Can women be deacons?
This verse is tucked into the middle of 2 verses clearly meant for men:
v. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
That first word is also translated "deaconess" Is a "deaconess" a female deacon? A wife of a deacon? What was Phoebe (also called a "deaconness" in Romans 16)?
16:1 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well."
I've already reached the conclusion here that women can't be elders, as that would put them in a position of authority over a man. That conforms with 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, etc.
But, what about a deacon? A deacon's role is not to have authority, but to serve.
In too many churches there are deacon committees that pretty much run the church and vote on very important decisions. That's not what they're called to do in Scripture. Seems to me that's the elders' job.
So, if the "deacons" of your church are actually exercising elder authority, then I can easily say "no, a woman's role is not to be a deacon." But, if your deacons are actually like the ones in Scripture and don't have authority and are instead servants to authority, then what keeps a woman servant (like Phoebe) from holding the title of deacon?
Many would point to verses 10 and 12 which clearly say "men." And I'm okay with exercising caution about giving a woman the title of deacon based on these verses. But, in two letters Paul clearly mentions deaconesses, one of which (Phoebe) is clearly serving just like a male deacon.
From this chapter, I'm left with 1 conclusion and 1 question:
Conclusion: Deacons should be servants to authority rather than holders of authority.
Question: Since women who are servants to authority (like Phoebe) are found in Scripture, are they also deacons?
Sunday, May 20, 2007
1 Timothy 3:7
On the list of requirements for an "overseer" (Gr. "episkopos"):
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Similarly, on the deacon requirements: 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity.
What does "good reputation" and "dignity" mean? I think we automatically think of this proverb: "You can know a man by the company he keeps."
But, that's not really Scriptural. We could instantly come up with a dozen ways to check a deacon/elder candidates' "reputation."
But, Jesus didn't exactly have a "good reputation," nor was he "dignified." He broke the Law on numerous occasions. He dined with sinners. Among his followers were former demoniacs, tax collectors, lepers, etc. The "dignified" people of "good reputation" rejected and hated him.
So, what does "good reputation" mean, particularly for us?
I think the answer is found in 1 Peter 2:22-23: "'(Jesus) committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.' and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;"
Therefore, I think we should judge reputation by sin, or lack thereof. Rather than using worldly characteristics: the company one keeps, charisma, leadership qualities, intelligence, business successes/failures... we should simply say "is any sin or deceit found in him?"
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Similarly, on the deacon requirements: 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity.
What does "good reputation" and "dignity" mean? I think we automatically think of this proverb: "You can know a man by the company he keeps."
But, that's not really Scriptural. We could instantly come up with a dozen ways to check a deacon/elder candidates' "reputation."
But, Jesus didn't exactly have a "good reputation," nor was he "dignified." He broke the Law on numerous occasions. He dined with sinners. Among his followers were former demoniacs, tax collectors, lepers, etc. The "dignified" people of "good reputation" rejected and hated him.
So, what does "good reputation" mean, particularly for us?
I think the answer is found in 1 Peter 2:22-23: "'(Jesus) committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth.' and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;"
Therefore, I think we should judge reputation by sin, or lack thereof. Rather than using worldly characteristics: the company one keeps, charisma, leadership qualities, intelligence, business successes/failures... we should simply say "is any sin or deceit found in him?"
1 Timothy 3:1
1-2 "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be..."
I notice how Paul doesn't say "If any man feels called or is led to the office..." Why is this so often over-spiritualized in our churches? You have to "feel called" or you can't enter the club. A 15-year old comes forward and "feels called" to "the ministry."
I acknowledge that God has a plan for each of His children, and we ought to say "If God wills..." (James 4:13-17). But, when you talk to pastors about entering the ministry they so often ask "Tell me about when you were called."
Paul doesn't say anything about that. He just says "if any man aspires to" and then gives a list of requirements. If a man doesn't meet those requirements, he can't be an overseer. There's no supernatural "I felt called..." requirement.
It's no different than saying "If any man aspires to be an accountant...then, (he) must be..."
I notice how Paul doesn't say "If any man feels called or is led to the office..." Why is this so often over-spiritualized in our churches? You have to "feel called" or you can't enter the club. A 15-year old comes forward and "feels called" to "the ministry."
I acknowledge that God has a plan for each of His children, and we ought to say "If God wills..." (James 4:13-17). But, when you talk to pastors about entering the ministry they so often ask "Tell me about when you were called."
Paul doesn't say anything about that. He just says "if any man aspires to" and then gives a list of requirements. If a man doesn't meet those requirements, he can't be an overseer. There's no supernatural "I felt called..." requirement.
It's no different than saying "If any man aspires to be an accountant...then, (he) must be..."
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
1 Timothy 2:12-15 (part 2)
v. 11 "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
John Piper apparently preached from 1 Peter 3:1-7 on Sunday. It's a great sermon. Very similar to 1 Timothy 2.
Piper's sermon on 1 Timothy 12:11-15 asks imporant questions: What is meant by "quiet," what is meant by "teach," and what is meant by "authority?"
This "quiet" is the same word as found in verse 2. "...so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." It doesn't mean a mute existence, but instead seems more like tranquil and peaceful. The absence of disturbance or controversy.
