I just came across an online book, which outlines the history of women serving in the Church from the Apostolic times to the present.
I enclosed his view of Phoebe and I Timothy 3, as well as a historical tidbit contained in this book:
http://tinyurl.com/63ffha
History of the Deaconess Movement in the Christian Church
by Christian Golder
"He writes to the church in Rome: 'I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a succorer of many, and of mine own self.' (Rom. xvi, 1,2.) The apostle recommends Phoebe to the Church in Rome, the deaconess, or literally, the diaconus (the word 'deaconess' is not used in the Scriptures); and with that he clearly states what her office and calling is. So there were male and female deacons in the Apostolic Church, and Sister Phoebe is the first female representative of this office of whom we have any knowledge. Apparently the office is established by the apostles themselves, and 1 Tim. iii, 2-13, gives unimportant particulars concerning it. Here the office of the bishop as well as that of the deacon is mentioned; it would be surprising to find the wives of the deacons mentioned while the wives of bishops are passed over in silence. Therefore several commentaters explain the word 'women' (verse 11) as referring to female deacons. . . .
In the fourth century, Constantinople was the center of political and ecclesiastical life in the Orient. In the year 398, Chrysostom of Antioch, was called to the Episcopacy of Constantinople. Forty deaconesses were employed in his congregation alone, of whom many are known to us by name. . . .
Olympia, born of a noble family, deserves more than a passing mention. . . .
Of the numerous letters that Chrysostom wrote to Olympia during his bansishment, eighteen are still in existence. The superscription on these generally reads, 'Reverend and pious Deaconess Olympia!'"
This book mentions the rise of deaconess societies in the nineteenth century.
Interestingly, there is also a paper on deaconesses, which, in post hoc, ergo propter hoc style, linked it to the rise in the feminism of the age:
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm
"The fact that the push to ordain women as deacons occurred in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries after certain types of feminism became popular in our culture is very interesting. The arguments set forth by those on both sides of the debate during the 1980s bore a striking resemblance to the arguments offered during the 1880s."
On account of feminism, my foot! These deaconess societies were raised to minister to the sick, among some other functions. A task which, in those days, by that time, had fallen to what what considered the offscouring of society, until Florence Nightengale and others of that day began to take on the great work of "necessity and mercy" in caring for the sick and dying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess
"The modern deaconess movement began in Germany in 1836 when Theodor Fliedner and his wife Friedericke Munster opened the first deaconess motherhouse in Kaiserswerth on the Rhine. Fifty years later, there were over 5000 deaconesses in Europe. In 1884, John Lankenau, a business owner, brought 7 sisters from Germany to run the German hospital in Philadelphia. Other deaconesses soon followed and began ministries in several United States cities with large Lutheran populations. By the 1963 formation of the Lutheran Church in America, there were three main centers for deaconess work: Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Omaha. These three sisterhoods combined and form what became the Deaconess Community of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or ELCA.
The spiritual revival in the Americas and Europe of the nineteenth century brought rapid social change. Women who began to seek new roles for themselves turned to deaconess service. For women with a calling to serve God, this was a socially acceptable role at that time. Allowed to function as lay ministers or servants and not ordained clergy, women filled the traditional societal role of caregivers and teachers for various churches."
It seems more plausible, given the nature of the ministries these women pursued, including the hospital work, that the spiritual revivals had more to do with the revival of the office of deaconess, than the women's suffrage movement of that day. But the Lord alone knows . . .
The Log Blocking the Trail and Other Musings on Life, God, and Pretending to
be Nonchalant
-
As of midnight tonight, I’m guest posting at Kids, Twins and Laundry Bins,
my friend Elizabeth Esther’s never-dull blog. The title of this post is
trickil...
1 hour ago
32 comments:
Apparently, even the ELCA does not "ordain" their diaconal ministers or deaconesses. They are "consecrated" instead. I worked and studied at an ELCA university for 5 years, but I'm not Lutheran and I'm not sure what this means.
According to some documents on their website, there are 72 deaconesses in the ELCA as of April 2008, out of their 4.8 million members (a great majority of whom are women). I'm willing to bet they have more female pastors than female deacons. Apparently, becoming a deaconess is a little like becoming a nun (except some of the formal vows).
This is what the Wikipedia entry calls the "modern deaconess movement." Unless I am totally mistaken, this is also nothing akin to what we've been discussing.
I am pretty convinced that I Timothy 3 is referring to both men and women serving as deacons. It does seem very strange that Paul would address elders and not speak to their wives, if his intent was to address deacons and then give a shout out to their wives:
"Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
"Consecrate," "ordain," "commission ," whatever, looks like so much hair splitting. It amounts to the same thing, and the question then is, what are they conscrated/ordained/commissioned/ to do? If it is a good work of service to the church in meeting pressing needs, and the work does not violate express commands of Scripture, and is in keeping with the type of women Paul commended in Scripture, then what is the big deal? Don't these same churches send out female missionaries with no qualms, and recognize their work by providing financial and prayer support?
