Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Emerging Denomination Called PCK
I'm not sure if any of you were keeping up with the PCA general assembly this year, but some very important issues have surfaced yet again. There are a growing number of PCA churches that are electing women as deacons. When I learned that this was an issue, I said to myself, "Are we, the PCA, to follow the same path of our heretical sister, the PCUSA?" The electing of deaconesses has been done in spite of the Book of Church Order clearly stating that this is not biblical to do so, and thereby these churches are violating the constitution of the PCA. I recently spoke with pastor Wallace (many of you know his son) about this issue, and he said that in 1973, 74 and 75 the issue was studied extensively. As a result, a statement was made by the PCA in 1975 saying that all elected church offices must only be held by men. However, many ordained pastors and sessions in the PCA have denied the authority of their presbyteries and the PCA constitution, and have taken a Baptist (no offense intended) view of church government claiming sovereignty on this issue. The "ring leader" in this movement is apparently none other than famed pastor of Redeemer in NYC, Tim Keller. The problem certainly seems to center around more liberal areas of this country. In this year's general assembly, Keller basically said that the pastors and sessions within the PCA who choose to elect deaconesses have, in effect, immunity from the PCA as a whole. He said (paraphrase of a paraphrase) that attempting to discipline these churches would be unproductive and foolish. Therefore, I coin the term PCK (Presbyterian Church of Keller). He is relying on his celebrity status in the PCA to make him and his followers "untouchable." I don’t know how you guys feel on this issue, I just thought that this would be an interesting discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I believe in every word Keller says.
Actually, I've never studied this issue before. The Bible clearly gives us examples of churchs in the NT who had deaconesses. Does the PCA say these examples are merely descriptive examples and not subscriptive?
Explain Blake. I am not aware of such passages.
we talked about this one day in our Baptist sunday school class. the church we are attending allows women deacons, but from what I was told it is more of a service position than leadership position. They said that there are certain situations that come about where it is better to have a woman to help. I completely understand this statement but am not sure that this really requires naming women as deacons. Cant the same thing be accomplished by having a committee of women as a support group?
John
That is a good question. One of the churches near Rock Hill has elected a woman deacon, and used the "we need a woman to serve" as the argument. However, this particular church didn't take part in the WIC (Women In the Church) ministry, which is the PCA's primary means for women to be involved in service within the church. They weren't doing the most basic thing, but claimed they needed a woman as a deacon.
As I see it, it doesn't matter if the responsibilities of the position of deacon is "primarily" service rather than leadership, the qualifications for a person to hold this office is that they must be a man.
Blake
If you are referring to Phoebe and Priscilla, I would like to hear you arguments. Phoebe is described as a "servant of the church," and the Greek word used means "deaconess." However, Paul's letter to the Romans was written between 6-10 years prior to his letters to Titus and to Timothy. As we all know, these letters are where Paul set's forth to qualifications for church office and establishes the structure of early church government. My issue with using Phoebe as an example of and an argument for women deacons, in the terms we use today, is that she was not elected under the established early church government as outlined by Paul in the latter years of his ministry.
Furthermore, looking at the church's historical stance on this subject, If things used to be one way (only men holding church office), we need to have a very good SCRIPTURAL reason why things are different now. Are we so much more intelligent today, do we have so much more Biblical evidence, than the Westminster Divines etc.
I think it is especially dangerous for Baptists to elect female deacons because the term "deacon" traditionally used within Baptist churches more closely resembles the NT definition of "elders" or "overseers".
Rather than allowing feminism rule our churches, we should encourage our women to be active in the church and to serve, but not to drag God's Word through the mud in the meantime. The only reason we would "need" a woman deacon is if there is a lack of GODLY MEN. Therefore, the definition of feminism (women pick up where men are failing) shines forth in our almost universally liberal Christian environment here in the US. There is a "need" because men are not acting like godly men should act, or living like godly men should live.
If men acted like men, feminism would disappear, and women would be free do what they were designed to do, and to pursue the most glorious and fulfilling activity in life; raising a godly family.
Let me start by saying that I in no way have a feeling one way or the other on this issue. If anything I lean to not allowing deaconesses.
