We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 9 is entitled, “Cease being male dominated.”
If the Church of Christ is to have an effective witness going into the 21st century, it must make some changes in reference to the place of women in the church. These changes need not be what most of its members would consider radical changes, such as having women as elders or pulpit ministers, but they must be substantial enough to reflect a change in attitude and practice. If there is a concise way to say it would be the Church of Christ must cease being male-dominated. Corporate worship is male-dominated, structures are male-dominated, teaching is male-dominated, decision-making is male-dominated. The over-all attitude is male-dominated. …
These are small steps to take, but they will prove liberating, and they are things we can do at once. Not a one of them would violate any Scripture, and they call only for an end to some of our traditions that have no validity.
1. Let the women make some of the announcements and share in welcoming the visitors. …
2. Let our sisters be used in the “Call to Worship,” which many of our churches are now having, or “start the service” in those that do not use that terminology. …
3. Let the women read the Scriptures as part of public worship. …
4. Let the sisters be part of those who lead the public prayers. …
5. Let us use the sisters in the serving of the Supper. …
6. Let the big girls serve as greeters and ushers and let the little girls take up and pass out the cards. …
7. We must overcome the mentality that says a woman cannot teach a man. …
8. Let our women share in the decision-making process, including the hiring and firing of all church personnel. …
9. We can start now in including women in the diaconate.
Garrett lays out his scriptural rationale for some of these changes but does not attempt a detailed theology. Regarding deacons, he refers the readers to the excellent book by Stephen Sandifer, Deacons: Male and Female, published in 1989 and which remains the definitive work on the subject. Highly recommended.
Longtime readers know that I disagree with many of the traditional teachings on the role of women. My views are laid out extensively in the online ebook Buried Talents and the series of posts by the same name.
But let’s consider the traditional position — that women may not speak in the worship service and may not teach men in public. Without challenging those views at all, we can immediately recognize that nothing prohibits women from helping to pass the elements of communion. Indeed, passing communion is a service, not a leadership, responsibility. Just so, there’s no rule that bulletins must be passed out by only men or that only boys can pick up attendance sheets.
For that matter, in the church where I grew up, announcements had to be before the opening prayer, so that the announcements would not become a sixth “act of worship.” Just so, the Freed-Hardeman chorus could sing after the closing prayer, as there is no prohibition on having a choir outside the formal worship hour. Under the same theory, a woman could address the congregation either before or after the formal open or close of the service and could even make the announcements.
Some churches have begun allowing women to read the scriptures during the service, on the theory that reading the scriptures does not challenge male spiritual leadership or raise any concerns about the correctness of their teaching.
Now, of course, every congregation has its own views regarding the role of women. But the society in which we live considers discrimination against women a serious sin. When we cut women completely out of church government and the leadership of worship, we appear sinful to those outside the church.
If the Bible requires that result, then it’s a result we have to live with. But where the church leadership believes the scriptures give greater freedom, they need to exercise that freedom for the sake of the gospel. They may well need to spend considerable time in preparing their church for the change, but they should take the time to patiently and lovingly teach the freedom we have in Christ, consistent with their understanding of the scriptures.
Our traditional teachings in the CoC regarding the role of women introduce certain scriptural difficulties and, I think, inconsistencies. I’ve never seen these difficulties mentioned in one of our congregations let alone dealt with.
Rather than go into all the details for why I make such a statement I’d rather refer those who are interested to this short article at http://creedrehearsal.com/not-permitted-to-speak.
I enjoyed Carroll Osburns book too. I find it odd tha more churches don’t look for opps for women. Little girls and young women need role models too
Price females have the same role model as you should, but they can’t because your model is Paul, and theirs can never be Paul.
OK, let women pray and prophesy in settings that are meant for mutual edification, such as house churches or prayer groups. But remember: Prophesying is not the same as teaching, as it is not authoritative. And let the women be covered as a sign of submission to male leadership.
Otherwise, these words you quoted, Jay made me really very very angry, because persistently you quote heresy of people that are not willing to accept the word of God where it goes against 21st century culture!
See, what I mean? It appears to me that you urge us to go along with the culture (although you SEEM to leave this open in the sentence following:
You speak of unity, while provoking yet another great split among the churches of Christ by going beyond what is written. You must stop doing this, Jay! This is destroying the church of Christ!
Alexander
Yeah jay … How dare u encourage young women to grow into the role models of Phoebe or Junia. Gee man. It took is 100 years to get them to know their place. 🙁
Alexander, I thought you were “done” with this book? Why do you persist on commenting, if you’re “done?”