It's kind of along the same lines of having queens of England all these years, and then when they start to have female beefeaters at the Tower of London, some people get up in arms against such a feminist thought! Well -- I can understand people mourning the changing of a tradition, though!
I do not believe women can be ordained to be elders in particular churches, so yes, I part company with the ECLA. However, I do believe that there may be deaconesses, and like deacons, it appears their job is to render service to the church to meet pressing needs people may have. The Bible does not say that this ministry has to be exclusively to women, but in many cases it seems very fitting that there are just some practical ministries men should do for other men, and women should do for women. However, the Bible does not say this has to be the case in every instance.
Changing the subject:
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm
His conclusion is that male deacons have authority in the church, and female deacons don't, and he bases this on the writings of some in the early church.
However, the sources he cited went toward Roman Catholicism pretty quickly, in their distinctions between clergy and laity, and heading towards Magisterium, and this caused me some confusion in wondering about the absolute biblical necessity of a lot of what was said in that article.
The only place in the Bible (our authoritative sourcebook) I can "get" this idea that the male deacons have authority and the female deacons don't is where Paul says, "to all the saints of God in Christ Jesus who are in Phillipi, including the overseers and deacons."
But when it says "deacons," it is just like saying, "brethren," to me, and those verses that say things like "firstborn among many brethren" of course include me.
Perhaps a man's perspective on this may be different, but if you are a woman growing up with inclusive language, which the Bible is full of, and you understand there are female deacons, and women who have been called such in Scripture, and the Bible doesn't make the separate word "deaconess" for women, then it is second nature to me to assume that women deaconesses would be included in that greeting in Phillipians.
And I'm not saying anyone is doing this to me, but if anyone were inclined to say I was shoehorning in "deaconesses" in Paul's greeting on account of my feminist views, and Paul was ONLY referring to the men, I will just calmly continue to ask whether a saved woman is also part of the "brethren," as in Jesus is the "firstborn among many brethren" until Jesus comes back and shuts me up! I mean, give me a break! Inclusive language is inclusive language is inclusive language, and if the Bible says certain women are deacons to churches, or "fellow laborers," and if the early church and secular letters named women martyrs as "ministers" or "deacons," and you've grown up being taught that whenever a general "he" is used that includes you, a woman, then please don't turn around and tell me that "deacons" in Philippians must only be referring to the men.
Not saying anyone was saying that, I'm just ranting about the inconsistency there w/respect to inclusive language.
Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
Are you saying "husbands" and "wife" are gender-inclusive also like "brethren"? I doubt you are, but it sounds like it. There has to be a limit on how much you can push this inclusive language thing. I don't think the "deacons" in the above sentence is gender-inclusive.
By the way, why shouldn't women be "elderesses"?
No, I'm not saying that. This is going to appear kind of rambling, because I'm still thinking this one through.
I Timothy 3's inclusion of women is explicit in the deacon listing, but absent from the elder list, which . . .
makes me think now that, I mean,
it's just striking me now . . .
it seems that leaving women out of the passage just prior on elders (I Timothy 3), but including them in on deacons, reinforces exclusion of women from the elder list, but inclusion of them in the deacon list. IOW -- you really can't look at I Timothy 3 and say that implicit inclusive language applies to including women as elders at all. So, as I said, no, I wasn't meaning that.
I Timothy 3 notes women because by that time there was some kind of service women were doing for the church, just as there was a list for what widows qualified for the welfare list. Some time after Pentecost to that particular time, the churches had more structure, and it involved ministering to physical needs as well as the primary spiritual needs.
It was most important to minister the Word, but they recoginzed the need to serve tables, or distribute food, and of course needs are always there, and there must be servants who can help with these multifaceted needs.
I was taking this idea from I Timothy 3, and Phoebe in Romans, and was referring back to the greeting in Philippians with it. IOW, if women were serving in some kind of diaconal capacity (which is to serve under the auspices of the elders), if there were women making pledges to virginity or to not remarry after widowhood for service, or however they were organized, and if Paul called Phoebe by the same name that the deacons were called, and told the church to help her with whatever business she was needing help with,
THEN, it makes sense to include all the servants of the church who are recoginzed by that title in the greeting "including the overseers and deacons" in Philippians.
As I said, if you've grown up with inclusive language (and the younger generation has not) and you are a woman, and you know the Bible uses inclusive language, then saying "including the overseers and deacons" must mean the deacons are all male and in authority is not a slam dunk as it once appeared to me.
And I don't get from the Bible that the deacons, whose very name means servants, had the same kind of oversight as the elders, in fact, I know they didn't, because Scripture spells it out that they didn't.
So the discussions that if women are deacons, they must be completely without authority, but the male deacons have the authority, while I can see it in the writings of church history, I cannot see this kind of argument at all from the Bible.