However, here is what I know to be some of the arguments for deaconesses. As you mentioned Priscilla led a house church with her husband and also taught and instructed Apollos. Tabitha led a mercy ministry. Eudoia and Syntyche were viewed as Paul's evangelistic associates in the church in Phillipi. And in the Old Testament women were prophets and Deborah led all of Israel at one point. As for your argument of history, well thats a lot of history of women in various service oriented leadership roles in the early church. And there are early church documents from Tertullian and from the 3rd and 4th centuries outlining the duties of deaconesses.
Now the way I see it, the biggest argument against women in the role of deacon is 1 Tim 3. I have seen this spoken about in 2 ways. The first is to interpret this as meaning women who are wives of deacons, the second being that mention of women in this passage is "in the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect." There is no specific Greek word for wives, only women so its often debated as to what this passage means. Is it wives of deacons or women deacons? How do you know it means wives since the word isnt specific? Why aren't the wives of elders mentioned and why is the male pronoun used for elders and not deacons?
The other point that those who argue for deaconesses is that its not an office of teaching or authority therefore it doesn’t violate any other Scriptural mandates. It is an office of service and there is no Scripture that says women are not to be servants of the church. In almost all cases in Scripture where women are mentioned they are mentioned for their service to the poor or to the church in general.
So, there you have it, the argument for deaconesses. And John, do you think you can find what Keller actually said and not just a paraphrase of a paraphrase bc a lot of times original meaning gets lost in p of p’s.
Here are some things to consider:
Point 1:
Clearly the I Timothy passage is speaking of woman as deacons. There is nothing wrong with women being responsible for the care of the church. I would challenge every church that doesn't believe in woman deacons to get rid of all women secretaries, administrative "assistants", etc. These women are constantly making decisions on behalf of the church.
Point 2:
What of the early church's practice of the distinction of bishops, elders, and deacons. If there is no distinction, why did Paul, Peter, John, and other apostles move from place to place, governing church's that they had started. Why were there successors to these men?
Point 3:
I'm always right so there's really no point in arguing.
~The Early Church Norweigan
Blake: Great response. I'll comment later.
James: The issue isn't over women SERVING in the church, but holding ELECTED, ORDAINED and AUTHORITATIVE positions. The deacons are in control of funds, grounds, pastor's salaries, etc. I do not think women are incapable of effectively serving in these roles, I just think that there is a greater place, by God's design, for them to serve: first at home with their children, and second in the church under the direction of elected and ordained male deacons. If you want to call them deaconesses, fine! However, they should not have to be examined by the session and stand before the congregation to be ordained. They don't do that for secretaries or for janitors. However, these people are hired and contracted BY the deacons.
I think the problem lies in the feminization of men in our day. Men are more and more fond of women wearing the pants. It means less responsibility for us, right? However, the biblical idea of the man is one who is caring his own and his wife's responsibility on his shoulders (Ephesians).
More to come.
Let me see if I can accurately model the argument:
A:
God said that being a deacon is an elected, ordained, and authoritative position.
B:
God said that women should not be elected, nor ordained, and should never have authority?
C:
Therefore, women should not become deacons.
That's the best way I can put the argument. Is this what Johnny is saying? Am I going at this the wrong way?
As a reformed presbyterian, I believe that the presbyterian form of church government is the most faithful to God's Word. The arguments for the functions of church offices are drawn from direct imperatives (Tim and Titus) and from general characteristics or principles of the Christian life (women not to hold authority over men, etc). The arguments may get much deeper than that, but that, to my understanding, is the basics. Our summary document, outlining the duties of the deacon are in chapter 9 of the Book of Church Order (http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/).
I will respond to my argument "summary". Let me first say that I am summarizing, to the best of my ability, the traditional reformed presbyterian viewpoint on this issue. I am no expert, and there is no "God said" argument either way. Much of what (and how) we practice in the church today, save the Lord's Supper, is derived from inferences and biblical principles. I believe that the most responsible and mature way to argue this type of doctrine is to look strictly at the imperatives given for our instruction. Only when these imperatives are inadequate, such as in baptism, do we move into other areas of God's word. First adjunct, in my opinion, would naturally be a principial argument, meaning what general principals can be applied to this area, since God is never changing. Next, you would look at the historical narratives, that in passing, may give some insight as to how the Apostles MIGHT have practiced.