Don’t forget Lydia and Priscilla…
The church of a friend of mine began a class for teen and pre-teen girls. Admirable move. But what did they call it?
The Tabitha class.. now why Tabitha? Yes, we should all be servants and selfless servanthood should be our goal. But what message does this give the girls.. that they should be seen and not heard.
Why not a Phoebe class? or a Priscilla class? A Junia class? A Lydia class?
OK, then please show me, how these names overrule the scriptural restrictions on the service of women in the church (not leading the church, not teaching men, being submissive).
Alexander
You are right, Aaron, I am done with it – meaning: I see it as a divisive book and I warn against it. so commenting now is simply pointing out the misleading trends in it. It’s terrible!
You know, I see a system, that looks (roughly) like this:
1) Let’s talk about unity – we all know this is important! Let’s include infant-baptizers in this unity – since it’s all about faith, isn’t it.
2) This will make the conservatives point out that baptism is one of the seven ones in Eph 4:4-6 which cannot be skipped. This makes them exaggerate the mening of baptism, which makes them look even worse than they are.
3) This makes it easier to accuse them of legalistic narrowmindedness, ans we will win the moderates over to our side.
4) Then let’s repeat our endless debates on a secondary issue like IM. We all know this is secondary, isn’t it – so why not change it for the sake of evangelism? OK, this again will make the conservatives overreact strongly, they will openly damn us – that’s what we want to hear from them, so we – again – can “proove” how terribly ungracious and legalistic they are.
5) This opens more and more people to our suggestion of letting go of a-cappella as a “man-made-tradition”, so we can introduce not only IM – as a symbol of “freedom” – but also CCM as an appeal to the world.
6) We won’t argue too much about this and present another issue, as soon as we convinced more and more of the wrong patz the conservatives are on: Women als preachers and elders. We are very careful, just suggesting, jsut starting wioth scripture reading or the deaconate … but we make it clear where we are heading to. So we win the moderates over step by step, while the conservatives will damn us even more.
7) Along the way we’ll downplay the inerrancy of scripture by pointing out “contradictions” which in the long term will allow us to toss out scripture we dislike by judging them as erroneous. This might add to the women in ministry discussion …
8) As soon as we brought the conservatives to the point that they openly shun us, we have them where we want them to have: They are “unmasked” as divisive and sectarian.
You konw, Aaron, I am not dumb. I can read, and I think I got the motivces quite right that I described here. These are the methods of wolves in sheepclothes. And since I am one of only very few who raise their voice against it, I write and react more often than I’d like to.
At first, about 18 months ago, when I joined this Blog, I was impressed by Jay’s gift and writing abilities – I even agree with a lot things he writes. But now, I conclude that the name “One in Jesus” is a farce; this Blog is divisive. Maybe – because of my strong words – he will exxclude me now from this (as he threatened to do with those who break the courtesy rules). I’d be pleased if he did …
Alexander
Alexander, show me how part of an epistle written to a specific church in a specific temporal and cultural situation to correct a specific problem should overrule the examples of women “leading” in other parts of Scripture and should negate the way Jesus treated women in his ministry.
Wendy, OBVIOUSLY, what we need are more men like Aquilla.. Men who aren’t afraid of their wives or perhaps women in general. That are self assured and confident enough to find ways to encourage their participation instead of looking for new and creative ways for them to submit… Priscilla joined with her husband and corrected with teaching, another male teacher… Nobody freaked out… It was recorded in scripture on purpose… perhaps to illustrate what can happen when we work together instead of trying to put women in their place… But, some men are just afraid of being “usurped”… LOL
Alexander, Divisive is our (meaning Christians) is our nature.
Going all the way back to the Presbyterians and Episcopalians before they came to this America there were many splits and in each split there shortly became the for and antis.
We haven’t changed and I’m afraid never will.
That is why our personal salvation is between God and ourselves and the Church comes after.
History tells us throughout all the differences in the various churches in many things that have caused us to differ, the one on one relationship with God has been and still is simple.
Lets concentrate more on that and less on rules.
.
Perhaps the different faith traditions (aka denominations) in the church can be appreciated when we consider the analogy of the body of Christ. Perhaps all together we constitute the whole body? All playing a role and complementing each other?
Wendy,
Without putting words in anyone’s mouth, conservatives that I’ve known/talked to say that the epistles are not limited to a “specific temporal and cultural situation” and their instructions supersede any “specific problem” they were originally written to address.
