Monday, March 1, 2010

Servants of the Church

The Greek word for deacon: DIAKONIA meaning attendance (as a servant), aid, service, ministry, administer, relief, servicing. It is derived from the word DIAKONOS meaning to run errands, a waiter (as at a table or in other menial duties), a minister, a servant.

So, when Paul speaks of deacons, and the qualifications for deacons in I Timothy 3, he is speaking of an office of deacon, as there is an office of elders. But when Paul speaks of Phoebe, he is using the exact same word, thereby implying again an “office”. (Yes, I know, I said earlier that deacons according to the bible are only to be men, but remember that I also said that the wives of the deacons at my church are deacons in spirit if not in name? I have discovered additional information that comes from a very conservative evangelical theologian that leads me to question my earlier statement that deacons were always only men. And in light of this new understanding, I can certainly see that it is possible Phoebe actually held the office of deaconess. Although I still don't think the women at my church care whether they have that title or not. They just have servants' hearts. Read on please.)

Before we continue though, I must tell you that where it concerns women in the church there are two distinct views taken.

One view is the Egalitarian view that basically states women are equal to men in all offices of the church. These views are clearly seen in those denominational churches who ordain women as ministers or pastors or priests.

The other view is Complementarian, basically holding that women are a complement or help to the men who hold the offices in the church, but they do not themselves hold such offices. I may be understating that somewhat, but I think you get the gist of the difference in views.

Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner is a conservative evangelical theologian, and professor of NT at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He sides with the Complementarian view, and yet, after much study, he believes women also can hold the office of deacon!

The two scriptures that are most frequently debated (and they are debated!) concerning whether or not women can hold the office of deacon, are Romans 16:1 (our opening scripture regarding Phoebe) and 1 Timothy 3:11 which in my King James version reads thus: “Even so must their [the deacons] wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.”

I would like to quote Dr. Schreiner here:

“It is possible that 1 Timothy 3:11 refers to the wives of deacons instead of women deacons, but a reference to women deacons is more likely for a number of reasons. First, the women in 3:11 are introduced with the term “likewise.” This is the same term used to introduce male deacons in 3:8, so it is most reasonable to think that Paul is continuing to describe offices in the church. Second, some English versions translate the word “women” (gynaikas) here as “wives” (KJV, NKJV, NIV), but the Greek language does not have a separate word for “wives”, and the term could just as easily be translated “women” (NASB, NRSV, RSV). In fact, the reference would clearly be to wives if Paul had written “their wives” (requiring simply the addition of the Greek word auton) or “the wives of the deacons” (requiring simply the addition of the Greek word diakonon). Since neither of these terms is used, women deacons rather than wives are probably in view. Third, the qualifications for these women are identical or similar to the qualifications of male deacons and elders. The similarity of the qualifications suggests an office, not merely a status as the wives of deacons. Fourth, why would Paul emphasize the wives of deacons and pass over the wives of elders, especially if elders had greater responsibility in the act of governing the church? Failure to mention the wives of elders is mystifying if that office carried more responsibility. A reference to women deacons, however, makes good sense if women could serve as deacons but not as elders.”

Dr. Schreiner goes on to say that “The deacons are responsible for ministries of mercy and service in the church, and they do not exercise leadership in teaching and in governing the church [as the elders do]. It is significant, then, that 1 Tim. 2:12 prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Notice that women are prohibited from doing the two activities that distinguish elders from deacons (teaching and exercising authority).”

Thus leaving women free to be deacons (or deaconesses.)

You can read more about this in the book “Two Views on Women in Ministry” which is the book that I took Dr. Schreiner’s quotes from.

I find it interesting that the Greek language is such that when translated into English, some words are just not available for translation...such as “wives”, thereby limiting (only at first glance) the proper understanding of the text. I don’t at all take the view that so many do these days that you can’t trust any translations therefore you can’t trust the Bible. For I believe that the purpose and meaning found in the Word of God, by virtue of its divine inspiration, transcends these minor translating difficulties. And there are so many resources available to any serious student of the Bible that, with diligence and the Holy Spirit, all becomes clear in the proper time for each of us. IF we are diligent to study, that is.

But whether or not deacons are men only, or men and women (for Dr. Schreiner also does say that we have only two verses in the whole Bible with which to examine this point), we see thus far that the church has elders, and deacons (I am using the terminology that I prefer here, as this is what is used in my own church; you may substitute the terminology used in your church.) And both of these terms or offices are very biblical or a tradition that is OF GOD.

In recap of what we have learned about the office of deacon:

1) Deacons are servants of the church, veritable “table waiters” at times, but ministers of grace and mercy at all times, even in “menial” tasks.

2) Deacons are definitely men, but while debates still occur, perhaps we cannot quite exclude that the Lord intended women to be deacons as well, especially having given us the example of Phoebe, the “deaconess of the church at Cenchreae.” Nevertheless, given the little that we have to go on, I do not believe the Lord will hold it against us if we disagree on that point, but I do believe the individual churches who must decide the point must give it their most diligent study and prayer so as not to risk ignoring something that the Lord might have intended for their own edification.

3) And finally, deacons are NOT to teach or exercise authority over the body of Christ, as the elders do.

So, thus far we have elders and we have deacons given offices in the body of Christ, known as the church. [Please do remember that we use the term “church” poorly...for the church is neither the building, nor the denomination. The church is us...the believers in Jesus Christ, the body of Jesus Christ of which Jesus is the Head directing all members of the body in various occupations called ministries, for which he even equips them with spiritual “gifts”.]

2 comments:

  1. Not sure this statement can be supported by any documentation, but after reading your last paragraph, something hit me and I wanted to share it. You state "...remember that we use the term "church" poorly...for the church is neither the building, nor the demnomination. The church is us...the believers in Jesus Christ..." I wholeheartly agree with that statement as it is supported by the bible. After reading that statement, I thought about our own government and how "the people" are the government and NOT the individuals in Washington, D.C. I believe it is possible the Founding Father's used Christianity, God's word (the bible) and the workings of the church in forming our government. Church = people. Government = people. Our form of government has three branches. God is three people in one: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I am sure I could think of other similarities...those are just the ones that come quickly to my thoughts. Something to think about...
    Enjoying this study! GW

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with you. Not sure if it is documented, but it's a great analogy, if that's what they were going for. Certainly their guidance was the Bible. How far we have come!

    ReplyDelete