in which they can fully exercise their unique gifts and talents. Such roles might include Sunday School teaching roles, committee roles, choir roles, etc.”
This, to me, seems to be a rather arbitary definition of the term “office.” Are you saying, “office” = pastor and deacon, and pastor and deacon = “office”? Why not widows, as well? Is there no more criteria, other than the BFM, on what makes something an “office”?
In many churches, there are committees, which include both men and women, and which exercise a considerable amount of inluence in the church: things like “long-range planning committees,” “pastor-search committees,” etc. And yet, many of these same churches do not allow women to be called “deacons.” Personally, I think it is a good thing that women are included in committees like this, if the church is going to be organized by committees. Though each person is an individual, there is also a “feminine perspective,” and a church would be unbalanced to not take it into account. For the same reason, I would think that elders/overseers/pastors would want to be able to count on the advice and support of spiritually mature women in the congregation. If the only ones giving advice and support were men, the advice and support they give would definitely be skewed, to some extent, in my opinion. I think most churches realize this, and that’s why they include women on these committees.
But, then, at the core, what is the difference between this and women deacons? Is it, as Bill suggests, just a title and a symbol? Has it possibly become, in our churches, a symbol of male hierarchy?
Dave,
I think it would be a “best practice” if the women/deaconess issue be dialogued more because of the influence of the feminist movement in the western world. Today’s women have been influenced by a feminist culture they have lived in now for 100 years. A better understanding of the woman’s role within the body of Christ and how the surrounding culture affects it may help us men approach this important issue more accurately. Someone has to model it correctly so we, as well as others, better see what scripture is saying. Walking out what we believe scripture is saying would better prove it to be true. If we don’t apply this truth somewhere first we certainly may be the ones who turn our denomination’s ship toward liberalism if we only talk about it as if it is true.
I’m not sure if this question was discussed and I missed it, or what, but since Paul makes a distinction between the women’s and the men’s qualifications to serve as official “servants” of the church, should we assume that there should be some discintion between what the women and men do?
If not, why different qualifications? If so, what is the biblical basis for making the distinction in role or task?
Andrew,
In my post, I did say:
“Given this understanding, I can envision certain situations and contexts in which it would be most appropriate for the role of deacon to be fulfilled by men, others in which it would be most appropriate for it to be fulfilled by women, and still others in which it might be fulfilled equally well by both men and women.”
Personally, I think the variety of potential situations and contexts is so diverse that it would not have made sense for the Bible to have been more specific about this. We have to think through, biblically, what is the role of men, and what is the role of women, and, as best as we are able, apply the general principles to the specific situations and contexts.
Bruce,
It is definitely true that our culture today has been influenced, to a large degree, by feminism. It is also true that other cultures, such as the Muslim culture, have been influenced by patriarchalism. The culture of the Roman Empire in the time of the NT is something different, as well. In each situation, as Christians, we must seek to be appropriate, according to the context, without, at the same time accommodating eternal transcultural biblical principles. This is not always an easy task. We are usually more blinded to the peculiarities of our own culture than we are to those of other cultures.
David,
I remember that piece in your post, but I felt it had more to do with gender than qualifications. Maybe I’m just thinking about this differently. I see a lot of overlap between the qualifications for an overseer and a deacon, but the qualifications of the “women” are few in number.
I was wondering if, since women were held to different standards, perhaps the nature of their work would be different. Can we extrapolate any differences in service based on the differences in qualifications?
By the way, I sent you an e-mail on a different topic, so be sure to check that out.
Andrew,
Take a look at my comment #3 to Scott, as well. In the end, I don’t think the qualifications for male deacons and female deacons are all that different, though, I admit there is a bit of difference between them.
Andrew,
I also think that Bill makes an interesting point in comment #162, when he points out that the task given to a group of 7 men (serving food), in our culture today, would normally be thought of as more appropriate for women. It makes me wonder if there was something in the culture of that time that made that particular task more suited for men. And, it also helps to confirm to me that these questions are probably going to be determined, in a lot of cases, more by cultural considerations than anything else.
Okay, I see now. I was just trying to see if there was a link between the different qualifications and differing ministries. Here are the quotes I was thinking of at the time:
From your comment #128, saying “I do think Paul was making some distinction between deacons who were men, and deacons who were women.”