Alexander, why do you insist on using such an ugly tone? You certainly seem to know a lot about the motives of Leroy and Jay, based on your latest comment. I don’t recall myself (or anyone else) ever calling you dumb, but your condescension to me (and others in the past) makes it seem as though you think the rest of us are.
And for goodness’ sake, what is the gospel IF NOT an “appeal to the world”?
Don’t forget Galations 3:26-28:
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
We’re all one in Christ but we dare not let women serve communion (at least not up and down the pew…sideways is okay, I guess).
Doug… It doesn’t count when a woman passes the communion to another person if there is a gap in the middle as long as she remains “hunched over.” 🙂
Ironically, “adapting” practices within the assemblies of the church so as not to conflict with the current cultural “norms” may be the one of the underlying themes of I Corinthians 11-14. At least, taking that approach clears up some of Paul’s, and other NT writers, apparent contradictions regarding the role of women. From my understanding of history, allowing for equal leadership roles between men and women would have been so radical in 1st century cultures that the credibility of the church could have been seriously damaged. Similarly, the 1st century culture dictated that women were incapable of learning and making any attempt to educate women was inherently dangerous. Much like the controversy of eating meat sacrificed to idols, we now understand the absurdity of such beliefs. But, during the time Paul was authoring his letter to Corinth it’s possible that the surrounding culture would have considered such a belief dangerous if not insane. In other words, and especially since we don’t have all the letters to Corinth (we might be missing some info), it’s entirely feasible that Paul was directing the church to conform as much as possible to the relevant culture, so the true message wouldn’t be hindered. If so, and if we hold that men and women are equal in Christ, then we shouldn’t be attempting to mimic the Corinthian church in regards to the equality of men and women. .
As a thought, maybe many of us have become so concerned with “bowing to culture” that we forget that Paul was focused on adapting and changing to the current culture as necessary to clear the way for the message. And no, I’m not implying that we compromise the main tenants of our faith. (I’m trying to head off the bizarre argument of cokes and hamburgers during communion) But, we might consider we’ve missed some things by letting our presuppositions keep us from seeing clearly.
“I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”
Alexander, I hope Jay does not exclude you from this blog because I appreciate many of the things that you write. I do not see any ugliness in your tone, but only a sense of understandable frustration.
I have no problem with women teaching men the gospel as is shown in the Bible, like Priscilla. But, if men and women have the same roles in the church then why stop at communion and announcements. if they are equal then let’s go whole hog and have women ministers and elders.
One thing that bothers me and is never addressed (and I’ve asked and no one ever answers) is if the role of men and women changed with the coming of the church then why did Jesus not choose a women apostle. He had plenty of women to choose from they were all around him.
I feel like an old dinosaur in some of these discussions on this topic, but I really feel that the push to blur the lines between the differences between men and women has only hurt families in our culture and even in our churches.
Speaking of a multi-denominational look at the biblical roles of women and men, I would highly recommend
http://www.cbmw.org/
Anne, we have women ministers, women preaching and women elders. And my congregation is the most faith-filled and Christ-like bunch I have known!
How would a woman (or even a couple of women) have travelled around the countryside with Jesus and a bunch of other guys? Societal norms would not have permitted it. Plus the 12 apostles have symbolic links to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Wendy, does your Bible inlude the following parts also?
(Oops, I was not finished, yet)
You see, Wendy especially those passages that you see a a local problem are presented as a universal teaching. Even the letter itslef is addressed to all Christians everywhere (which is pretty unique among Paul’s letters).
So, what churches do, who trespass in these areas is actually saying: We are not part of “all churches of God”. Or: “The word originated with us or came to us alone, so we cane change it as we please.”
That’s not “faith-filled”, that’s “self-willed”.
Alexander
Ah, this discussion has been reduced to prooftexting.
Alexander – good work brother. Well said and thanks.
Alexander, my Bible includes the bits where the Samaritan woman preached the good news about Jesus, where Jesus had Mary and Martha as devoted disciples, where Lydia and Priscilla were influential women in the church. My Bible has the bit in Galatians where it tells me the good news that there is neither male nor female in Christ. Hallelujah! Whatever the situations were in the Ephesian and Corinthian churches wrt women usurping authority, we need to understand those problems in context of their (Corinthian and Ephesian Christians) coming from pagan backgrounds where goddess worship was central. But to let those texts override and trump the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus is to do a very serious disservice not only to women but to the move to redemption of all creation that is God’s story throughout the Bible.