A: God obviously had distinct roles in mind when Paul wrote these charges. How they functioned early on, I do not know. However, it is obvious that the deacons were and are to serve the church under the leadership of the session (Elders). However, their position is still one of authority. They have the authority to commission workers within the church or community, collect and administer funds/gifts, etc. I think that it is painfully obvious that, since God is no longer divinely appointing Church leaders (aka Apostles), God would desire that we be prudent with how we allow individuals into places of leadership in the church. Therefore, as good stewards of God's gifts, we take the appointing of authoritative individuals very seriously. Someone just can walk up and say they want to be an elder or deacon; they must be examined. Furthermore, ordination isn't some ritualistic thing Christians have thought up over the years so that we can feed our sinful desires for power, etc. This is the way that WE as humans attempt to mimic divine appointment. We don't have God telling us exactly who He wants to lead the church and care for her. So should we just let anyone do whatever they want? There were obviously people in the 1st century that wanted to serve as church leaders (Apostles), but only 12 were chosen. There were likely others who more fervently wanted to serve than some of those in the 12. However, they were not chosen on their desire, but by God's divine appointment. How do you and I mimic God's absolute sovereign and sustaining knowledge in appointing church leaders? We sure don't do it flippantly. And we also don't base it on historical narratives recording church events alone (Pricilla, Phoebe, etc), we must start with the imperatives that were given to INSTRUCT us HOW to carry out God's will for His church. Question: did Pricilla stop speaking in church when they read Paul's letter to Timothy?
B: God said that women should never hold authority over men in the church. Go ahead and argue the semantics or cultural influences, but let's face it. God is sovereign over WHEN, WHERE and by WHOM His Word is recorded. Does His sovereignty in all these things make you question the validity of the "cultural influences" arguments? I think it should. God is unchangeable. Why would something matter to Him in 70AD and not now?
C: Yes
The Fall was the first act of feminism. Women have been stepping into men's "shoes" ever since. Feminism exists because men are too afraid, weak or lazy to fulfill their God given responsibilities themselves. Mankind fell into sin because Adam didn't have the balls to stand up to his wife, and do what he knew was right. Instead, he allowed her to usurp his God appointed authority, and, like a chicken turd, tried to blame her for the whole thing! What a great example he set for us, eh?
I must comment on a previous Norwegian comment (and this is the first time I've realized your name is misspelled).
Point 1: Clearly you, as an extremely well educated and informed Greek scholar, wouldn't mind sharing your exhaustive research and doctoral dissertation where you make this argument so plain? What say you, norwiccan!
I plead the fif! F-I-F! More later...
~The Norweigan (Spelled correctly in a post-modern world)
John,
I agree with you. I should have made that more clear. However, I do want you to be cognizant of several truths.
First that the word deacon comes from the Greek word, which means "in the dust," which apparently is understood to mean servant. I didn't have to be a Greek scholar to look that one up. I don't have to have an exhaustive dissertation or be a Greek scholar to understand the Scriptures.
Second that the scriptures do not discuss the role of deacons, except that the first ordained seven deacons were appointed to take care of the widows who were being neglected. It can be deduced from the qualifications of deacons what their specific purpose is in the church.
Thirdly, I want you to be aware of how church splits begin. Any doctrinal deterioration begins with the church as a whole falling into sin. I know that's a hard one to swallow, but just follow my terrible line of reasoning. Let's take this issue in the PCA for an example.
Women should not be doing the duties of deacons, but too often this is not the case in the PCA. The deceit lies in treating churches like businesses. You shouldn't hire women to take on administrative duties and then point fingers at Tim Keller who just took the sin one step further.
This is a sin problem with the American church as a whole. The root of it goes way back in our history. If the fig tree bears no fruit, cut it down to be burned. Otherwise, show the other branches how to bear good fruit.
Blake,
As far as direct quotations from Keller, they don't exist. I got the paraphrase from Wally's dad (sorry to be odd about using his name, I just don't think it would be appropriate for me to quote him without his expressed consent). He was talking with a group of people, and Keller was speaking in response to the ruling not to give credence to the overture for a study group to re-study the issue. Wally's dad was standing there listening to Keller speak these things, and the basic gist was that Keller thought it was silly and impractical to seek to discipline the delinquent pastors and sessions. These words were paraphrased by Wally's dad, and I paraphrase them to you all. However, I find his words to be quite trustworthy; even more so than my own sometimes.
my two cents...
It does not seem that the role of Deacon in the PCA as defined by the book of Church order gives any absolute authority to Deacons. No matter what, they are under the authority of the elders right? They do have responsibility but not authority. I think there's a difference.