From your comment #92, quoting Clark’s book: “The deacons and widows served the needy in different ways. In general, they served in a way consistent with the distinction-made in Chapter Four—between the provider and the one who serves the immediate need. The deacons, who were men, filled the role of 11 provider.” They supervised the help given to the needy in the community, making sure that money, food, and other supplies were distributed. The widows served the needy more immediately. They made clothes for them, nursed the sick, visited homes, and notified the bishop or deacons when they discovered cases of need. Both men and women did charitable service, but their roles in this service differed. This role difference was analogous to the role difference in the family.”
By the way, the next comment puts your post over that of Dave’s on divorced men in the ministry.
David:
Good link to the references to Putlitzer and tradition we have discussed earlier.
Fellow has same resistance to suggestions you and I have confessed but the Claremont Review brought him around
http://www.one-eternal-day.com/2009/12/are-never-at-home.html
Dave,
Your comment in #181 “he points out that the task given to a group of 7 men (serving food), in our culture today, would normally be thought of as more appropriate for women.” May also be a service similar to what Jesus did with His disciples when he sent them out 2 by 2 with nothing but their faith and whits. Mark 6:8,9 – “He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff–no bag, no bread, no copper in [their] money belts– but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.” I think there is always a humbling factor in every service we are called perform for the Lord.
Andrew,
Yeah, that quote from Clark does kind of throw a different light on my comment #181. Interesting. What Clark says does make a lot of sense.
As far as qualifications are concerned, though (at least, according to the way I follow the grammatical and logical flow of Paul’s thought process), the only difference between male and female deacons is what he says in 1 Tim. 3:12.
Bruce,
Interesting thought. Indeed, Paul, in the context of talking about differing gifts and functions in the church, says, in Romans 12:3:
“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.”
Brother David,
Wouldn’t it be nice to have folks really eager to serve, instead of shamed into serving. Maybe qualification have more to do with folks ready to edify one another instead of having to roll people off every couple of years feeling like they have served their time (more eager to roll off than to serve).
And then those that serve well and have proven to be wonderful stewards be honored by the church through a privilege of serving her in a trust affirmed by the congregation.
This has been a good and healthy discussion!
-Chris
It is exactly because of all of this confusion, interpretive arguments, and misunderstandings in Southern Baptist life that we do not have the “office” of deacon in our church. We do not “ordain” deacons. But we do set aside and recognize many servants. Primarily, the role/function of deacons resides in our small group leaders, which is (most often) a married couple.
But we do have biblical elders in leadership. (Another topic altogether.)
Oh, that we would get as up in arms about the completely extra-biblical / non-Scriptural approach that the vast majority of our SB churches take in having a (governing) deacon body as we do to the possibility of even entertaining the thought of women deacons.
Doggone that Phoebe!
From what I know of the makeup of the BFM2K committee, if they believed men-only deacons was a slam-dunk doctrine, they would have put it in there. They knew it isn’t. I really don’t care if some hold to a men-only deaconate. What I want is for them to acknowledge that equally conservative Christians can make a reasonable biblical case for women deacons, even if they ultimately disagree. But what we get is accusations of being liberal, caving to culture, in the pocket of the womens libbers, disbelieving the bible, etc, yada, bleh.
David R., sorry I’m late getting back to this discussion. I’ve been away from the computer just about all day.
You said,
“I presume you are talking here about how things actually (or, at least, oftentimes) are, and not the biblical ideal. We could potentially go off on all sorts of tangents here about being ‘salaried,’ ‘full-time,’ ‘church staff,’ etc. I think you would agree that all of these are modern-day categories, and not biblical ones. Personally, I think it is better to think, first, in strictly biblical terms, and then, and only then, seek to apply the biblical principles to our modern-day context.”
I think the salary/support is biblical. I dealt with this a bit in comments 158 and 159. Notice the parallel between the overseers/elders and the widows:
1 Tim. 5:17-18 — “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’”
1 Tim. 5:3,9,16 — “Honor widows who are widows indeed. . . . A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man. . . . If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.”
Parallels: Elders and “widows indeed” are worthy of honor. Elders and widows can receive support from the church.
