This is a very practical issue for our churches, so lets dialouge about it.
Just to let you know where I am on the issue: When I came to Christ Baptist I assumed that we would have women deacons. I am convinced that Scripture allows for women functioning as deacons and that it could be an extremely valuable role for the health of the church. However, in discussing our constitution, we quickly realized that our members were very uncomfortable with the idea. So, we launched into an extensive study of Manhood/Womanhood and the role of deacons. At the conclusion of the study, I was even more convinced that women deacons would be good for Christ Baptist. However, there was one factor and one factor only that kept us from having women deacons in our constitution: the area in which we live. If we had women deacons many people would immediately label us as a liberal church (this is tied to the unBiblical practice of "deacon boards."). So, we decided it best for the unity of the church to proceed with only male deacons. However, it seems that we will have women functioning as deacons, just not called deaconesses.
I imagine this debate will surround the role of deacon. I don't think the role of deacon violates the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12. If you think it does, you cannot have women deacons.
Let's begin with a source outside of our group to focus the debate. Here is Dr. Kostenberger's article on the subject (which I agree with). So, where do you disagree with Kostenberger?
-Justin Childers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm at school and will have to read the post and article later. Just wanted you to know that a couple of years ago I came across this article and ever since it has been my favorite treatment of the women deacons issue.
http://www.amprpress.com/women_deacon's.htm
Yes, I've seen that article before.
He acutally argues for 3 offices instead of 2. He argues that deaconesses is a separate office.
Justin C.,
I agree that the debate will surround around the role of deacon. When you look at the text in Timothy it seems to point very clearly to the Elders as being the ones who are to rule and teach the church. After Paul sets up the fact that women are not to teach and exercise authority over men, he then seems to exclude some men (those who are not qualified to be Elders). So that begs the question, "what is the role of a deacon?" If Acts 6 are deacons (I know that not everyone thinks they are), then it seems that their responsibility is to assist the ones with authority (apostles at that point). It appears to me that the whole question is about the role of a deacon. From what I can tell the role of a deacon is not to teach or exercise authority. The role of a deacon (servant) is to serve the church so that the Elders can continue to teach and rule.
I know that I've talked with Justin N. about this before and he disagrees. I recently had to deal with this in our church as well as for a class in school. After looking at the Scriptures it shaped my view that women should be deaconesses.
I did find it interesting that you did not put it into your constitution because of the area that we live. That is the issue that I am dealing with now. And the reason it is such a difficult situation is because we don't want to change because of culture, yet we have to recognize our culture. Even here, the issue is the role of the deacon. With the "Deacon Board" and without a plurality of elders (in most area churches) it is probably better not to have women deacons. But this doesn't sit well with me because of my conviction from the Scriptures.
Let me say upfront:
In a church where there is not a plurality of recognized elders, there should be no women deacons!
And, if the deacons have governing authority, women should not be deacons.
The debate for me exists for churches who do have a plurality of recognized elders.
As for the culture issue, I had to think of it like this:
There are other areas where we do this. For example, we don't use wine during the Lord's Supper even though Jesus and the early disciples did.
Someone could say, "Justin, why are you letting the culture determine your practices?" I'm willing to compromise on this issue and not on others for one reason: The Bible does not MANDATE women deacons (I think it just allows them).
Justin C.,
I didn't meant to imply that. I'm sorry for the way that was worded. I agree that the Bible doesn't mandate that and I agree that culture does shape our practice to a degree (such as the Lord's Supper). And I wholeheartedly agree that a church without a plurality of elders should not have women deacons. I think that is what bothers me about this debate. Most people (probably not on this blog) debate this from their current church structure. The question really is about proper church polity. If you have this with a plurality of elders and the deacon ministry is truly a servant ministry, then it is actually helpful to have women serving women in this capacity.