Also, at the last general assembly of the PCA, as the men debated matters of great doctrinal import inside...WIC decorated flip-flops. Clearly, to me anyway, some more structured and potent role is needed to include women in the life of the church. Their primary sphere of influence and effectiveness is the home but it is not the only one.
Also, any imperative in scripture MUST be interpreted in light of the historical facts of the early church. If there were women serving in Deacon-like roles under the apostles we should think very carefully about why they aren't anymore.
And I agree with James. It seems duplicitous to give women the work of secretaries and janitors in the church while not allowing them to serve "official" roles. I know off hand of a few women who control a great deal of funding and support for pastors throughout the PCA. whether or not they are claiming the title, they are Performing its function already.
I’ve had most of this typed out for several weeks, but I’m just now getting around to posting. Thanks for the discussion to all those who have contributed!
James
The whole "Greek scholar" thing came from your statement, "Point 1: Clearly the I Timothy passage is speaking of woman as deacons." In order to make a statement like that you need to have some type of defense for me calling to question your "expertise".
Now, it would seem that you are suggesting that all that one needs to effectively preach and interpret the Word is a copy of a Greek dictionary? Or maybe just access to wikipedia? That we shouldn't take hermeneutics very seriously because of the "priesthood of all the saints"? Don't get me wrong here! I fully believe that every Christian, by the Spirit of God, can completely and correctly understand God's Word. However, is all this rigorous of study that is required of seminary students for no reason at all? I can look up the "meaning" of a Greek word, but only those who have extensively studied it's usage in context and history are qualified (in my opinion) to make assertions from single words or passages in the Bible. I can look up what the Greek word is and what it literally means. However, there's a lot more to knowing its usage than reading from Strong’s.
I'm kind of shocked by the statement that churches shouldn't hire women to perform tasks in and for the church. Are saying that it is a sin for a woman to be a church secretary? Are you suggesting that it is a sin for women to work at all? Or is it that it's just a sin for them to work for the church? That's an awful strong statement and I'd like to hear your reasoning.
James and Sam
You say ‘Women secretary = women deacon. If not, this is an inconsistency.’ Correct? I’m shocked to see that the Arians, the Norwegians and the Irish are unified on this issue. Let’s compare the “job” descriptions of a secretary vs. that of a deacon.
Secretary
1. Hired position or appointed
2. Paid position (I’m sure not always)
3. Single entity carrying out job description
4. Pays bills with God’s money
5. Work under the direction of the deacons
Deacon
1. Elected by the congregation
2. Unpaid service to the church
3. Part of body of deacons who oversee service ministry
4. Decides where and how God’s money is to be spent
5. Work under the leadership of the elders
How do you draw similarities between such different positions?
James
The church is an organization, not a business. There are certain duties that have to be performed in the church now that it has become "organized". There are properties to maintain, taxes and mortgages to be paid, bulletins to be folded, pastors letters to be copied and distributed, etc. These things are not the duties of the Elders because they should be committing their time to study and prayer. The PCA, as a whole, does not treat church like an organization. Some of them do, and they are often very large. I attended such a church in Rock Hill (Westminster PCA) for many years. Effective business models work, even in churches. This flows from the "purpose driven life" mentality that is so prevalent in the modern church. However, because churches are organized does not mean they are businesses driven by profit and attendance.
God didn't have to precisely spell out the role of a deacon for us to accurately understand what it is deacons are to do. God very clearly laid out the role of Elders as rulers in the church and teachers of God's Word. The deacons were/are to assist the Elders in caring for the church so that the Elders could commit most of their time to study and prayer. So, whatever the church needed done, deacons were to do it. Were they to do it directly or could they contract assistance? Should the tasks to be done for the church (taxes, bulletins, etc.) be performed by only deacons? Or maybe only by men in the church? Did the first deacons directly carry out all that was needed to care for the widows and orphans, or did they "contract" the aid of others in the church and function as supervisors? I don't know, maybe you do. Are you suggesting that the organized Christian church is wrong? What is the alternative?
Sam
Elders vs. Deacons: Authority
The US military serves as a good analogy. Each level of command, even down to the infantry, has authority. The highest level of command is the President (theoretically at least). However, authority has been delegated to the secretary of defense, the generals and all the other commanding officers. It may be a vicarious authority (such as an infantrymen) that comes from orders given higher in the chain of command, but it is authority nonetheless. Any time someone is given responsibility, there is associated authority. If I have the responsibility of taking out the trash, then I have the authority, given by my parents, to enter any room in the house to retrieve trash (unless restrictions are set in advance). Therefore, deacons have the God given responsibility and authority in the church to carry out deeds of service to the members and community. However, the elders have the ultimate authority, and thereby the responsibility as well. You cannot truly delegate responsibility. You can delegate tasks, and the authority to perform those tasks, but the ultimate RESPONSIBILITY for the tasks being performed rests on the shoulders of the one doing the delegating.