It is more and more common for people who are in conflict with the word of God, to accuse the ones quoting the word of God, of “prooftexting”. Which is a VERY convenient way of dismissing scripture.
Hank…It’s also increasingly common for Extremists to accuse those that no longer agree with their dictates of accepting the worldly view rather than the divine view which should be obviously clear to all those who are not affected negatively by the world… You knife cuts both ways…
Aquilla encouraged his wife to teach…men….alongside him…That’s not culture…That’s what the Word says… the Church seems the only place left on earth to bash women…sad.
That’s some judgementalism there, Hank… cleverly implied that one of the posters is in “conflict with the word of God” but not stated outright – however the inference is clear.
And yes, I am aware of the irony of my pointing that out…
If any man doesn’t think women have always had a big say in what happens in the church they have not been married long.
I don’t buy that societal norms would have prevented Jesus from choosing a woman as one of the twelve. I think it stems from the garden of Eden and that man is the head of the woman. He could have chosen a women if he had wanted to,but didn’t. Just as a women could have been chosen as one of the 70 he sent out, but they weren’t. He had many good candidates, women surrounded him in his ministry. Just speaking does not constitute preaching. Teaching someone the gospel does not equal leadership.
And I also don’t buy this that the church is keeping women in slavery. Just because I am not a man does not mean I am a second-class citizen. I’ve seen in several places about what it teaches our young women that they can’t grow up to be preachers. Maybe instead of teaching them that they are men that we should be teaching them to be proud of their role as women.
Well said, Anne! Great points, Glad you are here…
Any good coach plays his players where their natural talents will help the team the most. Only a fool would play his best skinny little fast running back as a linesman and vice versa.
Jesus understood that very well.
It takes us all playing the roles we are best at to win.
All are equally important, but not the same.
Anne, maybe Jesus saw not having a mixed contingent as less temptation. Or did not see women as warriors on the front line.
Anne…just curious…How do you see Priscilla’s involvement with teaching the errant preacher, Apollos, in Acts 18 ?? Her husband Aquilla was with her but the language and context clearly indicates that she was part of the teaching of this man who was spreading the gospel…
Additionally, in Romans 16..Paul lists BOTH of them as his co-workers…She was apparently very active her role as one of Paul’s main people… They are mentioned again by name in I Corinthians 16 as being sponsors of a church that was in THEIR home… Would it be fair to assume that if she was teaching men alongside her husband in the synagogue or temple area, that perhaps she was also teaching alongside her husband in their home ??
My question to you is this … Would you think it would be wrong to follow this example and allow women who are trained in the scriptures to teach men if they thought alongside another man or her husband ??
Perhaps another question might be if we should train our young women to be financially successful in order to sponsor church activities and serve as a deacon in the church like Phoebe did ?
Certainly, not all women would be gifted for that service and most have enough to do as it is without taking on additional responsibilities, but given these role models of the first century, should we not encourage our young women and ladies to step into these roles if they are interested and likewise gifted ?? Or should we just ignore these examples altogether ?
It’s interesting to me that Jay’s critics aren’t nearly as patient and kind as he is.
Here’s a question to chew on. Which of the people who write and comment here are more in line with the characteristics of Love in 1 Cor 15 and the fruit of the Spirit on Gal 5?
And another…Who focuses on the accomplishments of Jesus more and who focuses on the righteousness of men (works for salvation)?
I’m not asking for an answer but it’s worth thinking about in my view.
Laymond, or else he wanted men as apostles, not women.
Price, as I’ve already stated I see no problem of teaching others the gospel which is what is addressed in these passages. I don’t see Priscilla standing before the congregation preaching, or as an apostle. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I’m not 100% sure of Phoebe being a deacon in the same sense of the word as Stephen and other men were deacons. I just don’t see the example in the scriptures of women taking leadership roles.
I guess I may be blind, but I don’t see anyone being unkind. All I see is a good healthy debate.
Anne,
Might I suggest that you don’t see the unkindness because it’s not directed at you?
Maybe it all depends on your point of view sometimes as I guess you and Royce have not noticed when the “unkindness” has been directed at me.
Whatever the Church of Christ has to do to be “saved”, it will have to do it without me. I’m tired of fighting battles with the likes of Alexander, Hank, Laymond and their like. I guess I’m just “self-willed” and liberal and just damned all over, but as of this week, I’m dissociating myself with the name. I’ll find another fellowship somewhere, I’m sure, but if this is the way “brothers” treat each other, I’ll be better off somewhere else. So, I guess you win, guys. Another liberal unmasked and driven out of the fold. Chalk one up for the sheep.
