Here are some initial thoughts on Justin N.'s post: Women Deacons - 2.
Good thoughts Justin N.!
1. Yes, Amen!
2. Absolutely!
3. Many people who advocate only male deacons use Acts 6:3 as their most powerful argument ("See, it says only MEN"). I find this a very weak argument. First, this is historical narrative. This is what the early apostles did in this particular situation. The point of this passage is to show how God was at work in this blossoming church; not to prescribe how every church should function. If this way of interpreting Acts were consistently applied, we would need to adjust some of our beliefs and practices (beginning with selling all our possessions). Second, notice that those who point to this passage want to prescribe the gender of deacons ("MEN") but not the number of deacons ("SEVEN"). Since the apostles set a precedent for choosing seven deacons, should we not also have seven deacons? I advocate that we interpret "men" and "seven" in the same way. I have yet to hear of a church that limits the number of deacons to seven.
4. Yes. This is the main implication from this historical narrative.
5. I'm not sure we want to say that deacons must be good managers (in general). 1 Tim. 3 says they must manage their own household well. I think this qualification has much more to do with how they love their family and discipline their kids, than it does with how well they organize things. The point of the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 is that these people are examples of godliness. Let me try to give an example: What if a particular godly man lacks basic administration skills? He is bad at keeping a schedule, balancing his checkbook, and filing important documents. However, he is an exemplary husband and father. He loves his wife, disciplines his kids, and leads his family to pursue Christ. If I understand Justin N's understanding of the qualifications, this guy would not qualify as a deacon.
This is a question of how we view the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3. Is this list of qualifications meant to hint at the job description of a deacon? Or, is it primarily meant to prescribe the character and heart of a deacon? I think that this list is far more concerned with the character (example) of a deacon than what a deacon does. Notice that I didn't say this list has nothing to say about job description. It does. Verse 13 says deacons are to "serve well".
I think Hammett is right when he says, “Perhaps one reason why, in the providence of God, we are not given an explicit job description for deacons is to allow them the flexibility to serve in a variety of roles that allow the elders to focus on those things that most utilize their gifts and match their calling.”
6. Some of the same issues as #5 here. I don't disagree that the deacons had some responsibility for funds. However, the text says nothing about them being given authority over funds.
7. No problems here. This is a matter of preference. I like Capitol Hill's approach. It frees the deacons from the "board" mentality and pushes them into actually serving. Both approaches can be done well.
Bonus Thoughts:
1. I still think the disagreement surrounds what Paul meant by "authority" in 1 Tim. 2.
2. Nowhere does Scripture tell us that only men can be deacons.
3. 1 Tim. 3:11 may say that women can be deacons.
Wanting to be faithful to God's Word,
Justin C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Justin C. said...
"Bonus Thoughts:
1. I still think the disagreement surrounds what Paul meant by "authority" in 1 Tim. 2."
I would be interested to know your answer to three question relative to 1 Tim 2.
FIRST - what is the context of the statement and principle of 2.12-15?
Is it 2.1-15 so that we understand it to say - A. I want men to pray in every church but B. I want the women to remain quiet.
Or is it 2.1 to 3.13 - A. I want men to pray in every church, B. I want the women to remain quiet and not exercise authority, C. I want some men to exercise authority as elders, D. I want some men to exercise authority as deacons.
Where do you see the flow of thought beginning or ending? Does the principle of 2.13-15 look only back to the previous narrow context or forward and back to the surrounding statements?
SECOND - If 2.12 was missing, what would your real life application of the principle of 2.13-15 be? What implications for church life would be appropriate just from the principle stated in those verses?
THIRD - what kind of things can "exercise authority" mean since it apparently does not mean the same thing as teaching or instructing or exercising the things that would most indicate "spiritual" authority? The statement is "teach or exercise authority". What do you see as the possible meanings of "or exercise authority" if it is something different from teaching or preaching?
Thanks.
Good questions.
1. The context of 1 Tim. 2:12 is 1 Tim. 3:14-15 (Paul is writing in order to explain how people are to behave in the community). I see the entire letter revolving around Paul's purpose of writing.