This makes sense to me. If women are to be recognized for the ministries that they may have, especially to women and children, and perhaps serving needy men, women, and children with clothing and food drives and medical care and transportation of the elderly to their doctor appt's and a thousand other things I can think of that women can do, then it makes sense to give them some latitude for decision making -- ie -- some kind "authority," if you will.
Do you know any women serving in churches who are gifted administrators and organizers? I do, and they frighten me! Just kidding, but organization isn't my strong suit at all. It doesn't make sense to not allow these women to help steer the course of how ministry is supposed to take place. If you are very gifted at organizing people, then at some point you have to be allowed to give direction to others.
This is all being done within the context of elder leadership in the church, so I am not arguing from an egalitarian perspective, just that any time somebody works hard at ministry, they have to be given some latitude w/decision making, and especially so if they have the gift of administration, which some women do have.
BTW, the Baylys do not believe that I Timothy 3 refers to female deacons. I guess they favor the interpretation that Paul is addressing deacons' wives. I remember them saying that Phoebe is the only place you might make a case for deaconesses. I've been reading and rereading I Timothy 3 and I don't agree with them on this particular point.
I have a hunch that women who were married with very young children were probably not deaconesses, nor encouraged to be, back in the days of the early church.
I'm guessing there were more men being deacons than women on account of this, but that is just a guess.
It's my understanding the Tim Bayly is not against female deacons as long as they don't exercise authority over men. So... he's not against the word "deaconess" per se. He's even said that he'd probably make common cause with people who want official avenues within the PCA to let women serve as deaconesses as long as it was absolutely clear that women may not exercise substantive authority over men.
I don't think the Baylys would fight very much about existence of deaconesses in the early church. The problem is (and has always been) the question of authority.
I remember them saying that Phoebe is the only place you might make a case for deaconesses.
I think they might have agreed with some dead writer who said that it's the only place you might make a CLEAR case for deaconesses. They might actually go along with that argument! But again, their objection is about women exercising authority over men, not about woman deacons per se.
This is all being done within the context of elder leadership in the church, so I am not arguing from an egalitarian perspective, just that any time somebody works hard at ministry, they have to be given some latitude w/decision making, and especially so if they have the gift of administration, which some women do have.
Some latitude... like women administrators being free to exercise authority over men? You're not under any obligation to satisfy my curiosity, but I'm still unclear as to why you believe women should not be elders. If a woman (gifted in the military arts) may bear arms and kill men in combat, what is stopping her from piercing men's hearts in preaching?
Lynn,
This topic is close to my heart, so I can't comment on it objectively.
I'm in a church where the main "person in authority" is a woman,(the preacher, doesn't call herself pastor, so she is not out of God's will.... whatever!). We have male and female elders too. In fact, half of the church (or more) are elders!
Anyway, this is not about my church or whether it's right or wrong. I went in order to keep unity with my husband!
Regarding "official titles" like deacon or deaconess, I don't understand the big deal. A deacon is a servant. Do servants get titles? Are deacons supposed to get part of the double honor?
I thought that deacons were first elected as spiritually mature men who served the tables. Then there's the passage that's a bit unclear, whether deacons can be men or women too.
Deacons, I think, could be the older women and also younger women (especially widows) who dedicate their life to serve the body and God. I agree with you there, Lynn.
Regarding authority, I believe authority comes from the Word. Whether you have women or men deacons, they are eligible because they meet a certain criteria that marks them as spiritually mature. The more mature serve the less mature, aiming at spiritual maturity for everyone.
What exactly does it mean to exercise authority over someone? Is it church discipline? Refuting false doctrine? Helping others understand the Word? Discipleship? Preaching?
Should women be involved in decision making? Absolutely. We need representatives from both genders when it comes to important decisions. I believe that God wants men and women to work together because we complement each other. We are different and can bring in a different perspective.
Generally, I struggle with all the commotion around "exercising authority", "having authority" and titles. I thought church was about worshiping God, edifying each other, learning from God's Word and functioning as a body. I don't deny the need for a system of sorts, some more spiritually mature leading (not dominating!) the flock, and feeding the sheep, but do these positions give a person authority over someone else? Or does the authority come from the Word of God and their example?
Church, as an organization and one more place to fight for and deny "rights", has disappointed me. It seems like we are focusing too much on the honor and the authority.
This isn't meant as criticism, it's basically a confused mama's rant, whose husband is part of the leadership of a church she can't really understand.
On a lighter note,
In my natal Madrid there's a school founded by Frederik Fliedner. I'm guessing he and Theodor must be related.
Humtar:
"You're not under any obligation to satisfy my curiosity, but I'm still unclear as to why you believe women should not be elders.
If a woman (gifted in the military arts) may bear arms and kill men in combat, what is stopping her from piercing men's hearts in preaching?"