Anne…continuing in the spirit of friendly and healthy discussion….
What would cause you, other than a predetermination that there were no women deacons, to not consider Phoebe as a deacon just as the others? She was mentioned as a deacon of the church in Cenchreae… I’m not sure any other deacon was so specifically attached to a church by name other than Phoebe…
Also, you seem to indicate, which may be a misunderstanding on my part, that there is a difference between the allowance of a woman to preach the gospel or in the case of Priscilla, teach a man…as long as they aren’t doing it in front of the congregation…If that is a correct understanding of what you said… where do I find that restriction within the instructions of the scripture…??
To anyone else….. Was it Paul that first coined the term “Apostle” ?? He referred to himself as one and listed it as a leadership position if I read it right… Did anyone of the others use that term when referring to himself ?? Thanks.
Price,
1 Timothy 3:12 ESV – Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
There is no more authority for having female deacons as there is for having female elders.
(Although 1 Tim 3:12 might just be a prooftext and therefore be dismissed 🙂
Anne, the domination that men have over women does not stem from God’s creation. It is a result of the fall. God created women as companions to men. The symbol of the rib in used to emphasise this. We were not created from Adam’s toe! Ever since the fall, God has been active in redeeming his “good” creation, and the life, work and teachings of Jesus provided radical inroads into the patriachalism of the ANE world. The church, if it is to carry on bringing in the Kingdom should be actively working to aim towards us all being “one in Christ” (no matter what our race, gender, disability or societal disadvantage). Sadly we have a long way to go.
Not only should we teach women to be proud of their “role” (whatever form that might take) but we should be teaching all Christians to use their spiritual gifts for the work of the Kingdom. When women are forced to quench the gifts of the HS and remain silent where God has gifted them to serve, the church and the world beyond loses out.
Hank, the scriptures tell us that Phoebe was a deacon. So obviously that is a principle to be applied. Hyperliteralising it to just men being allowed to be deacons or just married men misses the meaning of the instructions Paul sent Timothy.
Looking for authority in examples results in missing the general principle.
I filter (or try to) all Scripture through the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus. If there is a conflict, then the default is Jesus. He empowered women. I see women active in the first century church. Using gifts of teaching, leadership, hospitality among others. And then institutionalism set in… and we were marginalised again.
Come Lord Jesus come…
Hank…. First let me quickly admit I am no Greek language expert…so what I am about to suggest is just an opinion gathered from reading those that are indeed experts yet conservative in opinion..
Abilene Christian had this to say about Carroll Osburn, one of their professors who retired in 2004… I quote from this web site..http://www.acu.edu/events/news/archives2004/040908_carroll_osburn.html
Dr. Carroll Osburn, Carmichael-Walling Distinguished Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Abilene Christian University retired from full-time teaching in August. Osburn has been at ACU in the College of Biblical Studies for 17 years. He previously taught at Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.
He says in his book, Women in the Church, on pages 145-147 that in verse 11 of I Tim 3, the Greek word that is translated “wives” is incorrect. He says (and I paraphrase) that their is no Greek definite article in the original manuscript and would have been understood by those reading it in the first century as “women.” Not wives…
He says that the majority, if not overwhelming majority of “servants” in the church (not a church office) were men.. However, some were women..Phoebe being one example given in scripture to confirm…. So, as an aside, he believes that Paul inserts some sort of additional criteria or qualifications that would be necessary for a woman to serve in that capacity in verse 11..then he goes back and addresses again the majority who are men in verse 12…
I guess experts can argue over it and disagree but Dr. Osburn’s credibility as an expert in N.T. Greek and conservative theology lead me to believe that he is correct in that there were indeed “deacons” in the church who were women and that this particular passage outlines some general guidelines as to the character one would want to find in those that wished to serve…
I don’t find that offensive to the structure of the church…but, I guess some do…
Wendy wrote:
“Hank, the scriptures tell us that Phoebe was a deacon. So obviously that is a principle to be applied. Hyperliteralising it to just men being allowed to be deacons or just married men misses the meaning of the instructions Paul sent Timothy.”