When a church staff member receives salary/support from a local church, the investment by the local church represents a special endorsement of the person’s spiritual ministry. As a matter of good stewardship, the church should only support the spiritual ministries of those people who meet the high biblical qualifications. There is nothing said in the Bible about financial support of deacons, but there is obviously something said about support for overseers/elders and the widows in Paul’s time. With such support came great responsibility. The principle is applicable today. Deacons are usually not salaried church staff members. Male elders/overseers/pastors and “special” females are often salaried church staff members.
You said,
“It seems it would have been rather inconsistent on Paul’s part, to talk about category, which is not an ‘office,’ embedded in the middle of a passage talking about qualifications for two ‘offices.’”
Remember, however, that Paul devoted only one verse to the women (3:11). Paradoxically, although a third category was marked by “hosautos,” that category was not labelled with a name, and it thus must be regarded as an unnamed category, not an office. I cannot think of an office which does not have a name.
You also said,
“It also seems to me rather arbitary to claim, as you do: ‘In Paul’s era, the widows fit into this category. In our era, I am arguing that church staff members such as my wife fit into this unnamed category.’ Why specifically ‘church staff members’ and not ‘committee members’ or ‘Sunday School teachers’ or anyone else?”
The widows and the female church staff members such as my wife receive(d) salary from the local church. I doubt if any non-salaried workers at Bellevue spend as much time per week doing church work as she does. I also doubt if any of the volunteers working in her area have the training and experience that she has. Truly her role is different from the roles of committee members, Sunday School teachers, etc.
You also said,
“This, to me, seems to be a rather arbitary definition of the term ‘office.’ Are you saying, ‘office’ = pastor and deacon, and pastor and deacon = ‘office’? Why not widows, as well? Is there no more criteria, other than the BFM, on what makes something an ‘office’?”
The offices of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon are the only two local church offices named in Scripture. The category in 1 Timothy 3:11 is not named, and thus it is not an office.
Brother BT,
Do you see an identical relationship between the group mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 as “overseer” and the group mentioned at 1 Timothy 5 with respect to “elder”. I believe there is a distinction that the Apostle is making as he progresses through the instruction of how men and women, then elder and widows coexist in the church family. An elder can obviously be an overseer, yet an elder is not necessarily an overseer. I think this gives more insight into women and widows as well.
The reason that I bring this up is the usage of the Greek by the Apostle at 1 Timothy 5:17 with respect to “preaching” is not the same force he uses for instance of the Apostle being appointed a “preacher”. In fact, the rendering is more along the lines of reasoning and teaching. In other words, within the context of the church the elders are to be honored just as the widows for their lifelong service and standing in the congregation.
Paul’s directive for men aspiring to overseer in 1 Timothy 3 is not independent of these same actions, since as we grow older we should continue to do these things (reasoning & teaching), and receive honor from the congregation for such. Yet Paul seems to be placing a distinct and more emphatic qualification in chapter 3 as men “are” aspiring to overseer (episkopē ) where elder (presbuteros), at least in 1 Timothy 5:1 & 17, is not an aspiration, it is a result of qualifications already pursued. Thus the 1 Timothy 5 passage simply corroborates the fact that local assemblies had multiple overseers, now known in the congregation at this older age as elders, some continuing to oversee (working hard at preaching (reasoning) and teaching.
Just some additional thoughts,
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I think “elder” in 5:1 refers to older men, but “elder” in 5:17 clearly refers to an office because of the statement that they “rule.”
Notice what A.T. Robertson said about the verse: “The elders that rule well (hoi kalōs proestōtes presbuteroi). See 1Ti 5:1 for ordinary sense of presbuteros for ‘older man.’ But here of position in same sense as episkopos (1Ti 3:2) as in Tit 1:5 = episkopos in 1Ti 5:7. Cf. Luke’s use of presbuteros (Act 20:17) = Paul’s episkopous (Act 20:28).”
BT Mike,
First off, let me make perfectly clear I see nothing at all wrong or antibiblical with the ministry your wife carries out, nor with her receiving a salary from the church.
However, I think your efforts to demonstrate a parallel between her ministry and that of the widows in 1 Tim. 5 are a bit forced. As I read it, the widows in 1 Tim. 5 are being helped out primarily because of their need. It is true that they are also required to demonstrate a lifestyle of service in order to receive this financial aid. But, it is just that, as I understand it: financial aid, and not a salary.
This also points to a difference between the widows (in 5:3), and the elders (in 5:17). One group is being helped out, because of their need. The other group is being recompensed, because of their work.
