After reading some of you reply here I think I see what some of the issue is.
In the PCA I belong to we do it like this:
We have elders over different divisions of the Church:
A. Elder of Church Grounds (male):
under him are deacons (male) that assist:
1. Deacon of External Church Grounds 2. Deacon of Internal Church Grounds, etc.
under each of these may be committees:
i.e. Internal Church Grounds
a. Church Opening Committee which organizes the Sunday morning building preparations---air conditioning, lighting, et. al. b. Usher Committee c. Hospitality Committee (no men), headed by a woman, who answers to a deacon, who thus answers to the elder.
Thus, far from the notion that woman do not serve in the church or have no decision making power therein, they do, but they do biblically. The do not usurp authority over the man and are in biblical subjection.
Well, my last comment will have to be: "I'll be anxiously awaiting to see this woman deacon on "Ripley's Believe it or Not" as the only woman in the world who is the husband of one wife!"
Property cttee And I guess they are answerable to the trustees too. We are planning to make the deacons trustees. The minster can't, at present, be a trustee and receive a salary under English charity law Missionary cttee Sunday school (I don't even think a deacon is on this one)
Congregation (Hey, isn't that circular? Yes it is, but I never said I was a congregationalist!)
May I ask why if something doesn't sit well with the Word of God it would be acceptable to you? I would think that just the very thought of something not sitting well with the very breath of God would have you running like Joseph away from Potiphar's wife.
Linda, I may be wrong, but I believe he is saying that he does not like the situation at his church, but there are no "better" choices. In other words, although this practice is not Biblical, the essential teachings of the church are solid.
Well thanks for answering for him. I think this is a very important aspect of any church body, and if this deaconess truly has authority over any man in the congregation then would you say that the essential teachings of the church are solid.
In reply to:In other words, although this practice is not Biblical, the essential teachings of the church are solid.
Yet, despite James' rejection of the practice of allowing women to serve as Deacons, he has agreed to serve side-by-side with a woman who has been serving as a Deacon? Now I'm .
"I think this is a very important aspect of any church body, and if this deaconess truly has authority over any man in the congregation then would you say that the essential teachings of the church are solid. "
An excellent point. I have certainly heard those in favor of women deacons use Phoebe from Romans 16:1 (where the word is the same as that in 1 Tim 3:12). Interestingly enough, Darby and Young (YLT) translate both verses with the same word (minister). Although the case has been made that Phoebe was a deacon, it is difficult to reconcile with 1 Tim 3:12 (it would have been tough for Phoebe to be a very good husband).
Is a church going against the Scripture on this point by allowing women deacons who have authority over men? Absolutely.
Here is my question....Should a person leave such a church? I will open that question up for debate.
My $.02....personally I WOULD leave such a church, as I believe that any church/denomination that allows such a practice is well on its way toward theological liberalism.
In reply to:if this deaconess truly has authority over any man in the congregation . . .
Linda,
This is the "loophole" which has opened the door to allowing women to serve in the Eldership and the Deaconate. When one allows the debate to be shifted to the pragmatic, i.e. issues as "authority", then one totally circumvents the CLEAR teaching concerning the QUALIFICATIONS for these two Christ-ordained OFFICES. Personally, I couldn't care less if a woman is said to have authority or in the case of those who object to the historical/traditional view, no authority over a man and/or congregation, the qualifications for the office must be met. One of those qualifications is that "a MAN be the husband of one wife. In both of the major passages which speak of these two offices (1Tim 3:1-13; Titus 5-9), the pronoun he is used throughout. That Paul enjoins and allows only men to serve as Elders and Deacons is incontrovertible.
If a church desires to have a woman who has NO AUTHORITY to do various services within the body, then that is perfectly acceptable. However, they are not allowed to be designated as Deacons.
A challenge was put forth to all who reject the biblical teaching concerning the qualifications for Elder and Deacon which has yet to be sufficiently answered. You can read it here: An Open Letter
Pilgrim, I know exactly what you are saying about the qualifications for Elder and Deacon. While I may be wrong, I do think it matters if a woman is placed in a position of authority over a man in the areas of leadership in the church. You are much more schooled than I am, so I am sure what you say is correct. I don't believe they should be deacons either. Thanks for the info, I will read it. I will ask though, does "husband of one wife" mean you cannot be divorced? Obviously this wasn't telling them that deacons and elders could have only one wife, while the rest of us could have several spouses!
Perhaps I didn't word things well enough! "Authority" is an important matter, but not, IMHO when it is used as an argument for women in office. What I tried to convey is that aside from the issue of authority, the fundamental issue is who qualifies for the office rather than what the office entails. By allowing the authority issue to enter into the debate, it gives the opposition the opportunity to redefine what authority is, etc...
In reply to:does "husband of one wife" mean you cannot be divorced?
This is another hotly debated subject. But I have concluded that Paul is forbidding practicing bigamists from office. The literal translation of the Greek is actually, "one wife's husband", which lends itself to the bigamy interpretation more than the issue of divorce. If one would want to make the text mean that no divorcees are qualified to serve, then to be consistent, it must also mean that no widowers are qualified either.