With all due respect, I don’t believe that interpreting the scripture that says “Let deacons each be the husband of one wife” to mean they have to be men, is “hyperliteralizing”. I mean, can a woman be the husband of one wife? The word translated “deacon” can simply mean servant – as all Christians are to be (male and female). But obviously, when Paul got real specific and said that deacons must be the husbands of one wife, he meant a different type of “deacon” than was Phoebe.
You also wrote:
“I filter (or try to) all Scripture through the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus. If there is a conflict, then the default is Jesus.”
I really don’t know what you mean by that statement. Honestly, it seems like you mean that “by filtering” scriptures, you are able to make them say what you want them to. It also seems like when others refuse to “filter” certain scriptures the way you do…that you consider them to be guilty of “hyperliteralizing.” Do you filter the passages that teach that the elders are to be men, just as they say about the deacons, to mean that they can actually be women? Are the brethren (and churches) who are convinced that the elders must be men to be guilty of “hyperliteralizing”?
Lastly, what do you do with the all of the scriptures regarding the life, teaching, and ministry of Jesus? Through what do you filter them? Or, if you don’t filter those scriptures, are you too then guilty of “hyperliteralizing” them?
At any rate, filtering a scripture that teaches that deacons are to be the husbands of one wife to mean that they can be women seems like a VERY wreckless way of interpreting the word of God. Perhaps, we are better off just taking them at face value rather than doing any kind of “filtering”
Phoebe was a Deacon per Romans 16. And “deaconess” would be incorrect as well, as the word is the same in reference to men or women. Both were “deacons” or “servants.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_(Bible)
So, like Jay always says, both verses must be correct (Phoebe was a deacon; deacons are to be husbands of one wife). It is up to us to make responsible conclusions.
JMF is right that the word is the masculine DIAKONOS. The feminine “deaconess” was coined by the church centuries later to give a distinct title to the female deacons who’d been serving long before the word was invented. Stephen Sandifer’s Deacons Male and Female? is the definitive work and a very good read for those who are serious students of the question.
My posts on female deacons, part of the Buried Talents series, are at —
Deacons, Part 1
Deacons, Part 2
Deacons, Arguments for and against Female Deacons
Deacons, Conclusions
Hank,
A large number of very conservative Church of Christ scholars have concluded to the contrary, including Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Robert Richardson, W. K. Pendleton, Robert Milligan, Tolbert Fanning, Isaac Errett, Moses Lard, J. M. Barnes, Philip Y. Pendleton, J. C. McQuiddy, C. R. Nichol, G. C. Brewer, J. Ridley Stroop, J. D. Thomas, and James Bales. (Citations are in Sandifer’s book.)
These aren’t inspired men, but neither are they men who are eaten up with Postmodernism, Situation Ethics, the New Hermeneutics, and Liberalism.
Hank and Anne, consider that 1 Timothy 3: 12 may be nothing to do with what gender a deacon is, but is Paul encouraging Timothy to steer the Ephesian church away from polygamy which was indigenous in the local culture.
Hank, indeed, filtering Scripture through the lens of the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus IS a wreckless (and not a reckless) way of proceeding. Forgive the pun.. I couldn’t resist.
Please DO take the Scripture at face value. Looking at it at face value, the interesting word is “one” (one wife). Why “one”? Paul isn’t telling Timothy that deacons must be male. If so, it would negate the record we have of Phoebe being a deacon. Why the inclusion of this phrase and why the”one”? ISTM that the most obvious reason is because of the prevailing polygamous culture, where many men had more than one wife. Polyandry was NOT according, hence there is no admonition for deacons to be the wife of one husband.
Price, please do continue a healthy discussion. I thought that was the point of blogs such as this to exchange our thoughts and views. I find the ones that everyone agrees and only heap accolades on the blog creator a bit boring and not challenging. Normally I don’t have much time, but I like to drop in every now and then and get some ideas to digest. I don’t mind being challenged because it makes me re-think my beliefs and keeps me looking inward to make sure that I believe what I believe. Most of you on this site are much more educated than I and that challenges me also. And sometimes people are wrong. That has become nearly a dirty word in today’s religious circles that someone can be wrong in their beliefs. Today it may be you, tomorrow it may be me, but maybe by challenging each other we can learn something.
Was she a servant or a deacon? I think that has been the question. Conservatives see it one way and progressives another. As Hank stated before me in I Tim it is talking of deacons and he is obviously referring to them as males. Nowhere do I see go appoint men and women as deacons.