Women
I think there are far too many women in the church who are NOT fulfilling their primary duty of serving their family, and are thus “bored” and want some place to serve. In this society, it is much easier to serve the church than it is to serve your family the way women have in years past. However, there are many women who don't want a full time job so as to be home as much as possible, but financial reasons "necessitate" her working. Or, in the case of the secretary at our church, she could be older with no children at home, and just would like to have a little income and something to do. The question is, “why are women neglecting their duties in the home?” Answer… The demasculinization of men. Men aren’t doing their job, so women step up. That is true for Eve, Sarah (Sarai), and the list goes on. They did dumb stuff, but the men were held responsible.
Lastly, I agree that history should aid in interpretation of the imperatives. However, the historical narratives of women serving in church “leadership” and “service” is prior (chronologically) to the imperatives given in Paul’s letters. Who knows how long it took for Paul’s letters to circulate to all the churches with the issues he was addressing in Timothy. Do we know how Timothy first applied these imperatives? No. We have early church record, but it does not included the direct effect of the interpretation and application of Paul’s statements. There are no historical narratives listing how Paul’s letters were applied.
Anyway, that’s enough for now.
John,
First, I'd like to ask for forgiveness if I offended you. I tend to take discussions not very seriously and I like to throw out ideas, which can be harmful and sometimes beneficial. In this case, I think it was harmful.
Second, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that women clearly can be deacons. I still maintain that the fallacy of ad hominem does not support an argument, but I now understand your appeal to ethas. I agree that the ethas of your argument was convincing. I would like to study more on the nature of deacons as they proceed from God's character. Do you have a book or essay that you could recommend?
Thirdly, I am getting confused by this argument as to why we started and what the purpose of it was. Would you please clarify?
Thanks!
John, you refer to the imperative given to Timothy, however it can be argued that the imperative doesn't necessitate that deacon's are to be men. It really depends on how you translate the Greek word for women. And furthermore if you read the passage on elder and then on deacon, adding a specific section on the manner in which a deacon's wife should act doesn't fit the contextual flow of the passage.
Secondly, there's a difference between carrying out a task and having Biblical authority over someone. You can carry out a task, you can serve say by planning the children s ministry and direct men who are also serving without having direct Biblical authority over that man.
Deacons vs. Janitors/secrretaries
I had a great argument all written out...and then I read John's post again and found myself agreeing with it...damn. No, I think your point is a good one John. There IS no responsibility without authority (I think I was speaking more in terms of tasks delegated as you described) and there is a distinction between officers in the church and those that they may delegate to do certain tasks.
Timothy and Romans
Ok I fully admit that I'm just reading out of my study Bible here but I thought this was interesting...Church tradition has always held that Philipians was written during the first imprisonment of Paul in Rome (Acts 28). Both Phil. and Philemon indicate that Paul expected to be released from this imprisonment though. Historical records from 1 Clement as well as Eusebius both indicate that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment, went on a second Missionary journey, and was martyred in Rome by Nero after a this journey. The pastoral epistles were likely written during this second imprisonment (i.e. 1-3 years after Philipians). And yet, in Philipians 1:1 Paul clearly indicates that the office of elder and Deacon are present in the church. It seems unlikely to me that the early church would have gone from its founding until the writing of the Pastoral epistles without criteria for something as basic as the sex of its officers. Therefore, in my opinion, it seems more likely that the enumeration of these qualities in the pastoral epistle's is a REITERATION of already established standards which the Roman church would have been fully aware of at the time that Paul commended Phoebe as a Deaconess, and did not rebuke the church for having her as such.
there's an article by Tim Keller in favor of Deaconesses, and one against by Ligon Duncan at byfaithonline.com (the PCA's denominational magazine).
I just read that article. It was very good. I'm not sure where I stand with this issue. Keller has some great points and Ligon has some great counterpoints. I am with Sam though. We must leave room for the roll of women in the church. I'm just not sure how that looks yet.