See my comment to Ruth, and that will probably answer the question. The short answer is, preaching the gospel and sharing the good news isn't limited to the elders of churches during the gathered worship of the church, and the Great Commission was given to men as well as to women. And to make a command that women may not ever proclaim Christ except to other women and children is not only very unnatural, it flies in the face of Scriptures which talk about women sharing the good news with other men.
Ruth:
What exactly does it mean to exercise authority over someone? Is it church discipline? Refuting false doctrine? Helping others understand the Word? Discipleship? Preaching?
The Bible says to obey those who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.
"Obey" can mean to place confidence in, to allow yourself to be persuaded by, and "submit" means to yield to them. "Rule" can mean "to lead." "For they keep watch over your souls as those who must give an account."
I cringe when I think of how cultists misuse words like these. Also those who would stop doing what is right and start, for whatever reason, be it depression, fear, or aging, start abusing the people around them. That is why each person must be biblically literate, and know that church leaders are to not only be able to teach, but that their character must be impeccable. We are to allow ourselves to be led by people of impeccable character who are grounded in the Word.
To lead someone is to keep watch over their souls, both the character issues and the doctrinal ones. And God holds such who claim they do this to a stricter judgment. They have to have good character, and they have to be able to "cut it straight" as far as the doctrine goes.
My opinion is the final verdict on the ultimate form of church discipline, which is treating someone as an unbeliever, and the refutation of false doctrine, are charges given to the elders of the church. These offices, from the Apostles, down to the appointing of elders in churches, were men, and in Corinthians and Timothy Paul said some things about women in the churches that I am fully persuaded mean that women are not to be overseers or elders. This is what makes me complementarian.
Deacons, from the first, if you believe Acts 6 was the first group of deacons, were placed in charge of serving others, not teaching the Word, nor of involvement with church discipline. Some time later, it is noted that there was more structure to the church ministry, as noted in the pastoral epistles, and it included women serving as well as men. Stephan was a mighty fine preacher, to boot, though, even though he was commissioned as a servant to the widows. Anne Graham Lotz is a great preacher, too. Phillip had four daughters who prophesied, which had, by very nature of what prophesy is, to include some kind of preaching. There isn't a problem with women preaching. In the Psalms it says the Lord give the word, and the company of women who proclaim good tidings are a great host. Handel used this verse in the Messiah, but the language was reverse inclusive. The Hebrew in that psalm refers to women proclaming tidings. There isn't anything wrong with women teaching other men in the manner Priscilla taught. There isn't anything wrong with a woman telling another man the good news of salvation. Paul, in his letters, writes very highly of many women who labored with him in the ministry of the gospel. And on and on we go around this mulberry bush (ave you seen the comments on Denny Burk's blog??)! YIKES!
I will never forget the testimony of a native Kenyan, who works in this huge slum city doing evangelism and ministering to physical needs. I was at a dinner with him when he was in the USA raising support (someone who visited Kenya found out about him and told our church about him). He shared how as a teenager, a young girl shared the gospel with him, and he was saved. Our host, who had formerly taught in a seminary in Nigeria, told me that in that culture in Kenya, women are considered to be much more inferior and of much less account than in the USA, and this was a little girl. But a girl still shared the gospel with this man, who now is working himself nearly to death, reaching out to this slum city in Kenya, with the gospel of Christ.
Both men and women deacons were to obey them that had the rule over them, which I believe is the elders and overseers.
In more mundane matters of church life, such as scheduling who will take the turn doing children's church, organizing the Vacation Bible Schools for children (which ought to have both men and women helping, on account of there being both boys and girls, and I think it is important for both boys and girls to see both men and women serving in the church), Ruth, I am with you. I don't see the big deal there if a woman is in charge, and there are men who volunteer under her administrative skills. I also think women should be involved in decision making. But in these mundane matters, as I have already commented on, disputes sometimes arise that don't have an easy answer, and it is my belief that these should be handled by the overseers, which are men.
There are others who will disagree with me, but this is what I believe the Bible allows. My view gives women authority in their ministries, if they have them, which may include men in the church, even the elders, submitting to them, if these elders have the time to help out in the Vacation Bible Schools, or other non-regular program. But that isn't a problem, for in the church we are all supposed to regard each other as more highly than himself, and yes, that language is inclusive ;-), and yes, we're all supposed to submit to one another!
Now, the Baylys teach that any time a woman has any kind of authority over another man, she is in violation of the created order, which I have already given my considered opinion that this does not square with the whole counsel of Scripture. Their view makes them say that female deacons must be under the authority of the male deacons. And if you've read this far, it is THAT view of the Baylys which causes the disagreement here with them. It goes beyond the discussion of women deacons to their views on authority and hierarchy in the church, home, and society at large. Because they have those views on men and women, deaconesses are necessarily included in on those views.
I changed the title of my post. It looks shocking, but really, if you believe that Phoebe was a deacon, it said she was a deacon, not a deaconess.