I do think there is a difference between teaching someone the gospel and proclaiming the word of God and leadership roles. It seems we see that in the appointing of the apostles, Peter on pentecost, appointing of deacons, the instructions on assemblies. I just can’t get around Jesus not appointing women, nor do I see in the NT women in prominent leadership roles. Their roles appear to be in a support and “helpmeet” (is that spelled correctly?) and to me that extends all the way back to the garden. I’m sorry Wendy, but I just can’t see the basis for this fall theory. I’ve heard it explained by an ACU professor and I just doesn’t hold up in the wash for me. It looks like from scripture that women are to be under the headship of the man. Years ago I bristled at that and wondered why. I finally realized one day that I could do the greatest work in the kingdom and that was teach someone the gospel. It doesn’t require a leadership position, just telling someone about Jesus, like that Samaritan woman. From my study it seems roles were set from the beginning and they didn’t change.
This is just a freebie, but I think feminism has done an injustice to women and did just the opposite for women than what it intended. Feminism has told us that to have self-worth we must be equal to man and be able to do everything a man can do. From that I think women lost their identity. I think it has really hurt families and marriages. When men are men and women are women the family unit just seems to function better. I will probably regret opening this can of worms, but I just threw it out there. This is something that is still gelling in my head, I guess after seeing so many broken families in our church.
Hank, perhaps filtering wasn’t the best choice of word. I try to harmonise all Biblical teaching with the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus. If there is an incongruence (for example between how Jesus treated and empowered women and with how some of the church insists women be silent apart from when singing – a contradiction in itself!), then I know I have to look again, study further, meditate more, prayerfully allow the HS to reveal more to me. It’s what Scot McKnight calls the Blue Parakeet. (I can highly recommend that book)
Anne, you will probably find me a contradiction in terms then. I am a quilting, cooking stay at home mum who is also a feminist.
However it’s probably not useful to use the word “feminist”. It’s a very loaded word. I wear a bra. I walked away from my career when my daughter was young.
It’s about all people in the church using the gifts God gave them for the advance of the kingdom. My daughter is a gifted public speaker and actor. It would be very sad if she were not able to use her gift.
A preacher/blog friend of mine used a speech of hers (which is on my blog http://wjcsydney.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/chocolate-and-child-slavery/) as an illustration in his sermon for James 5 just this Sunday. So glad he didn’t interpret the “women are to be silent” literally. I am pleased she has a voice and gets to use it in our church, and beyond.
Wendy, you wrote:
“Hank and Anne, consider that 1 Timothy 3: 12 may be nothing to do with what gender a deacon is, but is Paul encouraging Timothy to steer the Ephesian church away from polygamy which was indigenous in the local culture.”
Is that what you believe? Or, are you not sure and just “throwing it out there”?
And to be consistent, do you believe 1 Timothy 3 may also have nothing to do with what gender an elder is?
BTW, even if if the verses saying that elders and deacons are to be “the husband of one wife” doesn’t mean they must be men….the Bible adds that the bost must also “manage and rule their families and households well.” And who can believe that God’s desire is for wives to manage and/or have authority over their husbands?
Anne wrote,
You make a good point indeed. So what did Jesus charge the 72 to do? (The Greek texts are split on 70 vs. 72.)
They were charged to teach the gospel. They didn’t preach for a congregation. They weren’t elders. They had no authority. The only penalty for not receiving them is that they’d shake the dust from their feet and leave (and you wouldn’t hear the gospel!) But they had no authority other than to speak the gospel on behalf of Jesus — the same authority you have as a female Christian.
So by your own reasoning, women could have taken on that task. They are free to share the good news, just as the Samaritan woman did after she’d met Jesus. So why just women among the 72?
Let’s start with the apostles. The number 12 is clearly of spiritual significance. Indeed, we see them paralleled with the 12 sons of Jacob in the several Revelation passages that refer to the 24 elders (usually taken to refer to the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 apostles).
If the apostles parallel the 12 sons of Jacob, who does Jesus parallel? Their leader/father, Jacob. And Jacob’s other name is Israel. Jesus is a type of Israel — both the man who fathered the 12 and, more importantly, the nation. And as I’ve covered elsewhere, this makes a lot of sense out of Isaiah and some other passages.
