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.
Showing posts with label Deacon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deacon. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Seven Men"
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
What does it mean to "exercise authority"?
In the comments on the last post, I referred to Wayne Grudem's Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. I would highly recommend this book to all pastors. It is a gold mine!
Also, you can read the entire book online here.
If you are following the discussion of what Paul meant by "exercise authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12, go to page 84 and begin reading Grudem's lists. Keep reading until you get to the part where he actually draws a line as to where he would stand on what a women can do and what a women cannot do in the church. Also, read his discussion of this word later in the book.
justin c.
Also, you can read the entire book online here.
If you are following the discussion of what Paul meant by "exercise authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12, go to page 84 and begin reading Grudem's lists. Keep reading until you get to the part where he actually draws a line as to where he would stand on what a women can do and what a women cannot do in the church. Also, read his discussion of this word later in the book.
justin c.
Monday, December 17, 2007
On Women Deacons - 3
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.
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.
Friday, December 7, 2007
On Women Deacons - 1
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
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:
Posts (Atom)