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2162#comments
That's the comment thread I referred to earlier. I think it'll continue to do just fine without me!
Lynn,
thank you for that long reply! I'll have to read it with a bit more time.
I think we agree when it comes to women's position in church.
I'm not sure about the authority issue. Wouldn't the authority only be supported by the accuracy of what they teach/preach/judge? If they aren't grounded in the Word, they don't have authority. That's how I perceive it. That's why an elder's position requires a man whose life is a reflection of what he claims to believe. He has to be a role model.
The thread on Denny Burk's site. Haha. I've had my say on it. Not that much, but I've aired some of my problems with Complementarian teaching. I posted about it on my blog too.
"I'm not sure about the authority issue. Wouldn't the authority only be supported by the accuracy of what they teach/preach/judge?"
I know that VanVonderan, who counsels on spiritual/ecclesiastic abuse/tyranny, says that when church leaders deviate from the Word of God, they have lost their authority, because it was derived authority.
This issue becomes very sticky, because many are still in a place where they have, as it were, "seated themselves in the chair of Moses" (Jesus' words against the Pharisees -- it was clear he meant their authority was a usurpation of legitimate authority). Jesus said therefore to do what they said to do, and observe what they said to observe, but to not be like them in their craving for human accolades and in their hypocrisy.
However, Jesus himself did not observe everything the Pharisees said to observe, and taught his disciples to not observe their rules, either, so I am not clear how to interpret his words about the Pharisees:
Matt. 23:1-5a
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men;"
Their view makes them say that female deacons must be under the authority of the male deacons
I think you might be putting words into their mouths. Barring women from exercising authority over men doesn't mean having every woman be under the authority of every man. Can't the female deacons just be under the authority of the male elders? The primary role of male deacons is service, not rule. And even if the elders did somehow place the male deacons over female deacons in terms of organizational convenience, there's nothing wrong with that in the context of the elders' rule. But this isn't an absolute necessity.
If I were a (male) deacon, I shouldn't presume to exercise any authority over an elder's wife even if she were a deaconess without the consent of her husband and the elders. Likewise, I shouldn't presume to exercise any authority over any woman in the church (who is under the authority of the elders) without the consent of the elders.
if you believe that Phoebe was a deacon, it said she was a deacon, not a deaconess.
Are you saying Phoebe really was a man?
Regarding "official titles" like deacon or deaconess, I don't understand the big deal.
I wouldn't allow my kids to use my first name. I imagine most parents do too. In fact in my family, younger siblings may not address an older sibling by his first name. Even now, my younger brother would never dream of calling me by my first name; yet, we're best of friends.
"Official titles" (like "Dad") can be about grabbing power, but it doesn't have to be. It could just be an expression of humble acknowledgment and even love by those under its authority and it should remind the title-bearer to the duties that the title requires. In fact, if you see a child who is on a first-name basis with his parents you feel like there's something missing. Usually, it's submission or parenting, or both.
do these positions give a person authority over someone else? Or does the authority come from the Word of God and their example?
A dad has authority over the kids... and that authority comes from the Word of God. It's certainly not an either-or.
Don't forget that Stephen was a deacon. He certainly was not stoned for serving at tables. He was preaching to the Pharisees!
How does anyone have authority over another in the Body? What does that look like in reality?
Can I have a real life example of authority within the body?
I always thought it was the Word, rightly divided that was the authority. Jesus said we have ONE teacher and not to 'lord it over' so how does that relate back to authority over someone else in the body?
Humtar,
I agree, it's a bit strange if someone calls their parents by their first names. It doesn't need to mean anything bad, though. My sister's husband and his siblings refer to their parents by their first names, but when they address them directly they say mom and dad. There seem to be no dysfunctions in the family.
I see a difference between the relationship of children and parents, and that of the church family. Children are commanded specifically to honor father and mother. That relationship, although it changes from one of obedience to one of honoring, is one in which a child always acknowledges the parents for who they are.
I don't understand extending this type of honor among siblings. What do you call your older brother or sister? What do your younger ones call you?
I think some of this is also cultural. I was brought up in Spain. There pastors are almost revered, to the point that some members may skip church if the pastor isn't there. Everyone goes by first names in the church, at least the evangelical Church.
When I spent one year in Bible school, in Germany, the American NT Professor and the Canadian Principal both had to be addressed with the respectful "Sie" (you) form and their last name. All other professors were happy to be called by their first names and addressed with the more common "du" form.
In African churches, people don't refer to elders, deacons, evangelists and pastors by their first name alone. The title comes first.
There are some passages that seem to be in conflict with each other regarding church positions.
Jesus told the disciples to obey the pharisees and teachers of the law, but then he also told them not to call anyone father or rabbi (teacher), because our father and teacher is God (Matthew 23)
Then there's the issue of double honor, but it's reserved for those elders who teach and preach and do it well. (1.Tim.5).