So, yes, I see everything preceeding and following 1 Tim. 2:12 to be connected.
2. This is difficult to answer because 1 Tim. 2:12 is there. I would rather not speculate "what if." The principle in 1 Tim. 2:13-15 is consistent with all of Scripture in advocating Male Headship. So, everything that Scripture implies regarding male headship would be the practical application of the principle.
3. Read Moo's chapter on this in "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." He does a great job of summarizing the meaning of "excersice authority." Also, read Grudem's section in "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth." Grudem's list of possible meanings of this word all carry the sense of "to rule, to dominate, to compel, etc."
Also, see Grudem's list of activities from greatest to least authority. I think he does a good job of drawing the line (between what is appropriate and not appropriate for women to do). You can find this book online if you don't have it (Counsel of Bibilcal Manhood and Womanhood). If you find it, see page 85 for the list I'm referring to.
Justin said…
“2. This is difficult to answer because 1 Tim. 2:12 is there. I would rather not speculate "what if." The principle in 1 Tim. 2:13-15 is consistent with all of Scripture in advocating Male Headship. So, everything that Scripture implies regarding male headship would be the practical application of the principle……Also, see Grudem's list of activities from greatest to least authority. I think he does a good job of drawing the line (between what is appropriate and not appropriate for women to do). ”
I am familiar with Grudem’s several lists and his arguments in support of drawing certain lines of distinction.
My understanding of his (Grudem’s) lists is as follows: The general principle is women may teach and exercise authority. The restriction/exception to this general principle is found in the narrow context of public and formal worship. Referring to this narrow context he says …page 92 “the left side of the scale prohibits women from teaching or having governing authority over the assembled congregation.” Thus he is applying the statement of 2.12 and the principle of 2.13-15 in this specific context and to the individual items on his various lists. (His biblical references for the “context” are 2.8-10 and 3.15.) If items fall within this specific category they are prohibited to women. If they fall outside of this category they are not. Under this guiding principle the lines are drawn. I don’t think I am misrepresenting him in any way. Please correct me if this is not how this entire process has been worked out in its application found in pages 84 to 101 and to the determination of the specifics of the various lists and of what is allowed and not allowed for women in ministry.
I have two questions about applying 2.12-15 to only that narrow context.
First – I am struggling with how the principle can be anything less than universal in application. On what grounds do we restrict it? This passage does not say it is ONLY applicable to public worship does it? The actual principle stated seems to be the farthest that a principle could possibly be from one with narrow and limited application. It is not a temporary principle. It is not a contemporary principle. It is not a principle based on historical, cultural or organizational setting. It is a principle based on the God’s creative activity in bringing men and women into the world and relating them properly to each other. I think Christ through the Apostle is saying two things – this is the proper relationship and it matters very much – or in different words – this is the proper relationship from the time of the first man and woman and see what happens when this design is not followed. If this is a universal principle established at creation and before the fall, then under what circumstances does it not apply? Would we not need a specific scriptural warrant to except any man/woman relationship from the principle if 2.12? or to restrict the application of 2.12 from applying to all of our interaction? It seems to me that rather than being a principle of narrow and specific application which overrules the general rule that women may teach and exercise authority that it says exactly the opposite. The thought is – women may not teach or exercise authority over a man – here’s why – so of course this universal principle applies to public worship, elders, deacons and all that is done in “the church of the living God.” (3.15) In reference to your comment about “speculation” and “what if”, if the above is correct, we enter speculation when we ponder when not to apply this principle rather than the opposite – which is exactly the tension I am feeling when considering this discussion and why I am asking these questions.
Second – Even if you reject the idea that the principle is universal, I still do not see how the context of 1 Tim 2-3 can be limited to the assembled congregation which is the defining thought behind Grudem’s application to the various lists. Are the duties of the elders and deacons only performed in the context of the formally assembled church? Is Paul instructing the church how they ought to conduct themselves (3.15) only when they are gathered in a formal organized setting? Is the church the pillar and foundation of the truth (3.15) only when in formal public meeting? I think the context of this whole epistle is “church life” in the broadest sense and not the narrow sense adopted and applied.