One more difficulty I see with your interpretation on this is, it seems to leave room in the church for giving elders a salary, and for giving women a salary, but not for giving men who are not elders a salary. Perhaps you did not intend to give this impression. Do you see room, in the church, from a biblical perspective, for giving men who are not elders a salary?
Also, it seems to me you are saying that, from a biblical perspective, “office” = title. Do you see “evangelist” (Acts 21:8), “prophet” (Acts 13:1, 21:10), and/or “teacher” (Acts 13:1) as titles in the NT church? If so, why not “offices” as well?
David R., you said,
“One more difficulty I see with your interpretation on this is, it seems to leave room in the church for giving elders a salary, and for giving women a salary, but not for giving men who are not elders a salary.”
That’s why I used the word “usually” in comment 191:
“The principle is applicable today. Deacons are usually not salaried church staff members.”
I can see the possibility of a paid janitor or security guard in a church being a deacon. Such jobs are service ministries.
David R., you asked,
“Do you see ‘evangelist’ (Acts 21:8), ‘prophet’ (Acts 13:1, 21:10), and/or ‘teacher’ (Acts 13:1) as titles in the NT church? If so, why not ‘offices’ as well?
Your question demands a thorough answer. The short answer is that I agree with the 2000 BF&M that the local church’s “scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.” I’ll try to be more thorough in the following analysis.
Let’s consider Ephesians 4:11:
“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers”(NASB).
The context of verse 11: Paul urged the members of the Ephesian church to live in a manner worthy of their calling (4:1). Grace had been given to each of them (4:7). Officers had also been given to them so that they would be equipped and able to move from spiritual childhood to spiritual maturity (4:12-15).
One issue concerns the verb “gave” in 4:11. It is a first aorist, active, indicative form of “to give.” Carl Conrad, emeritus professor at the Department of Classics at Washington University, classified the verb as a culminative aorist form and described the form as fusing the older aorist and perfect tenses so that a continuing result from a completed action is emphasized. Similarly, Ray Summers described the culminative aorist as emphasizing the end of the action or the state of being resulting from the action. If Conrad and Summers’ description of a continuing result is applied to 4:11, then it could be argued that apostles and prophets would be continually supplied to the Ephesian church in the future. Alternatively, it could be argued that the gift of the apostles and prophets would have a continuing effect on the church. In contrast to Conrad and Summers, Vaughan and Gideon said that the culminative aorist is somewhat similar to the perfect tense, but they emphasized that there is a difference between the two tenses in that the culminative aorist indicates completion but says nothing about continuing results. It is obvious from Ephesians 2:20 that the foundational teaching (Eph. 3:5) of the apostles and prophets would not be continuously re-laid, so there would be no point in continuously supplying apostles and prophets to the Ephesian church. I believe that the word “prophet” can apply to both foretellers and forthtellers. I believe that the biblical foretellers are no longer with us. In contrast, I believe that the biblical forthtellers (preachers) are still with us. Also, I believe that the spiritual gift of forthtelling (prophecy/preaching) will be with us until Christ returns (1 Cor. 13:9-10. Paul valued this gift (1 Cor. 14:1), and it is certainly helpful to pastors.
Another issue concerns whether “pastors and teachers” refers to one office or two. The Granville Sharp rule (1778) of Greek grammar states: “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person.” This rule thus applies to the TSKS construction (the-substantive-kai-substantive). Daniel Wallace, author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the Granville Sharp rule. Wallace said that the rule can only be applied absolutely to personal, singular, non-proper nouns. Thus, since 4:11 uses plural nouns, the rule does not have to be applied to the verse, but it can be applied to the verse. Wallace sees pastors as a subset of teachers in 4:11; i.e. all pastors should be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2), but not all teachers are pastors. Wuest saw Sharp’s rule as applying to 4:11, and thus he thought both words referred to the same office. H.A.W. Meyer and Ralph Martin agreed that both words referred to the same office. Most commentators see one office rather than two.
Lenski, Theodore Wedel, T.K. Abbott, and Justin Smith viewed evangelists as being missionaries to the heathen. I believe that we still have evangelists, but I do not see them as holding a local church office.
I hope this helps.