I would like to hear more about how Deacons serve without having authority. It seems to me that the men in Acts 6 were indeed given authority - a limited authority over the church's resources delegated to them by the apostles (the elders of that church). Nowhere does the Bible say that Deacons do not have authority, and I think that both Acts 6 and the qualifications of First Timothy 3 imply that they do. These men are delegated authority over certain things by the elders in order to free the elders for the ministry of prayer and the Word.
The Bible doesn't give us much information about Deacons, but I think what we do have points more towards a position of delegated authority than a position of non-authority.
Justin N.
That is the question.
My hangup is that "authority" is on a sliding scale. If we ask a women to organize a dinner fellowship, we are investing an amount of authority in her. None of us would say that violates 1 Tim 2. So, when Paul said that a women should not excercise authority over a man, what did he mean? Did he mean that a women cannot excercise any ounce of authority over a man?
Most commentators say that the word "authority" in 1 Tim 2 specifically refers to "governing authority."
I just think it is difficult to prove that Acts 6 or 1 Tim 3 implies any amount of governing authoirty in the role of deacon.
justin said...
"I just think it is difficult to prove that Acts 6 or 1 Tim 3 implies any amount of governing authoirty in the role of deacon."
A question/comment about 1 Tim 3 and Acts 6 in reference to the above statement.
Is v.5 ("but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?") an explanation and commentary on why an overseer "must be one who manages his own household well" (v.4)? I think the idea is that if a man has not ruled well in the one he cannot be expected to rule well in the other. The same concept as Luke 16.11 but in terms of managing and exercising authority.
If so, why does it not equally explain and comment on v.12 where it is stated that deacons must be "good managers of their children and their own households"? What is the significance of this requirement if it does not mean that a deacon must prove his ability to rule outside of Christ's church before he is called on to rule within it?
Does it not indicate that both offices take up real care and real responsibility for Christ's Church in distinction from non-office bearers, but with the further distinction that one exercises authority as an overseer and one as a servant?
Is the same concept expressed in Acts 6.3 by the words "whom we may put in charge of this task"? Are they in charge or not? Do they have authority within the scope of their charge to govern and administer their task or not?
I think that deacons not only have real authority within the bounds of their responsibilities, but if they fail to govern and rule in those matters charged to them in such a way that the overseers are not truly freed to do their more important work ("devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word" v.4) then they will not be those about whom it is said "those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 3.13)
halo 2,
You raise some good and important observations.
However, I don't think any of your observations nessesitate "governing authority" applied to deacon ministry.
Any and every task implies some amount of authority.
Help me understand what kind of authority you think Paul is referring to in 1 Tim. 2:12.
I'll be out of touch for a few days. I'm having a baby!! Well, acutally my wife is having the baby.
justin...
A quick comment to clarify my earlier post in light of your use of the term "governing authority" -
The deacons have no "governing authority" in reference to the pastors. The pastors are overseers, elders, shepherds and governors, to use the biblical terms, while the deacons are servants. I frankly don't see much room for discussion in this regard.
However, I understand the question of this thread to be whether or not it is proper for women to be formally recognized to the office of deacon. I do not think the relationship of the deacons to the elders has any relevance to this question. The question is whether or not the deacons have authority in relation to the members of the church and to the men of the church in particular. Do the officers of the church viewed as distinct from the church at large lead, govern and rule?
It will not do to simply say that the deacons are servants and thus do not rule. The pastors are greater servants to the church than the deacons and Christ is the greatest servant of all in his church. In those areas of church life where the deacons serve the church (and serve the elders), I think they stand in the elders place, in much the same way that elders are undershepherds to the Chief Shepherd. They are doing what the elders would do if their more important duties did not draw them away. I think this explains why the qualifications for deacons are essentially the same as for the elders, with the exception of being able to teach. How you see the deacons in this regard certainly has bearing on your interpretation of 1 Tim 2.
I hope this explains my earlier comment in case I may have been misunderstood. I was not saying the deacons have authority which in any ways challenges or is in conflict with that of the elders. Rather their authority is derived from the elders and, when they exercise it in their place, it is real oversight and authority in relation to the church. I think this is relevant to the question at hand.
Post a Comment