Female Deacons

[HondaMan]

that's not what Paul said and if your going to quote someone to make a point how about posting chapter verse and the quote. The fact is it is hypocritical and God is not a hypocrite.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - 1 Cor 14:34-35

An interpreter says that Paul is prohibiting chatter among women and that they should be obedient and listen. Valid point.

It was also a custom for men to speak and women to listen, but Paul didn't prohibit worship such as singing, praying, prophesying.

My apologies, he didn't specifically prohibit preaching from the pulpit, but many churches, including mine, hold on to that view. Not that I agree or disagree. I'm open minded and open to other interpretations. We don't know everything, and always discover new details.

 

[Bluelion]

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - 1 Cor 14:34-35

An interpreter says that Paul is prohibiting chatter among women and that they should be obedient and listen. Valid point.

It was also a custom for men to speak and women to listen, but Paul didn't prohibit worship such as singing, praying, prophesying.

My apologies, he didn't specifically prohibit preaching from the pulpit, but many churches, including mine, hold on to that view. Not that I agree or disagree. I'm open minded and open to other interpretations. We don't know everything, and always discover new details.

Ok you need to go to the KJV and then to the greek to understand what Paul was saying there. He was actually talking women gossiping in church that use to be the case there at that church. for that matter men should not gossip either.

What you are referring to is this passage.

1 Tim 2 NLT

11 Women should learn quietly and submissively. 12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. 13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

KJV

1Tim 2

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

see in 12 usurp authority, that means to act on ones own self interest or behalf. Paul said nothing of a woman being appointed by God such was the case with Judge Deborah. Judges were those God raised up to lead Israel out of its misery and Back to God.

 

[Hank77]

Yeah, the word for deacon (can't remember it right now) simply means servant, so it's a leader who is a trusted servant. Most of the stuff I read way back about the early church seemed to suggest that women deacons oversaw women and children and men oversaw men. Only the head teacher oversaw the whole church and was male--someone we would refer to as a pastor. This also seems to reflect what I see in the NT writings. What I don't find in the writings is sidelining women into "easy" sub-management type roles and assigning men with all the "important" tasks, which is what sort of happens in a lot of churches.

Maybe the word you are looking for is presbyter? Archaeology from a 1st - 4th century grave sites has proved that there were women presbyters. One tombstone reads, (don't remember the names in order) ___ the daughter of Lois the presbyter. In almost every area around the Mediterranean there have been discovered painting of women in leadership positions and inscriptions in churches and on tombstones naming these women and their positions as bishops and deacons.
So I think that archaeology demands that we reconcile what we have from Paul with the evidence.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Maybe the word you are looking for is presbyter? Archaeology from a 1st - 4th century grave sites has proved that there were women presbyters. One tombstone reads, (don't remember the names in order) ___ the daughter of Lois the presbyter. In almost every area around the Mediterranean there have been discovered painting of women in leadership positions and inscriptions in churches and on tombstones naming these women and their positions as bishops and deacons.
So I think that archaeology demands that we reconcile what we have from Paul with the evidence.

I agree. Theology needs to do two things to be sensible: 1) Make sense of the Scriptures in a coherent, congruent manner. 2) Make sense of what we experience in a coherent, congruent manner.
So, if we have incontrovertible evidence the early church did certain things, it shouldn't "trump" scripture, but ought (if we are sane) help shape the way we understand what we read.
Having said that, I try not to go there unless I have to because it's easy to fall into The Trap. By that I refer to how the Catholics use church tradition and how the Reformed use church tradition. Both camps have their "saints" and seem not to realize how much it's affected their reading of the Word.

 

[Larry Smart]

Yeah this topic has spark very heated debates its not you, but you will see by the end of the thread what I mean.

Let me ask you is it ok to go out in the world and steal, or commit adultery, or take God's name in vain? why not? you just said there are spiritual things and worldly. If we are children of God we are to follow God not just in church but in the world. So it would be a sin for a Christian woman to lead a man in the world sense she can not do so in church. If your reasoning is woman was deceived but a man not then she can not be a trusted leader any where with men. It's a double standard. Must people quote Paul but what Paul said he did not allow women to usurp authority over men. The world usurp means to act on ones self interest. So what Paul was saying he did not let women minister simply so they could be important in the church for there own reasons. For that matter he did not let men either.

Now I do believe the Man is the head of the family as the bible states. There certainly are roles with in the family father, mother, children is the order. but if God appoints a woman who are to tell her no, such as he did with Deborah. Deborah was more than a pastor she was a judge appointed by God and yes she did lead men. So you see God does appoint women. The fact you can not even see a double standard with your stance shows a problem, how can we move past that point when you don't see the flaws in your argument?

Thank you for sharing the dialog. I enjoy learning from everyone here.

 

[classicalhero]

@ timothy 3 gives a list of requirements for being in the leadership of a church. One f them was being a man of one wife. That should automatically rule out female preachers and deacons.

 

[Poor Beggar]

@ timothy 3 gives a list of requirements for being in the leadership of a church. One f them was being a man of one wife. That should automatically rule out female preachers and deacons.