David R., you said,
“As I read it, the widows in 1 Tim. 5 are being helped out primarily because of their need. It is true that they are also required to demonstrate a lifestyle of service in order to receive this financial aid. But, it is just that, as I understand it: financial aid, and not a salary. This also points to a difference between the widows (in 5:3), and the elders (in 5:17). One group is being helped out, because of their need. The other group is being recompensed, because of their work.”
Both the widows and elders/overseers, however, are receiving support from their local churches, and both groups are expected to perform certain duties and maintain good character. If the widows ceased to perform their duties and maintain good character, then they would no longer be qualified to be on the list, and the support would cease. The same is true for the elders/overseers. So, there is a connection with the support and the duties/character (as is true today). The parallel is there. Again, the same Greek grammatical pattern is used for all three groups: one-woman man and one-man woman. All three groups are described as being blameless. The parallels are undeniable.
BT Mike,
We’ve really sort of gotten off on a tangent here. And, I appreciate all of the work you put into your answer on this. But, you will notice that, in my comment, I didn’t even mention Ephesians 4:11. I intentionally avoided that passage, because I was aware of the difficult interpretational issues related to it. The passages I did bring up were brought up because, in each of them, an individual (or group of individuals) in the NT church is (are) identified by a title other than elder/overseer/pastor or deacon (Philip the Evangelist, Agabus the Prophet, and Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul, who were all Prophets and Teachers in the church at Antioch).
I think that perhaps you could say that Overseers and Deacons were unique, in that the NT gives qualifications of spiritual character and example for them, while the other titles are based more on spiritual gifting.
Perhaps we could agree on the following statement:
“The NT identifies by a specific title two roles in the local church that also carry along with them certain spiritual and moral qualifications: overseer (also called elder and pastor) and deacon. These roles (sometimes called “offices”) also exist in churches today. Along with these, there are a number of different roles, both in the NT church, as well as churches today. These roles may have different titles and/or qualifications, according to the situation and context. The ones that are specifically defined in the NT, though, both with a title, and stipulated qualfications, are those of overseer and deacon.”
“The NT identifies by a specific title two roles in the local church that also carry along with them certain spiritual and moral qualifications: overseer (also called elder and pastor) and deacon. These roles (sometimes called “offices”) also exist in churches today. Along with these, there are a number of different roles, both in the NT church, as well as churches today. These roles may have different titles and/or qualifications, according to the situation and context. The ones that are specifically defined in the NT, though, both with a title, and stipulated qualfications, are those of overseer and deacon.”
I agree.
Does this mean a church is obligated to have people with these assigned roles and titles?
I would think, Bill, that the offices would matter a lot more than the titles.
Dave: I agree with you, but obviously not everyone thinks so. What I’ve heard is that women can have the office (and the duties) but not the title.
Bill,
Are you asking if I a think a local church, in order to be biblical, must have overseers/elders/pastors and deacons? My answer would be that, a healthy, mature church should have a plurality of qualified overseers/elders/pastors, and that, having people occupying the “office” (with the “title”) of deacon is somewhat more optional.
I base this biblically on Titus 1:5, where Paul states:
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”
The implication is that a church (at a citywide or town-wide level, as a minimum) must have elders appointed, or recognized; and, if not, there is something that needs to be “straightened out” and not “left unfinished.” However, I think it is also instructive that Paul does not say anything about deacons in this same context.
I would think however, that, if a church does not have members regularly serving one another, and the community around them (whether or not they have the “office” or title of deacon), something is lacking, as well.
Obviously, God thought the titles and the office were important. He put the names of the office in the Bible, and He gave qualifications for those people, who are to fill that office. So, apparently God sees the title and office as important.
Anyone can serve in all kinds of ways in a Church, but only certain people should fill the office of Pastor and Deacon. God set up these two offices for a reason. What is that reason? Well, God also gave us those reasons as well.
So, it’s not just about what they do.
David
Volfan David,
My guess is that you, like BT Mike, would agree with my last paragraph of comment #197.
Even so, I think, before we get so confident about titles and offices, it would be good for you to think about this: Why is it that we, as Baptists today (along with a lot of other Christians), choose to use the one title for elders/overseers/pastors that the NT uses least frequently (i.e. pastor)? As a matter of fact, a good argument can be made that the NT never really uses the term “pastor” (shepherd) as a title, per se, but rather as a function of the role it names by the title of “overseer” or “elder.”