Thank you for your thoughts!
halo 2,
If you don't mind, please identify yourself. Are you a member of our group? I don't like carrying on a conversation with a mystery person! Even though we have a slight disagreement on this issue, I love the way you think. I consider you a brother (or sister) in Christ.
The main reason to limit the application of this passage to the local church is because that is the context of the letter. Paul is not talking about how men and women relate to each other in the work place or at the supermarket. His concern is the household of God.
Just to get practical for a moment:
So, to be consistent, you think 1 Tim. 2:12 prohibits a women from ANY position in which a man is "under" her (manager of McDonalds; editor of a book; president of a company)? I'm not trying to be funny. I'm just trying to get at how you are interpreting this text.
Just to throw in a parallel text:
In Romans 16:2, Paul commands the Christians in Rome to help Phoebe in whatever she may need from them. Aside from the debate about whether she is a "deacon" or not; is Paul not "granting" her some amount of authority? What if Phoebe needs help in organizing a love offering for the Christians in Cenchrae? Can Phoebe "employ" the men to help her? Can she ask them to do something for her and the church? Evidently, Paul thinks that a women can serve with delegated authority and not be "exercising authority."
JN knows who I am. I took up this nickname from a earlier post of his just so he would know.
You said....
"The main reason to limit the application of this passage to the local church is because that is the context of the letter. Paul is not talking about how men and women relate to each other in the work place or at the supermarket. His concern is the household of God."
I agree with this statement entirely. However this is not the context by which Grudem draws lines of distinction in his lists. In fact with few exceptions (like a women teaching religion in a secular university) all items on his lists are in the context of "church life". It is the application of this principle to "the assembled congregation" only and not to all of church life that I cannot come to grips with in the light of argument made in 2.13-15 in support of the principle in 2.12. On what basis is this principle not applied to all activity within the household of God? This is where I am not following the flow of principle to practice nor the justification for its narrow application.
Less you think I am anti-woman in this matter, let me add this comment. I believe that a gifted, spiritually mature woman in the church who takes up the role of being a teacher, leader and counselor to the women of the church (young and old) would be stepping from a place of greater, more dynamic and more spiritually significant service in Christ's church to a lesser role if she were to take up the office of deacon. It may very well be the case that women of this sort can minister and help others EVEN MORE THAN THE ELDERS as they work in the context of teaching and leading the women in the things of God. I see no inferiority here - in fact quite the opposite. What is lacking in our churches is not people to take up committee leadership. What is lacking is mature spiritual leadership among both men and women.
As to your question about employment and other forms of authority I would make two observations. First, do we find these type of man/woman relationships in society at large from the influence of godly and righteous forces or due to factors that are unrighteous, unprincipled and at enmity with God? In that sense I would say that if the world was perfect and not fallen, these principles would apply to all such relationships. Second, in the providence of God this is not how the world is. This is the very reason why "in the household of God" and in our families we ought to live according to the principles God intended. In the providence of God it is outside of our control to reorder society. However, in our families and churches, by the grace of God, it is not outside of our control how we live relative to these things. In God's kind providence there are still pastors committed to biblical principles and people willing to follow them. I assume this is very reason you are having this discussion.
As to Romans 16, I think all Christians at all times should help all Christians who are trying to help others. The issue of women serving as deacons in my view does not revolve around people jumping in and supporting and helping other and submitting to each other in any way that can to advance the kingdom of God but it turns on the formal church office and the official responsibilites and authority that accrue to those holding that office. I disagree with your earlier statement - "I'm not sure we want to say that deacons must be good managers (in general)." I disagree specifically because I do not see how 2.5 can be be an explanation of 2.4 and not equally be an explanation 2.12b. I think it has been a curse to the church to have men not capable of good management serve as deacons. Would you like for me to tell you some stories? :)
Post a Comment