Let's turn our focus to a few "secondary" issues related to the women deacon issue. Of course, the goal is simply to sharpen our thinking, not to get into a pointless argument. And, I would love to hear from all of you.
Many of those who advocate only male deacons point to the historical narrative in Acts 6. They say the disciples chose seven men so therefore only men can be deacons. I have never heard a good answer to this question: If the Acts 6 narrative mandates only men as deacons, why does it not also mandate the number of deacons (seven)?
It seems to me that either the argument must be made from some other text or, to be consistent, a church should have seven male deacons (not six and certainly not eight).
Help me see where I am missing the difference between "seven" and "men" in Acts 6.
-Justin C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think we all understand the distinction between historical narrative and epistolary command. Obviously in Acts 6 we have an example (seven men), not a command. No one can rightly say that deacons must be men simply because of Acts 6 (anymore than they can say that there must be 7). What we can do, however, is ask WHY they chose men and WHY they chose seven of them. Both of these questions can be helpful in understanding how to do deacon ministry in our churches.
Those who hold the position I do would suggest that the reason the apostles appointed men was because of the nature of the task: a task that included managing responsibilities in which they would be giving instruction and direction to both men and women in the church. The pattern throughout Scripture and in 1st Timothy 2-3 is one of male leadership, which Acts 6 falls in line with.
Deacons are not called to teach, but they are called to be spiritual leaders (setting an example of godly servanthood for the rest of the church to follow.) And spiritual leaders, whether in the home or the church, are to be men.
Who is responsible for the important decisions in your family? As the husband, you are called to listen and consider the wise counsel of your wife - but YOU are responsible for the decision. So also, Deacons - like elders - are called to make important decisions on behalf of the church family. Recognize that in Acts 6 the apostles didn't really fix the problem themselves - they just handed it over to a group of godly men they trusted. These were ELDER responsibilities handed down to trustworthy men in order that the elders could focus on prayer and the Word.
By trying to justify women deacons, you have to rob the office of its authority and leadership. All Christians are called to be deacons; but only godly, qualified men are called to fill the Office of Deacon. And yes, in response to your earlier comment, I believe that men who are bad with handling money and are not gifted with management skills are not qualified fot the office of Deacon. This doesn't mean that they are unimportant - these men still ahve very important roles to play in the church. They just haven't been called to fill the Office of Deacon.
Good. I'm glad that we can set the "seven MEN" argument aside.
I don't have a problem with your understanding of the WHY questions, so long as you understand that, at best, we can only guess at WHY they chose seven men. Someone else could come up with other legitimate reasons WHY they chose seven men (the text simply does not tell us).
And, the accusation of robbing the deacon position of authority has a counter-part: investing more authority than intended into the position.
Just to lay all my cards on the table: I don't want to read as much into the Acts 6 account as you do. The elders recognized a legitimate need and were led to a wise solution. They found seven men they trusted and told them what to do. There is no mention of managing, money, organization, authority, meeting together, etc. One of the points of the text is that these "first deacons" freed the apostles up so that they could devote themselves to preaching and prayer.
Justin,
Friend, I was not meaning to accuse YOU of mishandling the Scripture, and I apologize for that impression. I'll remove these comments pronto.
Justin said…..
“I have never heard a good answer to this question: If the Acts 6 narrative mandates only men as deacons, why does it not also mandate the number of deacons (seven)?”
-and-
“I'm glad that we can set the "seven MEN" argument aside.”
I agree with all of the previous comments about “SEVEN”. I think what we should take from Acts 6 is that the minimum number is “enough for the task”. However I do think both Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3 give us a clear maximum – no more than are qualified. If that number is none, one, seven or twenty – the maximum number = those qualified – the minimum number = as many of those qualified as are needed. If the right conclusion to draw is “an adequate number to fit the need” then it is entirely consistent to also say “as many MEN as are needed”. In my view your question poses a false premise – either it is [exactly seven and only men] or it is [not seven and not only men]. I don't think that the latter is proven even if the former statement is not precisely accurate.
It is particularly interesting to me that the very issue at hand in Acts 6 is one that today would be the very kind of thing that we would think MOST suitable for female leadership and responsibility – meeting the needs of older women and precisely meeting their need for food. Am I wrong to think that this is exactly the kind of situation where today one would most argue for female deacons? It is interesting that this was not the solution proposed by the Apostles.