To me, this is not really a major deal. I am not on a big campaign to start calling all pastors “overseers” or “elders.” But I do think we should have a little more grace with people who choose to do things a little differently than according to our Baptist traditions, and that we should be a little more careful about boldly asserting that each and every thing about our Baptist traditions is the most biblical alternative there is.
Brother Vol,
I think your right that the words used by the Apostles are extremely important. The challenge for most individuals is to determine the true substance of the definition that makes up the word. Many people use the titles without any substance. Yet to them the title is the most important thing. I realize that is not your intent with titles….yet you know as well as I that when you hear people scour over the Monday night visitation and say “that’s the pastor’s job” then there must be either a lack of teaching or a lack of understanding in that statement. So a title is important to that person, but it lacks much understanding.
The Apostle Paul gave some balance to an unbalanced bunch at Corinth when he instructed them concerning another subject….
1 Corinthians 14:37-40 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. (38) But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (39) Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. (40) But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.
So, I believe that the title is only as good as the substance of its definition. As Paul does say, “women likewise” (1 Timothy 3) gives us the substance of the definition why women would likewise be commanded by the Apostle to meet qualifications to serve in the church. A title alone can become a hollow container, without any meaning. The title Prophet is a grand example from the earlier books of the canon. Some that were called Prophet qualified themselves to death.
There is little mystery as to why the Apostle mentions men first and women second. Of course, some would even argue that point….but there is overwhelming evidence why that is God’s created order of perfection in the church.
I can guarantee you if the scripture did read….. Roman 16:1 I commend to you our brother Timothy (in stead of your sister Phoebe), who is a “diakonos” of the church which is at Cenchrea;
….we would not even so much as blink an eye.
The Apostle gave descriptives of the word, diakonos, as he was impressed with her character of serving, above defending the word he used to introduce her to the church …as he proves just a few words later. God blesses His church with many like Pheobe. Most of those women I meet with her character, really could care less about any title. It seems we in many instances have elevated the title above the biblical meaning, and given men a reason to be proud.
Blessings,
Chris
While we’re on the topic of “titles” in church, here’s a little comic relief I just came across on that very subject:
http://larknews.com/current-issue/secondary.php?page=3
Brother David,
That was funny and sad, all at the same time. Its kind of like,… please feel more comfortable when you follow me into another “ditch”. That was kind of like the Message Bible (some claim it is) on steroids. The thought of that would be bizzarre!
Blessings,
Chris
Titles are only important if we assume that deacon is a title, and not just a role. Remember it’s a transliteration. Paul didn’t invent a new word. It just means servant. I very much doubt an official title was in view here when he wrote it. God inspired the greek word for servant, not the transliteration.
Servants can be men or women, so Paul gave qualifications for both.
I doubt we’ll get this up to 300 comments unless someone starts making fun of the Yankees.
Bill,
It is a title, yet more than a title. It’s an office. It’s a role in the Church. And, the qualifications are given to us in Timothy, and I believe in Acts; so why would there be qualifications, if there was no office, or title?
Deacon is an office in the Church…no doubt about it.
David
Bill,
You should read David Rogers’ comments in #62, where he says, “For instance, if you were to meet someone from a NT congregation, and ask them who were the “elders” or “overseers” of their congregation, I think, from what I see in the Bible, they would be able to tell you exactly who [they are].”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am confident that if you were to meet someone from a NT congregation and ask them who were their “deacons” or “servants” of their congregation, I think they would be able to tell you exactly who they were. I think we all recognize that we are all to be servants in the church, but there are certain people who fulfill a specific ministry role in the church as “deacons” or “servants.”
Andrew,
I agree with both you and David on people knowing who the deacons are in their church. They should be visible as well as known. If not, that should be a big red flag that a big bad CEO is lerking in the shadows somewhere.
Brother Vol,
Well said at #209. The church does recognize these individuals for the edification of the entire body. As Andrew has said…. if someone came to town and asked for these folks… we should have an answer. The Apostle did call for them on many occasions and remarked of them in many of his salutations.
Blessings,
Chris
David Volfan,
You say that you believe the qualifications for deacons are given in Acts (in addition to 1 Timothy). I assume you are referring to Acts 6:3: “choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.”
