Since our deacon discussion is not garnering much participation, I will throw out a final post on the subject.
In 1 Tim. 3, Paul sets forth the qualifcations for elders and deacons. In the midst of the deacon qualifications, Paul makes a reference to women (1 Tim. 3:11). Most of our english translations make an interpretation and make this a reference to "their wives" (the deacon's wives). However, there are a few hurdles that must be jumped in order to settle with this translation. So, here are a few of them:
1. If Paul was concerned that the deacons have godly wives, why was he not also concerned that the elders have godly wives? Are deacons' wives more important than elders' wives?
2. "Their" is not in the text. It literally reads, "Likewise, women must be...." If Paul would have wanted to refer to the deacons' wives, he could have easily included "their" in the text.
3. "Likewise" is used by Paul to introduce a new group in verse 8. This seems to be Paul's way of introducing a new office (this is just consistent exegesis).
At the end of the day, I don't know if Paul was referring to women deacons or if he was referring to deacons' wives. If someone proved to me that Paul was referring to the wives of male deacons, it would not make much of a difference. It would not mandate that only men can be deacons just as it would not mandate that deacons must be married (and have kids).
However, here is the crucial point I want to make: At the end of the day, my "male deacons only" friends must also admit something: Paul MAY have been referring to women deacons in this text. He MAY have intended 1 Tim. 3:11 to give some qualifications for those women who serve well as deacons. Now, they are probably saying (because of their understanding of other texts), "No, that would contradict other texts." However, if it could be proved that Paul was indeed referring to "women" instead of "their wives" in 1 Tim. 3:11, would you be willing to alter your interpretation of the other texts?
I (along with Piper, Dever, Mahaney, Kostenberger, MacArthur, Schreiner, Bruce Ware, and others) don't think any Biblical text says that only men can be deacons.
Again, this is not an important issue in the grand scheme of things. I led my church to only have male deacons. This is simply one of those issues that I enjoy discussing. Regardless of our position, we must be committed to complementarianism.
-Justin C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Justin,
Please understand, the only way that we MUST admit that Paul may have been referring to women deacons in 1st Timothy 3:11 is if we understand the deacon ministry the way you do. But since I view the deacon ministry as a ministry of authority and leadership within the church, I not only say that Paul was NOT referring to women deacons in 1st Timothy 3:11, but that his doing so would contradict much of what he had already taught in First Timothy and other places about Biblical manhood and womanhood within the church.
Our understanding of the deacon ministry must come from the text - and the text gives us a lot of information! Both Acts 6 and First Timothy 3 present the same vision of deacon ministry - godly men handling duties delegated to them by the elders for the sake of the body. And both the example of Acts 6 and the qualifications of First Timothy 3 point to the nature of these duties: benevolence, handling of church resources, management of ministries, etc. If I understand our discussion correctly, you believe this understanding of Deacon ministry to be too narrow, I believe yours to be too broad. In my narrow understanding, women are not allowed to be deacons. Paul MUST be speaking of deacons' wives. In your broad understanding, women are allowed to be deacons. Paul MAY be speaking of women Deacons.
But which view is most Biblical? That is the question.
The office of deacon is to be just that - an office - for those especially gifted for those duties. EVERY Christian - men and women - are called to be servants within the church. But only some are called to fill the office of Deacon.
One more thing: how does your interpretation fit with the regulative principle? Luther, of course, held to the normative principle, the idea that anything the Bible doesn't prohibit the church is free to do. This seems to be the argument you are making - since the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit women deacons, churches are free to have them. But Calvin held to what we call the regulative principle - the principle that anything not commanded within Scripture should not be done in the church. If you are not convinced that the Bible authorizes women deacons, what gives us the right to have them?
I should also point out that those who hold to a stronger view of complementarianism (what Russell Moore calls "Biblical Patriarchy") tend to be against women deacons. These include men like Ligon Duncan, R. C. Sproul, Doug Wilson, etc.)
This is my last comment on the subject (I promise.) But JC, I'd really like to hear you respond to the comment by halo 2 at the end of our last post on women deacons ("Seven Men").
Hey guys,
Sorry for the lack of comments throughout this discussion... just haven't had a whole lot to add.
I find myself coming down on Childers' side. But, of course, we'd agree it wouldn't work with the traditional model of SBC church "deacon boards."
JN's last comments on the regulative/normative principles interest me. How 'bout someone post on those next.
Yes, I would love to hear some more on the regulative principle (particularly on applying it).
I hold to the regulative principle regarding the public gathering of the church for worship. God has been clear how we are to corporately worship Him. That is why you will never find video clips, special music, or drama at Christ Baptist Church.
Outside of the public gathering, I think God has given us freedom to use the wisdom He gives us in many areas. For example, we would all agree that the Bible does not tell us that we must have a nursery. However, we would all agree that it is wise to offer a nursery for families with young children. If we hold staunchly to the regulative principle, we could not justify having a nursery. The same goes for a thousand other things we do that are not mandated in the Bible.
Women deacons is a little different because I (along with others) think that the Bible actually allows for and encourages women deacons (notice I didn't say mandated).
There seems to me to be a rather simple explanation for why the wives of deacons would be mentioned while the wives of elders are not. In fact, this argument which is usually stated as the first point (see for example Kostenberger and your comment) seems to me the weakest. The elders' wives do not participate directly in the "spiritual" duties of teaching and ruling. They do not need to meet qualifications in connection with elders and their responsibilities for they do not participate directly in them. However it makes perfect sense that the deacons' wives would be involved in helping with the "material" duties relative to the church. In fact it would be expected - but - only by those who are worthy of respect, temperate and trustworthy. It does not seem at all strange in this context for the one to be mentioned but not the other.
The answer to your question is absolutely yes. Sadly, that will never happen with 1 Tim 3.11. Even the translators cannot agree. I wish ever doctrinal and practical concern could be proven beyond debate. Then we could truly have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4.5
halo 2,
I have heard that explanation before about the wives of deacons being involved in their ministry. However, the text says nothing about their involvement (only their qualifications).
I love when my computer freezes. I thought that I already posted a comment before it froze, so it might pop up again. Anyway, here is basically what it said.
I have greatly enjoyed reading all of the posts and comments on deacons. I still agree with Justin C. However, I do see some valid points on the other side. I know it's not a hard case, but what about Phoebe? What was she? I also know that some form of the word for deacon is used in several places. Should we conclude that the only two places to understand this is in Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3? (This actually was not in the last comment). I agree that there is nothing that says that Phoebe was in the office of deacon, but is it not possible? When and how do we decide which times the word for deacon refers to the office and which times it refers to servants?
One more thing. I have learned much from all of you and I have been challenged in my thinking. This is healthy and good. Thanks to you all for being diligent and seeking to be faithful to the Word.
Post a Comment