But we are all members of one body, and no member is more important than any other member, in fact, we should be honoring the least among us. (1 Cor.12)
I find it confusing. Personally, I want to love and respect all the body in the same way. Sometimes titles smack of pride to me, but I'll accept that it might be due to my experience.
Can I have a real life example of authority within the body?
Sure, the example I gave about the hiking club. The people who complained about the title of that club didn't go to me to bring up their issues -- they went to the deacon board, which in our church will soon be replaced by elders (our constitution is being changed).
The board gave direction to the matter, and it is a closed case now.
Perhaps you favor the Bible teaching congregational rule. Is that why you ask these questions? I do not think congregational rule in all matters is practical, nor is it necessarily biblical, but I do think that when those who are called to be elders and pastors are called, that there should be a super super majority assent to them being called, and every eligible voting member should vote, simply because those leaders will be their leaders and it is only proper to give everybody a say.
However, that view of mine is not necessarily in the Bible, either. Paul said to Titus to appoint leaders; he didn't say whether it should be by a vote.
Humtar, no, I don't believe Phoebe was a man. I said those things because from what I've read, the Bible uses the same word for both men and women. But as I haven't looked at the Greek myself, I just took their word for it. Maybe in the Greek Phoebe is really "she servant," and the male deacons are "he servants."
Regarding women being under the authority of every man -- I know the article by Schwertely said that the deaconesses were to be under the authority of the deacons, and I know the Baylys say that the order of creation extends beyond the church and home into all of society -- that the female police officer they might have occasion to submit to is a perversion of the created order.
So while I might have been putting words into their mouths, it is quite clear they teach no woman should ever exercise authority over a man, including deaconesses over men at large in the congregation, and male deacons. And if we are to have deaconesses, according to the Baylys, they must be without authority over any adult male, so it isn't an unwarranted extrapolation to say in the Baylys' scheme the deaconesses would be under the authority of the elders and male deacons, just like the rest of the congregation already is under the authority of the elders and deacons in the PCA manner of church life.
Ruth, you bring up a very important point when you talk about titles.
How necessary are they in service? How much of this is about human recognition? How much of the accusation that it is about human recognition stems from men's lust to be in charge?
These are all important matters of the heart to consider.
Interesting discussion.
I think the issue with deaconesses stems from the fact that most churches these days don't view the deacon position in a biblical way. Deacons are servants - nothing more. At least nothing more in their titled role. Of course they are commanded to preach the gospel just as all Christians are commanded to do this (men and women). But in the role of deacon, they are serving - only.
Simplegifts - our church is in the process of changing to elder rule as well. And although it is the more biblical example of local church autonomy, it is typically done incorrectly, with deacons (if the church retains that position) still retaining some degree of authority and clout. And the elders in these churches quite often do the duties of deacons, not of elders.
The deacons should be concerned with the administrative issues of the church and its grounds, with taking care of the bills, with compliance with local ordinances, etc. The elders should be teaching, visiting the sick, counseling, and training.
If we followed the proper prescribed duties of these officers, I don't think most people would have any problem having deaconesses in the Church. There's no telling what the Bayly's and their ilk would think. They are so far off of the biblical view of women that I don't think their view of deaconesses could possibly be right - no matter what.
My sister's husband and his siblings refer to their parents by their first names, but when they address them directly they say mom and dad. There seem to be no dysfunctions in the family.
I don't think I'd call that a first-name basis with their parents.
I don't understand extending this type of honor among siblings. What do you call your older brother or sister? What do your younger ones call you?
I don't think the specific words are so important, but it's just a one-syllable title which just means "older brother." My younger brother has three older brothers and he has to distinguish between them, so he calls us "Big older brother", "Next Big older brother", "older brother".
Here are some biblical basis that come to mind off the top of my head. 1. The Bible places some honor to the firstborn (even between twins), and a greater disgrace to those firstborn who give it up through sin. 2. Bible commands that people honor the gray-haired for nothing but their age.
While I wouldn't make it the 11th commandment, I would expect my younger children to obey the older ones. I would also expect my older children to handle that honor with sensitivity and humility. It is best that children (and the adults that they grow up to be) know that they are under authority and in certain spheres, they must exercise authority (delegated to them) in an honorable way.
My children also aren't allowed to address adults just by their first name. This is really weird for my childless peers who think of themselves as children still. I bet they didn't have the responsibility of having their younger siblings obeying them.
Of course some of this is cultural, but not doing this is also cultural. Saying "it's cultural" is obvious to the point of it being useless. You have to look under the hood of the cultural behaviors (i.e. at the people and their hearts) and evaluate their attitudes toward authority.
It is interesting in the German Lord's Prayer (and German liturgy in general), God is addressed by "du" and in the usual English version, we still use forms of "Thou". The German question about Sie and du has more to do with familiarity rather than respect and authority.