Justin said ….
“Just to lay all my cards on the table: I don't want to read as much into the Acts 6 account as you do. The elders recognized a legitimate need and were led to a wise solution. They found seven men they trusted and told them what to do. There is no mention of managing, money, organization, authority, meeting together, etc. One of the points of the text is that these "first deacons" freed the apostles up so that they could devote themselves to preaching and prayer.”
I have three comments/questions concerning the narrow focus of diaconal activity that you imply from the text (“There is no mention of managing, money, organization, authority, meeting together, etc.”). I agree that we should not read things into the text (“I don't want to read as much into the Acts 6 account as you do.”) Consider the following from the text:
FIRST – What is the purpose of the words “full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.” (6.3) What exactly are they being put in charge of? Are the qualifications in proportion to the real need of the task? Are there any valid assumptions we can make about the task based upon these requirements? I think that the burden of proof should be on assuming there is not a direct relationship rather than the opposite. Also note what follows. Is there a connection between this task as it is undertaken by these “spiritual” men and vv.7-10? Is there a complete disconnect between the task and authority given these men and the subsequent work and gospel ministry of Stephen - the most prominent of the Seven? I would suggest the likelihood that there is a connection and that the spiritual activity of these men who are “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” as they work in the community was entirely anticipated and intended – in other words the meeting of material needs was to be accompanied by spiritual ministry as well. Isn't that how it should be?
SECOND – I would challenge your assertion that “There is no mention of managing, money, organization, authority, meeting together, etc.” In the text of Acts, people begin to sell property to help those in need. This involves money not food. (Acts 2.44-45) Then this practice continues but now they begin to “bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet”. (Acts 4.32-35) Now the Apostles have been drawn into the process that they are trying to get away from in Acts 6. Barnabas makes a generous contribution of money from the sale of property (Acts 4.36-37) which leads to the related sin of Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5.1-11). Immediately following the jailing and release of the Apostles, the text turns to the issue at hand – relieving the Apostles from the responsibility that has been thrust upon them. I would suggest that it precisely about money – receiving contributions and proceeds, purchasing food, organizing the distribution of either food or money to the rapidly growing number of widows in need. I don’t think you are reading anything into the text of Acts to conclude that handling money and organizing people is precisely what these men were to do. Furthermore the word “table” in 6.2 “in order to serve tables” is used to refer to literally a dining table, table of showbread, and money tables (Matt 21.12, Mk 11.15, John 2.15). Of particular interest is Luke 19.23 where the same word “table” is translated “bank” – lit. “Why did you not put my money to the ‘table’ and having come I would have collected it with interest?” Many take the statement in 6.2 to mean “it is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order “to distribute money” or “serve at a table of money distribution.”
THIRD – if the previous point is correct, then how strongly do you translate the words “it is not desirable” in 6.2. It can be taken as the KJV “it is not sufficient reason” or the ESV “it is not right”. If the task at hand is basically one of handling money, and I think it is, then what is this verse telling us. At the least – it is not the best use of the pastor’s time for him to spend it dealing with financial matters – at the most – it is wrong, in light of the importance of his spiritual duties, for him to do so. I'm not trying to make a overly strong statement here but it is something to think about.
halo 2,
Yes, I agree that only those qualified should serve as deacons.
Please understand that I was not arguing for the false premise you noted.
FIRST: I am not sure what you are asking here. I agree that they chose the 7 most godly people they could find. People full of the Holy Spirit and committed to the Lord are naturally going to be put in charge of things.
SECOND: This is a great observation. I don't disagree that a valid implication is that these 7 men handled money in some way. However, I think it is a huge jump to say they handled this money in a "governing authority" kind of way. I would rather think that their handling of money was under the direct authority of the apostles (i.e. the apostles told them how much they could spend and what they were to do with it). I hardly think this implication proves that only men are to handle money in any way. Again, I simply want you to acknowlege that implications are not authoritative and could be wrong.
THIRD: I simply disagree with what Acts 6 is about. The clear reading of the text says that the issue is that the apostles cannot neglect preaching and praying in order to ensure everyone is fed and taken care of. You are saying that the text is about how an elder shouldn't handle money. Am I reading you right or am I missing something?
Post a Comment