John,
Just be careful in how hardnosed you are. I love your enthusiasm but we can't always put God in a box. We may have it wrong when it comes to this issue. We may have it right. The scriptures aren't abundantly clear. It's always best to show humility in an area like this.
I just think you are being dogmatic without giving any real backing for your argument. I would tend to side with you, but I also must say that I (and most of us in the PCA) can't find a clear argument against women deacons. Especially sense the bible clearly calls certain women deaconesses.
My personal belief after reading up on this a lot lately is that giving women a deaconesque roll in the church is needed. To ordain them is a different matter entirely.
Still, I haven't found clear evidence one way or the other. I would not be for or against women deacons at this point. If our church had them I would support it for now until I found a better argument.
This certainly is NOT a matter to leave a church or split over. I hope none of us would go that far at this point.
Mark
Sam and John,
Does that mean that women have no authority over women then?
I think the responsibility argument goes too far.
What about women deacons whose sole responsibility is to serve women? Would that be out of line with scripture?
I think women have every right and responsibility to serve. That doesn't necessarily give them authority over a man or anyone else. They are simply serving in a serving position. You're over-simplifying the argument by saying "resposibility = Authority" God has given women responsibility. If that equals authority then he must have given them that somewhere too.
I have been working on a response. I'm sorry it takes me so long. I do not post anything hastily, and you guys have asked some really great questions. I will give you guys a link to an article that I have started reading recently that I think everyone should read. It is the most comprehensive and exhaustive study of church history and Scriptural evidence that I have come across. It was great seeing some of you guys this weekend. God bless.
I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with 9 Marks Ministries but it was started by Mark Dever who pastors Capitol Hill Baptist Church. CHBC is a more traditional baptist church and subscribes to Calvinism and is mostly reformed with a more traditional style of worship.
I bring this up bc they have deaconnesses. And I can tell you right now, there's not a whole lot of more learned and intelligent men than Dr. Mark Dever. I haven't been able to find anything he's written on the subject but if you guys come across anything I'd love to read it.
As I begin, I would like to thank you all for your comments on this thread. I have learned a lot from the discussion and I appreciate each of your contributions.
What I present in the following I have written over the last several weeks (as I normally do), much of which I wrote prior to Bob’s post with the “By Faith” articles. I benefited greatly from Keller and Duncan’s articles and I highly recommend you read both. However, the most personally beneficial information came from the comments section of one of the articles. One individual gave a link to an article written by someone I’ve never heard of, but who went through Christian history of the diaconate and the ancient issue of deaconesses.
I would STRONGLY encourage you to read this article. The author is a Presbyterian minister, so Blake you’ll have to suffer through it. This is the most complete and scholarly attempt to address this issue by anyone that I’m aware of in recent times. Much of what I’ve written in this post may sound like I’m parroting ideas from the article, but 80% of what I wrote here I wrote prior to reading the article. The article is at…
http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm
Phoebe and the Romans 16 passage has been discussed previously as well. As for a brief statement on Phoebe’s function in the church, read http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/romans-161-and-women-deacons/.
I realize, in studying this issue, as well as others in modern Christianity, that people are heavily reliant on their intellect, not God’s Word, to direct their behavior in life and faith. This leads to a pragmatic approach (Purpose Driven Life syndrome—PDLS) to doctrine that I find to be, in many ways, repugnant. That is exactly what is being argued by many in this issue. “Women are good at things… Women want to serve… Why should they be denied ordination into the diaconate?”
Anyway, I’ll move on…
James,
Thank you for your apology, though it was truly unnecessary. I was not offended in any way by what you said. Text is a difficult means of communication for me as well because I tend too often to be sarcastic.
Anyway, I am such a sporadic learner that I cannot give you sources in which I gain my opinions and ideas. I speak with people who I know and trust, and then search for supporting ideas, if there is any. However, the article I provide above has served to strengthen my ideas and challenge me to change the direction of the argument.
Do you feel I was making the fallacy of ad hominem? If so, how?
My purpose in bringing this up was to see what you guys think about this subject, and to share what I’ve been dealing with.