In English, 'elder' as an adjective actually means older. As a culture, we used to have an automatic respect for the authority of those who are older. It's a natural consequence of the idea that creation order matters among men. But of course, as a culture, we've lost that sensibility for the most part.
Sometimes titles smack of pride to me, but I'll accept that it might be due to my experience.
Actually, it's cultural. You live in America. Didn't we just celebrate 4th of July?
They are so far off of the biblical view of women that I don't think their view of deaconesses could possibly be right - no matter what.
Textbook ad hominem. Effective, isn't it?
Actually, more like the argument from incredulity.
Humtar, she doesn't live in America, and AFAIK, she's not a United States Citizen. She was raised in Spain, and now lives in elsewhere.
Humtar, she doesn't live in America, and AFAIK, she's not a United States Citizen. She was raised in Spain, and now lives in elsewhere.
I did assume too much, but the point wasn't about geography. It wouldn't make sense to say that her views are biased because of her proximity to certain landmarks. My apologies if she doesn't claim American culture as her own, but my hunch is that she isn't that far from being American.
Actually, more like the argument from incredulity.
You must be kidding!
" Humtar, she doesn't live in America, and AFAIK, she's not a United States Citizen. She was raised in Spain, and now lives in elsewhere."
Lynn,
I am, in fact, a US Citizen born abroad. My mother is American, but I'm as American as Paella.
I was born and raised in Spain and now live in Germany.
Humtar,
When I say it's cultural, I don't mean to dismiss the importance that certain practices have in a culture or the history behind the practices. While I believe that some practices speak of a tradition of honor, I don't agree that these practices necessarily speak of a person's heart towards authority, but rather a person's values. If you are brought up to honor the elderly, you will treat them with special deference. This doesn't mean you are giving them authority over you, just honoring them because of their age, as we should.
I don't agree with older siblings having authority over the younger ones, unless it's necessary, and then it's delegated from the parents. I remember being left with younger siblings when my parents had to go somewhere. They would instruct the younger ones to obey us older ones, and us older ones to care for the younger ones. But that was it.
" The German question about Sie and du has more to do with familiarity rather than respect and authority."
It has all to do with respect, authority and familiarity. Our landlord and landlady are both elderly people and they live next door from our house. We get along very well, I'd say there's familiarity, but we still go by Sie, simply out of respect.
It's German etiquette to use Sie unless du seems more logical. The older person, or the "superior" is the one who can offer to change the address to du.
" As a culture, we used to have an automatic respect for the authority of those who are older. It's a natural consequence of the idea that creation order matters among men."
I'm a bit confused wit your idea of authority and that creation/birth order implies authority. In that case, technically I'd have authority over my husband because I was born two years earlier.
Do you believe most relationships are vertical?
Do you believe we can respect a person and defer to them without giving them authority over us?
I don't agree that these practices necessarily speak of a person's heart towards authority, but rather a person's values.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making between a person's heart and person's values is. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also," right?
As for the "necessity" part, I'd agree that we all should be aware that we can be deceived by righteous looking acts. We can be very gung-ho about authority (like I appear to be) but still be a habitual traffic law breaker. But, you can't just be morally neutral about children who are on the first-name basis with their parents. Technically, a child can fulfill that command to honor his parents even if he called them by their first name, but practically, I'd say this is never done.
I remember being left with younger siblings when my parents had to go somewhere. They would instruct the younger ones to obey us older ones, and us older ones to care for the younger ones. But that was it.
In the way I grew up, whenever the parents aren't around, it just becomes the defacto understanding that the younger must obey the older ones, and older ones are responsible for the younger. It's always in the context of parental authority. If the older siblings overstep their given authority, the parents deal with it. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Also, if it's not clear, I'm not saying 4 year olds have to obey 6 year olds. The older sibling has to be mature enough to accept the responsibility; and the the older sibling might eventually forfeit his authority because of abuse of his place.
We get along very well, I'd say there's familiarity, but we still go by Sie, simply out of respect.
But, you weren't so familiar that they let you address them with "du". My point was the fact that you can dutzen God makes it so that the difference between Sie and du can't be solely about authority and respect but more to do with familiarity. In other words, Germans calling God "Du" doesn't mean that they respect God's authority less. Maybe intimacy would have been a better word?
I'm a bit confused wit your idea of authority and that creation/birth order implies authority. In that case, technically I'd have authority over my husband because I was born two years earlier.
Say you were 10 years older, or even 20 years older Can you not imagine saying to your husband "You'll understand when you're older"? Two years is a rather negligible difference in adults. Technically, maybe. But in practice, it's negligible. With you and your husband, there is a greater principle than your specific ages at play.
Do you believe we can respect a person and defer to them without giving them authority over us?
I'm not sure how to answer that one either. In general I don't think I have the power to give anyone authority over me. I respect people because God made them in their image, but I defer especially to those who have authority over me because God placed them there. I try not to think of the authorities of above me as my own making. It's too easy to make myself the top of the heap, even above God. Everything happens in the context of God's authority, not mine.