"Teach" is found all over scripture. Women are commanded to teach other women, Timothy himself was taught by his mom and grandmother, Priscilla and her husband taught Apollos. So, clearly women can and do teach in scripture.
"Authority" is also used in verse 2, referring to kings and "all who are in authority." Authority is apparently some form of governorship. Paul later writes about "Elders who rule (or govern) well..." in chapter 5.
Piper surmises that the kind of teaching women are being told not to do is that which would put them in authority over other men. It's sometimes difficult to be be resolute about what kind of teaching puts people in authority. Some teaching is just teaching, with little or no authority attached.
However, as we get into chapter 3 and see the qualifications for elders, who are to govern the church, one can see that if a woman holds that office then she would have "authority" over other men. Since elders were called to both govern and teach, it stands to reason that Paul is excluding women from holding that office, or teaching as an elder.
John Piper apparently preached from 1 Peter 3:1-7 on Sunday. It's a great sermon. Very similar to 1 Timothy 2.
Piper's sermon on 1 Timothy 12:11-15 asks imporant questions: What is meant by "quiet," what is meant by "teach," and what is meant by "authority?"
This "quiet" is the same word as found in verse 2. "...so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." It doesn't mean a mute existence, but instead seems more like tranquil and peaceful. The absence of disturbance or controversy.
"Teach" is found all over scripture. Women are commanded to teach other women, Timothy himself was taught by his mom and grandmother, Priscilla and her husband taught Apollos. So, clearly women can and do teach in scripture.
"Authority" is also used in verse 2, referring to kings and "all who are in authority." Authority is apparently some form of governorship. Paul later writes about "Elders who rule (or govern) well..." in chapter 5.
Piper surmises that the kind of teaching women are being told not to do is that which would put them in authority over other men. It's sometimes difficult to be be resolute about what kind of teaching puts people in authority. Some teaching is just teaching, with little or no authority attached.
However, as we get into chapter 3 and see the qualifications for elders, who are to govern the church, one can see that if a woman holds that office then she would have "authority" over other men. Since elders were called to both govern and teach, it stands to reason that Paul is excluding women from holding that office, or teaching as an elder.
Monday, April 16, 2007
1 Timothy 2:11-15
v. 12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
The Greek words for "man" and "woman" in this passage can apparently be translated just as easily as "husband" and "wife," and so it is throughout this chapter. We can re-write it as:
"But I do not allow a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband, but to remain quiet."
(that's how it's translated from the Greek into some other languages, like Russian: а учит жене не ползволяю...).
Marriage is a word-picture of Christ and the Church. Christ loves His bride, redeemed her. Christ has authority, and yet the picture we have of Him in Scripture is that of a servant washing his disciples' feet.
So, 1 Timothy 2 brings back images of Ephesians 5. "Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord..."
Тhe way life is in the home is the model we have for how life should be in the Church.
In our marriage counseling we learned a definition of submission:
"When one of 2 equals voluntarily defers to the other." The image was that of two Roman generals of equal rank on a battlefield. You can't have two equal commanders in battle, so one tips his helmet and defers to the other. (Supposedly, the Greek word for "submit" here is that same word for this act of deferment from one general to another).
My wife and I have equal "rank" in the eyes of God. Galations 3:28. And we're given an enormous amount of freedom in Christ. But, my wife voluntarily defers to my authority at home as Paul is saying she should. We have different roles and responsibilities.
So, I agree with the Zodhiates commentary on the chapter that Paul is saying women should limit some of the freedom they have in Christ, in order to defer to the authority of their men. And they shouldn't "usurp" that authority for themselves. And men have the responsibility to love their women and demonstrate Christ to them. This letter was written about conduct in the church.
But, life in the the home and life in the church should look the same. Because marriage is a word-picture of Christ and the Church.
The Greek words for "man" and "woman" in this passage can apparently be translated just as easily as "husband" and "wife," and so it is throughout this chapter. We can re-write it as:
"But I do not allow a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband, but to remain quiet."
(that's how it's translated from the Greek into some other languages, like Russian: а учит жене не ползволяю...).
Marriage is a word-picture of Christ and the Church. Christ loves His bride, redeemed her. Christ has authority, and yet the picture we have of Him in Scripture is that of a servant washing his disciples' feet.
So, 1 Timothy 2 brings back images of Ephesians 5. "Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord..."
Тhe way life is in the home is the model we have for how life should be in the Church.
In our marriage counseling we learned a definition of submission:
"When one of 2 equals voluntarily defers to the other." The image was that of two Roman generals of equal rank on a battlefield. You can't have two equal commanders in battle, so one tips his helmet and defers to the other. (Supposedly, the Greek word for "submit" here is that same word for this act of deferment from one general to another).
My wife and I have equal "rank" in the eyes of God. Galations 3:28. And we're given an enormous amount of freedom in Christ. But, my wife voluntarily defers to my authority at home as Paul is saying she should. We have different roles and responsibilities.
So, I agree with the Zodhiates commentary on the chapter that Paul is saying women should limit some of the freedom they have in Christ, in order to defer to the authority of their men. And they shouldn't "usurp" that authority for themselves. And men have the responsibility to love their women and demonstrate Christ to them. This letter was written about conduct in the church.
But, life in the the home and life in the church should look the same. Because marriage is a word-picture of Christ and the Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