How would you explain Paul's clear reference to Phebe as a deaconess? What about women speaking instructions to the church in 1 Cor. 11:5?

 

[Poor Beggar]

@ timothy 3 gives a list of requirements for being in the leadership of a church. One f them was being a man of one wife. That should automatically rule out female preachers and deacons.

I know extra-biblical writings aren't inspired, but it does suggest accepted practice in the early church. Pliny wrote there were female deacons in the church at Bithynia. (G. H. R. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979 (North Hyde, N.S.W.: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1987), 122.)

That would have been just after John's death, timewise. If they'd been there even a few years they'd have been operating in that office while John the Apostle was living.

 

[mikedsjr]

There is a problem here. If we truly examine sermons given on any given Sunday, there will be feminized bias being taught in churches. Go read word for word the ESV to a 5 year old. Don't tell me it sounds warm and fuzzy like the feminized version spewing from pulpit that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. The Scriptures is full of hard core truth and facts. People today in the modern/postmodern world dont like the gospel so the seeker sensitive movement within churches has made Jesus a feminized girlfriend. However, in Scripture people are getting beaten for the gospel. People dying. People killing. People inprisoned for the gospel. You have Paul calling out people in churches who don't stop sinning. We have Paul wishing some would mutilate themselves. But I imagine feminized sermons will never preach on this. It doesn't make for positivity and beauty.

Then there is the feminized worship songs have barely anything representing a gospel truth. They reflect Jesus is a girlfriend to us more than anything. Their like dating songs and we are just waiting for you to cheat on your girlfriend Jesus, because you will. But its okay, because feminized Jesus loves you, because he loves like a hurricane. (what does that mean???). Never mind that Jesus was beaten to a point he was unrecognizable. Never mind Jesus died for your sins. We don't want to sing about that. We want mantra songs repeating two line over and over until you believe as if you were in a cult. This isn't reflective of Scripture. This is a reflection of a liberalized feminized culture.

there...

i feel better....

 

[Poor Beggar]

There is a problem here. If we truly examine sermons given on any given Sunday, there will be feminized bias being taught in churches. Go read word for word the ESV to a 5 year old. Don't tell me it sounds warm and fuzzy like the feminized version spewing from pulpit that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. The Scriptures is full of hard core truth and facts. People today in the modern/postmodern world dont like the gospel so the seeker sensitive movement within churches has made Jesus a feminized girlfriend. However, in Scripture people are getting beaten for the gospel. People dying. People killing. People inprisoned for the gospel. You have Paul calling out people in churches who don't stop sinning. We have Paul wishing some would mutilate themselves. But I imagine feminized sermons will never preach on this. It doesn't make for positivity and beauty.

Then there is the feminized worship songs have barely anything representing a gospel truth. They reflect Jesus is a girlfriend to us more than anything. Their like dating songs and we are just waiting for you to cheat on your girlfriend Jesus, because you will. But its okay, because feminized Jesus loves you, because he loves like a hurricane. (what does that mean???). Never mind that Jesus was beaten to a point he was unrecognizable. Never mind Jesus died for your sins. We don't want to sing about that. We want mantra songs repeating two line over and over until you believe as if you were in a cult. This isn't reflective of Scripture. This is a reflection of a liberalized feminized culture.

there...

i feel better....

I totally agree with you about the feminization of the church and it makes me want to punch babi....or, love people. It makes me want to love people more. Yes.
Anyway, I think it's destroying our church and it is right out of the serpent's mouth in the garden. It's the same lie. "Did God really say?" Women have always been attacked because they have a lot of influence.
But, for the leadership of women in the church, I'd have to say it appears they were in influential roles, which is leadership. However, I don't believe they ever served as head pastors.
But, yeah, I don't want to sing to Jesus like he's my boyfriend on Sunday morning. And then these churches invest all this money in seminars to help them attract more men because (scratches head) we just can't figure out why men don't want to be here.....

 

[Albion]

How would you explain Paul's clear reference to Phebe as a deaconess? What about women speaking instructions to the church in 1 Cor. 11:5?

Pheobe was a deaconess. Deaconesses are laywomen who have certain functions pertaining, mainly, to other women and to children. Historically, they were not considered to be clergy like deacons were. Of course, if the issue is women in "leadership" positions, it changes the focus somewhat since it could be argued that all manner of lay duties represent some sort of leadership.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Pheobe was a deaconess. Deaconesses are laywomen who have certain functions pertaining, mainly, to other women and to children. Historically, they were not considered to be clergy like deacons were. Of course, if the issue is women in "leadership" positions, it changes the focus somewhat since it could be argued that all manner of lay duties represent some sort of leadership.

Yep, I think distinguishing between formally recognized leadership and actual leadership can be difficult in real life. Also, why was Phebe laity? I missed where it shows that.

 

[Albion]

Yep, I think distinguishing between formally recognized leadership and actual leadership can be difficult in real life. Also, why was Phebe laity? I missed where it shows that.