Blake,
First, I agree that it can be argued that Paul’s intention was to include women as ordained officers in the church. However, I don’t believe it can be done effectively or biblically (in my humble and fallible opinion). Ultimately, someone is wrong. I’ve read statements by Piper, MacArthur (just to see what the “dark side” has to say about it) and Keller (other stuff than the article in “By Faith”), but their arguments are shallow and wholly unconvincing. When Acts 6:5, Romans 16:1 and 1 Tim 3:8-13 are paralleled, it says to me that the OFFICE of deacon is reserved for men alone. I say “office” because the Scriptural example we have of the installation of deacons in Acts 6:5 demonstrates an almost sacramental rite. Furthermore, the election process since then has been exactly the same. The Spirit elects who is predestined to serve through the action (a vote) of a church member. Why would He change from this example (Acts 6) without clarification?
I assumed (and stated my assumption, I believe) that I was arguing from a traditional Reformed standpoint. So, Blake… Are you also claiming to be qualified to translate from Greek to English? If you read NIV, KJV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, New Life Version, New International Readers Version, and Worldwide English Version (biblegateway.com), all of these translate the 1 Timothy phrase in question as “their wives”. The ones that do not are either LITeral, paraphrased or LIBeral translation. Furthermore, Calvin translates and interprets 3:11 to mean both the wives of the elders and the deacons, not just the deacons. To me, that makes perfect logical sense because you would expect more clarification if there was such a sharp distinction between the two church offices. I find this interesting, especially in light of Keller’s article. Keller quotes Calvin in attempts to support his arguments, but fails to cite that Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 is completely inconsistent with his (Keller’s) own.
Contextual flow? The fact that there is the parallel statement “husbands of one wife” in both the elder and deacon qualification, that would seem to me to be the contextual flow. How do you reconcile these parallel ideas between elder and deacon? Also, when taken in context of the election of the first deacons (Acts 6:5) it seems to be a logical extension that the diaconate, at least in its inception, was to be an office of men only. Again, why would God change this without direct and clear qualifications as he does with the elder and male deacon? The burden of proof then lies with the proponents of ordaining women deacons. Read the above article for a much better argument than mine (and one that I was unaware of).
How much more educated are we today than 300 years ago? The answer is none at ALL! We’re actually dumber. We have accumulated a lot of information, but we’re academically lazy and rely on our “intellect” and “reason” to correctly determine how we should live and think. This is readily apparent in Kellerites calling for a study group to examine the issue of women deacons. The response of the general assembly was to point to the study that was done in the 70’s saying, “We’ve already dealt with this issue. If you have questions, study the stuff from when we studied it before.” If we are going to address an issue, we should do our best to study all that has been written before, and how these issues have been dealt with in the past. If we don’t do this—if we don’t listen to history—then we are bound to repeat the same errors as those before us. I think the trap that we fall into is we listen to the evolutionistic mindset that has infected our society that “we’re getting bigger, better, faster, stronger, smarter. Therefore, we’re better than those idiots in the past.”
I agree “there is a difference between carrying out a task and having Biblical authority over someone”. However, the way that the diaconate functions today is almost as an overseer of service ministries. There is a big difference between picking up a hammer to do some framing and being the foreman of the job. No the foreman does not have biblical authority over the other servants. However, can a broad distinction be made between the elders passing authority to the deacons for service? No, I don’t think it can. Furthermore, is there as sacred-secular dichotomy in regards to authority? Did Paul mean only “spiritual authority”, as only elders possess, when he says no women should hold authority over men? The article brings up even better arguments than my own in showing the office of deacon is actually our of biblical authority (though not to administer the sacraments or church discipline, etc.).
I think this is the pivotal issue. In Ligon Duncan’s article he states, “Because the passage comes in the midst of a section dealing with deacons’ qualifications, and uses neither the term for “deaconess” nor the female form of “servant,” but rather gunaikas (which could mean “women” or “wives”), you end up with either the ESV rendering: “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.” Or the NASB rendering: “Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.” Either way, the meaning is clear. The verse refers either to the wives of deacons or to the women who assist the deacons or both. Interestingly, this is precisely how Calvin viewed deaconesses. Not as ordained female deacons, but as women who assist the deacons, and our Book of Church Order already makes allowance for such.”
The arguments that Keller brings forth in his article really fail to deal with the truly difficult and controversial issues at stake. He fails to mention that he and his session no longer have ANY elected and ordained members of the diaconate (what happened to Acts 6???). All members of their diaconate, both male and female, are appointed by the session. This is a terribly troubling truth that he does not disclose. There first needs, on his part, to be an exegesis (which he attempts, but falls far short of in his article) of the Acts, Timothy, and Romans passages supporting the idea that Paul was really giving qualifications for Elder, male and then women deacons (contextual flow??? Please…?). Second, and I believe more importantly, he and his session ought to be held accountable for giving exegesis and reason that they have abandoned election and ordination of the office of deacons. There needs to be a statement from their park as to why Act 6:5-6 has no bearing on the practices of the modern church. I would say that this is utterly impossible.