Do you believe most relationships are vertical?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but my guess is that you think most relationships are horizontal. What I'd say is that most relationships are too complicated to say either way.
Actually, more like the argument from incredulity.
"You must be kidding!"
I tried very hard to think of a comeback, but nothing came.
It must be the argument from silence, or something.
No, that's not quite right, either. Rats!
Humtar,
I'm finding it hard to reply to your last post. I think we are splitting hairs.
I think we probably use different terminology, but at the end of the day, the relationships are similar. Youths look up to their elders out of respect. The elders have a certain responsibility for youths.
I believe we have slightly different understandings of authority, whereby I believe authority is not always over someone, creating "vertical" relationships or hierarchy.
I agree that relationships are complex. A good measure of respect for fellow human beings, regardless of their age, race, gender, social or financial status and education will go a very long way.
No, not all relationships are horizontal, but I believe we tend to "verticalize" relationships that should be on an horizontal or nearly horizontal level.
Parents' relationship with their children is an example. We have a vertical relationship because we are responsible for our children. We have authority over them and authority to be able to carry out our responsibility, but this relationship becomes more and more horizontal as children grow.
When children become independent adults, parents stop having authority over them and then the relationship becomes one of friendship, in which honor takes the place obedience used to have. I consider the relationship horizontal at that point.
Finally, an adult child can become responsible for a parent and have authority to carry out his or her responsibilities towards the parent/s.
Do you follow my drift?
I don't think the relationship ever becomes vertical with the child at the top and the parent looking up, but it does become one in which the "roles" of carer and protector have been reversed. Children never have authority over their parents.
Complicated, yes, at first glance, but not really. It's all an attempt at explaining common sense.
In the church, I think we have a tendency to "verticalize" relationships. Some will disagree with me, but that's my experience and I think it's damaging to believers.
Complicated, yes, at first glance, but not really. It's all an attempt at explaining common sense.
This "common sense" is cultural. As far as I can tell, there is not a single Biblical example of a horizontal parent-child relationship. The nature of the relationship changes, obviously, but obedience is expected regardless of the age of the child or parent. For example, in Romans 1, as example of behavior that characterizes godless men, we are told, "they disobey their parents" as if it should be taken for granted that God-fearing men would obey their parents.
In the church, I think we have a tendency to "verticalize" relationships. Some will disagree with me, but that's my experience and I think it's damaging to believers.
That's really twisted way of looking at things. If you said it of the African or East Asian churches, I might sympathize. But, it's simply laughable with the churches in the western world. The prevailing tendency is totally the other way. As for the damage done, I think it's more a function of overactive and prideful sense of self-determination and ego which objects most to establishing authority.
Humtar,
When a man and a woman marry, the relationship with their parents MUST change. It's Biblical.
I don't mean at all that we stop honoring our parents or looking up to them, but we are at the same level. We don't owe them obedience. We are adults and we have to work out our own lives.
"verticalizing" relationships in the church. Of course it happens in the west! I've seen people blindly follow pastors like they were Jesus or something. Christians who become too dependent on the doctrine taught in the church can be misled by their leaders. It's not uncommon and it's a result of giving too much authority or responsibility to leaders.
I stand by what I said. Church leaders only have as much authority as the Word they teach and preach. If they start deviating from God's Word, they have no business leading anyone. You don't live up to the office, you are replaced. We need to work to maintain integrity in the church.
When a man and a woman marry, the relationship with their parents MUST change. It's Biblical.
It seems like you're saying you have to be married to be an adult... but that's probably just incidental.
Maybe the change is that married couple now has two sets of parents to honor and obey rather than one. It's inconsistent to say that adults owe their parents honor but not obedience. Leaving their parents doesn't release married children from honoring them. Therefore, I don't see why it should mean that the children would be released from having to obey them.
Of course, this obedience to parents is always subject to the greater authority and will of God. If parents make it impossible to obey both them and God, children must submit to the higher authority. But that is true even before they get married. The thing that changes is that married children are given more responsibilities from God that supersedes the will of the parents. Nevertheless, the Bible never releases children from obeying their parents when they are able.
Also, I'm still unable to think of an example of a horizontal parent-child relationship in the Bible.
I've seen people blindly follow pastors like they were Jesus or something.
It's also a problem with children who blindly obey bad fathers like they were the Father. But you'd never suggest that society should do away with the vertical aspects of parenting. (Well, actually that's exactly describes the current trends in parenting, doesn't it?)
The real problem is blindness; people can't tell Jesus from Satan. Yes, you're right that there is a serious sickness, but I'd say your diagnosis is wrong. In a healthy church, the pastors are suppose to lead as ones with authority and there is nothing wrong with Christians who foster vertical relationships with faithful shepherds. In other words, problem has to do with blind sheep and wolfish shepherds, not the vertical relationship which are suppose to exist within the church.
Post a Comment