As I see it, these men were appointed to fulfill a specific task: waiting on tables. Does this mean there were no other tasks that needed to be done in the Jerusalem church? Does this mean that, whenever other tasks came up, this same group of men was called on to do them as well? I don’t think the Scripture gives us enough information to make this assumption. If other tasks arose, and others were appointed to do them, do you think these others would be on the same status as the “seven” in Acts 6? Why or why not? Personally, I don’t see anything in Acts 6 that infers this would not be the case. In other words, the “seven” in Acts 6, as far as we can tell from the actual text of Scripture, were appointed to fulfill a very specific task, not necessarily to an on-going general position of servant leadership in the church. They were closer, in function, to most committees (or work teams) in modern-day Baptist churches, than to “deacon boards.”
I do agree, though, that everyone in the Jerusalem church knew who they were. And, that, from 1 Timothy 3, we may infer that the folks in the church at Ephesus all knew who were the officially recognized “deacons” among them.
If someone can prove to me that the 7 in acts were the first “deacons” I would appreciate it. If someone can prove to me that because the first 7 were men, that all deacons should be men that would be even better. If someone can tell me specifically, from scripture, what deacons are supposed to DO in the body that would be icing on the cake. I still haven’t heard why Paul would define qualifications for the deacon’s wives and not elder’s wives. Doesn’t that give the tiniest little suggestion that the word might be better translated as women rather than wives? If you don’t start with an a priori assumption that deacon must be men, it isn’t that hard to do.
Finally, do you really think that God is ok with allowing women to serve as deacons as long as we don’t give them the title of deacon?
Specifically: The deacons in our church are mainly responsible for church maintenance and benevolence. Do you really think that both men and women can do these things together, but that only the men can be called deacons? Same roles, same responsibilities, but different titles?
We can’t have it both ways. If women can’t be deacons, then they can’t serve as title-less deacons.
David,
There were some events that took place that would make me think these men were, at least, “pilot” deacons.
1) v2 – The work of serving tables hindered their conscience from their main focus of the word.
v8 – The work of Stephen was blessed producing great signs and wonders.
2) v3 – Some basic and fundamental requirements for the level of service they were going to be called to do.
3) v3 – The disciples were chosing from among themselves. The apostles did not do the chosing.
4) v4 – The Apostle’s main focus was on prayer and ministry of the word.
5) v5 – The saying was well accepted and the 7 were chosen.
6) v6 – They prayed over them and laid hands on them for the service they were to perform. (If not a deacon then do we perform this on all committees?)
7) v7 – The result was that the word of God spread and disciples “multiplied greatly”.
9) v10 – The wisdom and Spirit of Stephen was unable to be resisted.
What if our deacons were filled with wisdom and the Spirit. We would still have troubles, but, not from within.
Bruce
Bruce,
I see that the “seven” in Acts 6, inasmuch as they were carrying out a recognized responsibility of service in the church, may be seen as “a” model for deacons, but not necessarily “the” model for deacons. I don’t see how any of your 9 events could not also be applied to “committee members,” or anyone else in the church. For instance, I see no reason to not pray and lay hands on committee members.
It is true that Paul told Timothy, in 1 Timothy 5:22, “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.” And, it is also true that Hebrews 6:1 seems to include “the laying on of hands” among “the elementary teachings about Christ.” However, there is much about the laying on of hands we don’t know from the NT.
I dealt with some of this in my post on ordination (which I link to in my post). In any case, I think we are on biblical thin ice if we say that ordination is what makes a deacon a deacon.
Dave,
I think it necessary for the church to take every task as seriously as the Apostles did by laying on the hands when service or tasks are needed. I have strong feelings regarding committees and believe we do our souls a spiritual disservice when we have no expectations that God will be working through them. If we would take the smallest matter seriously, even if we are chosing the color of paint, we would better ascribe the outcome to God, trusting Him in every matter. I think that is closer to living by faith than how we assume it is. The church should exemplify what we should be doing within our own homes, too.
The deacons should have a strong presence in the body, however, they should also be very much like the disciples that chose them, too.
Bruce,
Agreed.
I do not think that the Apostles would lay their hands on 7 men so that they could wait on tables. lol. I do believe that these men were the first Deacons, and their role was defined here. Not just to wait on tables. lol. They were to help the Pastors/Elders to minister to the people of the Church, so that the Pastors had more time to pray and preach and teach the Word. The Deacons were there to help solve this problem. Thus, Deacons should help the Pastor serve and to solve problems in the Church.