/2011/04/buried-talents-why-were-the-apostles-all-men/
/2011/05/isaiah-understanding-who-the-servant-is/
/2011/05/14137/
The First Century Jews, as is typical of Easterners, thought in terms of story and symbol. They don’t abstract the way Westerners do. They see life through metaphor — which is why the Bible communicates much more as narrative and poetry than as a systematic theology. Jesus was staking a claim to be taking Israel’s place — becoming the Suffering Servant for Israel, becoming the light of the world for Israel, dying for Israel — so much so that we become saved by being baptized into Christ and into the church, that is, into the new Israel — which is the old Israel continued by those of Israel with faith and with the Gentiles with faith grafted in. Jesus is Israel — and so he has twelve apostles. And they are male because the 12 sons of Jacob were male. That’s the story being told by Jesus to demonstrate his place in the world’s salvation history.
So why 72 men? Numbers in the Gospels almost always parallel an Old Testament reference. And in Numbers 11, Moses appointed 70 or 72 (the text is ambiguous!) men to serve as judges, and they received the Holy Spirit visibly — they prophesied, clearly so that the people would see that God was with them and heed their work.
Just so, the 70 or 72 missionaries were given the Spirit as a sign that they are on God’s mission, bringing God’s message. And for the parallel to work, they had to be men.
Of course, it’s also true that women could not have safely traveled two by two on the ancient roads — which were not safe. Nor could they have properly stayed in a stranger’s house with no male escort. It would surely have been very scandalous for Jewish women to travel alone, begging for a place to stay (there were no motels, a stranger had to take you in) — not to mention foolish. It’s not like they had cell phones to call 911! Their protection from thieves was a sword.
Hank, it seems that Lydia was managing her own household…I think she fulfilled the qualities that Paul wanted of deacons in the church. Most, probably almost all households were headed by a man in the first century. But not all.
It would be very clunky prose to write “Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well and if they are women, let them manage their responsibilities well”
Jay:
Your highlighting of Leroy Garrett’s conclusions plus your last two paragraphs paint a portrait of conciliation… as if this is an area of judgement. But… you also mention your conclusions in Buried Talents.
In the interest of some clarity in the area of gender and church leadership (including congregational worship leadership) let me suggest the following:
LEROY GARRETT’S PROPOSAL
First, Leroy Garrett’s comment that, “Not a one of them would violate any Scripture, and they call only for an end to some of our traditions that have no validity.” ignores 1 Timothy 2 (even though he denies such).
While certainly women can serve in various capacities in church life (just as men do), that is not what is at the center of Leroy’s essay or yours. Correct? Leadership in worship assemblies and congregational leadership is at the center of this discussion. Correct?
And since I have no doubt that all visiting this weblog desire to know the Word of the Lord and are willing to act on it… even when it guides us into a clash with our culture:
I CHALLENGE YOU TO OPEN PHYLLIS TRIBLE’S GOD AND THE RHETORIC OF SEXUALITY to the study of this weblog.
You took up Leroy Garrett’s book. Now it is time to take up the feminist writing that has likely had the greatest penetration among Evangelicals and Restorationists who have embraced egalitarianism (even if they did not know it influenced). Though Carroll Osburn never cites Dr. Trible, Women in the Church closely parallels the 1973 publication at crucial points.
How about it, Jay? Willing to subject some of your views to the risen Lord’s counsel by entertaining a study of Trible’s volume? I encourage all who are reading this weblog to do the same. Read Trible’s study… and have Paul’s letters open beside it. See what you find.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Do you accept this statement, Bruce?
“Jay has subjected his readership to the risen Lord’s counsel by a study of Leroy Garret’s book ‘What Must The COC do to be Saved’?”
Wendy, hey I’m a quilter also. Well I use that loosely as I’ve not quilted in awhile, but I want to!! I also stay at home, but I don’t cook much. My husband likes to cook and I clean up the mess.
The Roman Catholic church is male dominated and female majority.
Is the male domination driving the men or the women away? (That last question was to me)
The unmarried leadership of the RCC is not appealing to men. (my first attempt at a theory)
I know where this is going. The contemporary alpha/beta male debate. The culture leaks into my brain. Our design influences our behavior.
JMF:
I am confident you can find my answer to your question in my previous post. I believe Leroy Garrett ignores apostolic teaching at one point in his writing on gender roles. And as you know I have written previously in response to Jay’s Buried Talents, I believe Jay has misinterpreted portions of 1 Timothy 2. But let’s not go into this further at this point.
Let’s get back to my challenge to Jay. Any issues in your mind with diving into Phyllis Trible’s volume? I suspect Wendy would be pleased. Perhaps others. And certainly as important within churches of Christ and other groups as Leroy Garrett’s volume.
Looking forward to Jay’s response/decision.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
T
Did you know that the bible tells us the name of only one deacon? Her name was Phoebe.