“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.

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.

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.

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

David

lol

There is a whole boatload of between-the-lines reading to get where we are now with deacons.

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.

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, 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