Also, why in the world would Paul say that Deacons had the qualifications that he gave them in 1 Tim. 3 if it were not an office in the Church? If a Deacon was just known by people because of the way he served in the Church, then why in the world would their be qualifications? Of course, Deacon is an office, just as much as Pastor/Elder/Bishop is an office. Each one was given qualifications.
David
Volfan David,
If you want to laugh out loud (lol) at my understanding of the text, that is one thing. You are, of course, free to do that. But, if I were you, I would be careful about laughing out loud at what the text actually says. It may well be that the “seven” were considered by the early church (and by the apostles, and even by God Himself) to be the first deacons. I am not claiming this is not so. I am just saying there is not enough there in the text itself to jump to this conclusion. The text itself says they were appointed in order to wait on tables—nothing more, nothing less. To reach any further conclusions, we must read between the lines.
What you say is interesting speculation. Sometimes, speculation can be helpful, as it helps us consider alternative ways to interpret what Scripture is saying, and what actually happened. And, what Scripture actually says does not preclude your explanation. But, neither does it demand it.
My advice (if you are open to it) would be a little less “laughing out loud,” and a little more doctrinal humility.
Also, if the fact that roles having qualifications attached to them is what makes them an office, are you in agreement that the widows in 1 Tim. 5 occupied an office, as well?
Also, do you think there should be no qualifications for other roles in the church today that are not specifically listed in Scripture? If not, why don’t we just let anyone and everyone teach Sunday School? Why not just skip prospective employee interviews for secretaries and cooks and janitors? Why not choose church committee members by putting the name of every member on little slips of paper, and drawing them out of a hat by random?
Or, maybe you are saying that, when we name pastors and deacons, we must go by God’s qualifications; but, when we name anyone to any other position in the church, we are all on our own—it doesn’t really matter what God thinks.
I think church women all over the world would be pleased to know that waiting on tables is (male) deacon’s work. Even if it is true (and the text never says it, or even implies it) that deacons do more than waiting tables, shouldn’t they at least do that much? If the 7 in Acts were the fist deacons, and if they must all be men, and if the ONLY role specifically given to deacons in scripture was waiting on women, then how can any church justify allowing women to do it?
There is a whole boatload of between-the-lines reading to get where we are now with deacons.
I really have no desire to continue this conversation.
David
lol
David R.,
One last thing. The lol in the comments that you found distasteful were me chuckling at the thought of the Apostles laying their hands on the first Deacons so that they could wait on tables like a waiter from Applebee’s or something.
David, it wasnt really said that they were to wait on tables, Bro. What was said was probably more like a figure of speech…to emphasize what the problem was. The widows of the Hellenistic Jews felt like they were being left out…when food and such was being distributed to the widows. The Deacons were to make sure that the distribution was done right. They were not to put on aprons and bow ties and actually serve the meal…although they could have, I guess. But, anyway, they were to solve this problem, so that the Apostles could concentrate on prayer and ministering the Word of God.
So, the first Deacons…these 7 MEN…were to make sure that the distribution of the food was fair, ie, solve this problem in the Church. And, they were set aside for this purpose, and they were men who met certain qualifications.
Also, other roles in a Church, beyond a Pastor or a Deacon, is left up to the Church. They should fill the positions of a SS teacher, or nursery worker, or not even have those things; as they feel led to do. They are not told to have those positions, nor are they told to not have those positions. The Bible is silent.
The Bible is not silent about Deacons and Pastors.
David
Volfan David,
Fine. I’ve pretty much said what I wanted to say about all this. I’ll let you have the last word.
Hopefully, we can continue to have some good discussions over other topics on other occasions, and some good fellowship in the Lord along the way.
Amen.
I’m not going to add any more arguments to the thread either. I think we’ve laid them all out. I’m not really looking for agreement, although if you can sway someone to take a position that you believe is correct, it feels good.
What I would like to see rather is an acknowledgment that reasonable people, with a genuine desire to please God and a deep respect for His Word can come to different conclusions. I think on the subject of women deacons, the framers of the BFM2K understood this. I wish everyone did.
IRONY:
“It is almost inconceivable to think of what it would have been like in the late 1800s for a single woman to move into an incredibly patriarchal society—patriarchal not in its good sense, but in its exponentially wicked sense, where women didn’t really count,” -Paige Patterson on Lottie Moon.