There were no women deacons. Scripture does not show us any. It of course speaks of the qualifications for being a male deacon and we know of Stephen's being chosen to be a deacon, etc., but nothing about women as deacons. Unfortunately, and as has been noted, the root word (diaconos), meaning a "servant," can be translated either as deacon or deaconess. But we know from history what deacons did and what they were considered to be....and we also know what deaconesses were and what they did. When Pheobe is called a diaconos, therefore, we know that it means a deaconess, not a deacon, because we know that there was a difference, both from scripture and from history.

 

[Poor Beggar]

There were no women deacons. Scripture does not show us any. It of course speaks of the qualifications for being a male deacon and we know of Stephen's being chosen to be a deacon, etc., but nothing about women as deacons. Unfortunately, and as has been noted, the root word (diaconos), meaning a "servant," can be translated either as deacon or deaconess. But we know from history what deacons did and what they were considered to be....and we also know what deaconesses were and what they did. When Pheobe is called a diaconos, therefore, we know that it means a deaconess, not a deacon, because we know that there was a difference, both from scripture and from history.

But this is the very thing being debated. You're saying we know Phebe wasn't a formal "deaconess" (equal to deacon) because there were no such things and we know there were no such things because Phebe wasn't a formal "deaconess".
If she was, which I and lots of other people think is the case based on context, then we'd have to conclude that scripture does show us at least one.

 

[Poor Beggar]

If she was, which I and lots of other people think is the case based on context, then we'd have to conclude that scripture does show us at least one.

Actually, probably two. This may open a can of worms, but no one ever has convinced me why we should spiritualize 2 John 1.
...unless we've already decided the elect lady cannot be a church leader.

 

[Albion]

But this is the very thing being debated. You're saying we know Phebe wasn't a formal "deaconess" because there were no such things and we know there were no such things because Phebe wasn't a formal "deaconess".

That's not what I said. I said that there were no women as deacons. We know this from both history and Scripture. So what was Pheobe, who was termed a "diaconos?" She was a deaconess, and history records the existence of deaconesses. Some churches still have them doing exactly what they always have done, and we know the duties...and none of it is what males who are termed deacons and considered clergy with clerical responsibilities and privileges do or did.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the distinction was not real.

If she was, which I and lots of other people think is the case based on context, then we'd have to conclude that scripture does show us at least one.

You could deem almost anyone to be in almost any leadership position you want...by that logic. "Servant" (diaconos) could be twisted to fit elders, bishops, teachers, whatever, since they all can be thought of as "serving" the church. Except that we do actually know how the early church functioned.

I would be interested, however, and because you said you think Phoebe was a deacon because of "context," to know what that context might be since you've dismissed Church History and a glaring absence in the New Testament of any reference to women as deacons. It seems to me that context is exactly what you are unwilling to consider.

 

[Hank77]

@ timothy 3 gives a list of requirements for being in the leadership of a church. One f them was being a man of one wife. That should automatically rule out female preachers and deacons.

Yes, the husband of One wife, not two or three wives. There were Jewish men in the assembly who may have had more than one wife because they were coming from Judaism, where polygamy was allowed. It would not be necessary to make this rule for women seeing that women were never allowed, even in Judaism, to have more than one husband.

 

[Poor Beggar]

1 Cor. 14:26

I would be interested, however, and because you said you think Phoebe was a deacon because of "context," to know what that context might be since you've dismissed Church History and a glaring absence in the New Testament of any reference to women as deacons. It seems to me that context is exactly what you are unwilling to consider.

And that sounds like someone who isn't really going to have this conversation. Just sayin'.

 

[Albion]

Yes, the husband of One wife, not two or three wives. There were Jewish men in the assembly who may have had more than one wife because they were coming from Judaism, where polygamy was allowed. It would not be necessary to make this rule for women seeing that women were never allowed, even in Judaism, to have more than one husband.

But that isn't the whole of the qualifications listed there. We also have:
be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, not pursuing dishonest gain, holding the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience, faithful to his wife, manage his children and household, must first be tested, "and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons."


If women were allowed to be deacons, it is almost certain that there would be some comment about the qualifications which did apply to them--even if we accept your point here.

 

[Poor Beggar]

That's not what I said. I said that there were no women as deacons. We know this from both history and Scripture. So what was Pheobe, who was termed a "diaconos?" She was a deaconess, and history records the existence of deaconesses. Some churches still have them doing exactly what they always have done, and we know the duties...and none of it is what males who are termed deacons and considered clergy with clerical responsibilities and privileges do or did.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the distinction was not real.


You could deem almost anyone to be in almost any leadership position you want...by that logic. "Servant" (diaconos) could be twisted to fit elders, bishops, teachers, whatever, since they all can be thought of as "serving" the church. Except that we do actually know how the early church functioned.

I would be interested, however, and because you said you think Phoebe was a deacon because of "context," to know what that context might be since you've dismissed Church History and a glaring absence in the New Testament of any reference to women as deacons. It seems to me that context is exactly what you are unwilling to consider.

Maybe it was this post that counted as dismissing Church History?

I know extra-biblical writings aren't inspired, but it does suggest accepted practice in the early church. Pliny wrote there were female deacons in the church at Bithynia. (G. H. R. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979 (North Hyde, N.S.W.: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1987), 122.)

That would have been just after John's death, timewise. If they'd been there even a few years they'd have been operating in that office while John the Apostle was living.