Sam,
Like Blake mentioned, I recognize that the authority is not a biblical authority like that of the elders.
What is certain of the church is that it DID have instruction, but often, and very quickly, departed from what instruction they were given. Therefore, I don’t read Timothy or Titus as being the beginning of elders and deacons, but admonition to the early church to stay true to the gospel. As I argue above, the Acts 6:5-6 passage, is (I believe) the beginning of ordained and governing church officers (specifically the deacons). This was the model that the Christians were to follow for the rest of time. However, since God did not at that time elect any women to the diaconate, does that mean we are not to do it today? I’m sure the early church thought that. They probably had some majority votes for women elders. If they departed from the way the Apostles had set it up, Paul would eventually get wind of it and write them a letter of admonishment. That’s my take on that…
Mark,
Thank you for your admonishment to remain humble in argument. I will try. I have been arguing from my vantage point: the way I see things. I have my own ideas of how I understand biblical continuity. I see connection where others may not. I argue quite forcefully because I feel much of the time the responses that I get are almost “wave-of-the-hand” dismissals. I am not qualified to exegete the passages we are discussing, but by my understanding of logic and biblical reasoning, I make necessary connections from the “big picture” of God’s creation.
First, I would never dream of saying that women don’t have authority. Let me boil my arguments down to the simplest that I can.
I don’t believe that women should be elected and ordained officials in the church. There is no biblical evidence (NONE) that a woman was ever elected to office in the apostolic church. There are interpretive difficulties with whether some women were “servants” or “deaconesses” TO the church, but the argument cannot be made that they were treated like the men of Acts 6. I believe that women are absolutely necessary to the ministry of the church (especially to women). This idea is abundantly clear from Scripture; that women are supposed to teach and lead other women. However, the most direct admonition to women is in 1 Timothy 5 when Paul says that women, if they are married and/or have children, then their absolute primary responsibility is to their family.
You said I’m “being dogmatic without giving any real backing for [my] argument.” I find that a little like a “wave-of-the-hand" dismissal because I’ve absolutely backed my arguments! I’ve backed them with the faculties I have been gifted in the only way I know how. I’ve written three times the amount of anyone else commenting. However, if that’s not enough for you then I’m sorry.
“Does that mean that women have no authority over women then?” I’ve said several things so you must be more specific in order for me to answer your question.
“I think the responsibility argument goes too far.” Maybe so. My arguments aren’t meant to be definitive, but to illustrate a point. I’m not going to take my statements from the blog and submit them to my session for arguments in church policy. I challenge the pragmatic view that virtually all modern Christians have, and that isn’t necessarily biblical. Of course, you cannot convince these people that Christian pragmatism is not necessarily in line with the Ten Commandments because we are so blinded by our cultural and temporal (time) biases. And again, how does my argument go too far? Please give at least one example when you make a statement like that.
“You're over-simplifying the argument…” Not in the argument for or against ordained women deacons. Ordination implies authority. My arguments are simple because the issue itself is simple.
“My personal belief after reading up on this a lot lately is that giving women a deaconesque roll in the church is needed.” I couldn’t agree with you more. This is the exact thing that I’ve learned in all of this; that there is need for a more defined role of women in the church. However, this needs to be based on biblical and historical evidence, not pragmatism. I think that the article I listed above does an exquisite job in arguing for this very idea.
That’s all for now. I’m sorry it took me so long to finish this rant. Like I said, I take a great deal of time to write and re-write my arguments in an attempt to avoid saying something I don’t really believe or haven’t thought through.
Again, I would greatly desire you all to read the article I've listed above. I learned a lot from it and I hope you will as well. Thanks and God bless.
I'd respond, but I got bored about 1/4 of the way through. You should try to break this up or something next time. sheesh.
Great rebuttal!
Unfortunately, everyone has expressed doubts in the historic interpretation of this issue, for which I make a defense, so I have several people to respond to at one time. If you want to read things systematically, read the previous post to whom I respond in my comment. I try to break things up into personal responses to comments directed at me in previous comments. If you do this, that will give some clarity to what I've written.
Post a Comment