Deacons

[Bob]

What would you guys say that the modern day deacon ministry ought to look like in light of the bible?

Since the word means servant, I see it as a position of service and ministering to the needs of others, not as a position of authority. The deacons in the Bible were shown waiting tables and making sure food was distributed to the widows and needy. From that, I would say modern deacons should be the ones doing or coordinating service projects and ministering to the needy. Deacons are not there to rule the church or tell the pastor what to do, and it should be a useful position not an honorific or a title given to someone because of social prominence or because they're tithes and attended church for years. Since the Bible and secular sources (Pliny the Younger) mention female deacons/deaconesses, I do think women can serve as deacons when it is a service position (but not when it is misused and becomes sort sort of governing board instead, or when they are expected to fill in for the pastor and preach at times).

I think part of the confusion in many Baptist churches is that we often ignore the position of Elder, or equate it with the office of pastor, and then place the deacons in the role that the elders should have. Elders are the ones who are tasked with helping run the church, making certain decisions, running things in absence of the pastor, etc. It is a position of more authority and this is also where interim pastors should come from if the church is without a pastor for a time. Some churches designate elders as "teaching elders" who preach and "ruling elders" who administrate; That can be a useful distinction  and it also sums up their roles in the church. I don't think that it will be possible to have the deacons in their proper ministry role without having the office  of Elder, separate and distinct from that of Deacon.

You bring up some great thoughts. Even Paul in I Timothy 3 starts off by saying, "Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task." After listing some qualities, he continues concerning the deacon "In the same way (as the overseer), deacons..." (parenthesis mine). Then Paul mentions "In the same way (as the overseer and/or deacons), the women..." (parenthesis mine). If these women did not perform in the same manner as the deacons and/or overseers, then why are there qualifications for them that include the same for the male overseers and deacons? There is a possibility that Paul was assuming that women also had a leadership role in the church on equal par with the overseers and deacons. Now, perhaps it might have been in a role of teaching other women (as mentioned in Titus) but nonetheless, there are qualifications listed in the same passage. Just maybe Paul may not have been as misogynist concerning the idea of church leadership as some might perceive.

  I think your paranthesis is wrong. The women are on the same plane as deacons, not elders.  Paul also forbids women from being elders when he says I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. those two roles are what define elders, so he was clearly speaking of them not being elders.

You might possibly be correct. This is why I used "and/or" as somewhat of a disclaimer. If the deacons' qualifications were to include those of the overseer ("In the same way...") and the women's instruction includes the deacons' ("In the same way..."), it would mean the qualifications Paul put on women included those of the overseer.

An example would be that the cat ate the mouse that ate the cheese. The cheese is still in the cat.

Your analogy, or example, as you put it, is wrong.The women, or female deacons, are being compared to and distinguished from the preceding category of deacons, not elders.  It is a textual issue.

 

[raised2walk]

I think your paranthesis is wrong. The women are on the same plane as deacons, not elders.  Paul also forbids women from being elders when he says I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. those two roles are what define elders, so he was clearly speaking of them not being elders.

Well, everyone knows Paul was a real jerk.

 

[FortBuilder 8.25]

What would you guys say that the modern day deacon ministry ought to look like in light of the bible?

Since the word means servant, I see it as a position of service and ministering to the needs of others, not as a position of authority. The deacons in the Bible were shown waiting tables and making sure food was distributed to the widows and needy. From that, I would say modern deacons should be the ones doing or coordinating service projects and ministering to the needy. Deacons are not there to rule the church or tell the pastor what to do, and it should be a useful position not an honorific or a title given to someone because of social prominence or because they're tithes and attended church for years. Since the Bible and secular sources (Pliny the Younger) mention female deacons/deaconesses, I do think women can serve as deacons when it is a service position (but not when it is misused and becomes sort sort of governing board instead, or when they are expected to fill in for the pastor and preach at times).

I think part of the confusion in many Baptist churches is that we often ignore the position of Elder, or equate it with the office of pastor, and then place the deacons in the role that the elders should have. Elders are the ones who are tasked with helping run the church, making certain decisions, running things in absence of the pastor, etc. It is a position of more authority and this is also where interim pastors should come from if the church is without a pastor for a time. Some churches designate elders as "teaching elders" who preach and "ruling elders" who administrate; That can be a useful distinction  and it also sums up their roles in the church. I don't think that it will be possible to have the deacons in their proper ministry role without having the office  of Elder, separate and distinct from that of Deacon.

You bring up some great thoughts. Even Paul in I Timothy 3 starts off by saying, "Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task." After listing some qualities, he continues concerning the deacon "In the same way (as the overseer), deacons..." (parenthesis mine). Then Paul mentions "In the same way (as the overseer and/or deacons), the women..." (parenthesis mine). If these women did not perform in the same manner as the deacons and/or overseers, then why are there qualifications for them that include the same for the male overseers and deacons? There is a possibility that Paul was assuming that women also had a leadership role in the church on equal par with the overseers and deacons. Now, perhaps it might have been in a role of teaching other women (as mentioned in Titus) but nonetheless, there are qualifications listed in the same passage. Just maybe Paul may not have been as misogynist concerning the idea of church leadership as some might perceive.

  I think your paranthesis is wrong. The women are on the same plane as deacons, not elders.  Paul also forbids women from being elders when he says I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. those two roles are what define elders, so he was clearly speaking of them not being elders.

Ah, Bobbo, the great disciple of Jean Calvin and John Pieper speaks. You're so smart, I bet you'd be a great pastor.
Oh wait . . .
Yeah. You don't believe the Word is sufficient for faith. Lolol!

 

[Haagen-Dazs]

Your analogy, or example, as you put it, is wrong.The women, or female deacons, are being compared to and distinguished from the preceding category of deacons, not elders.  It is a textual issue.

It is probable that the comparison with the women in the passage corresponds with the deacons. Albeit, the deacons were compared with the overseers so in essence, the women were compared to the qualifications of overseers as well.

Which begs to question, why would certain women be held to as high of a standard as that of an overseer? Paul told Titus, "Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They (older women) are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children..." (parenthesis mine). Women do have the right to teach or train as does an overseer and they do have the right to serve as does a deacon. The demographic of their ministering might be different but I feel there is no doubt that Paul is advocating leadership among women and those women leaders are held to as high a standard of accountability as overseers and deacons.

 

[Bro Blue]

AMR, any thoughts on this subject?

 

[Inhisdebt]

Older women can teach younger women but that is the totality of it. It is not a position as Deacon or Elder.  1 Tim 2:11-13 is clear on this.  Same type of instructions for new husbands, they are to leave their father and mother and cling to their wife. No more being ruled by mommy. As in the man-wife teachings, the bible goes on to spell out the roles and authority. There is nothing else regarding giving authority to women to be deacons or taking the authority that is required. The husband is responsible for what his wife learns and must sift what is being taught by the older women to his wife. Deacons are servants of the pastor/elders to help get the work done so they can labor in the word. There has to be some authority for them to get the work done, limited to the scope of their assignment only, but authority none the less.

 

[Bro Blue]

I wasn't talking about women being deacons. Just about modern day deacons in general and their role today.

 

[Inhisdebt]

I wasn't talking about women being deacons. Just about modern day deacons in general and their role today.

Responding to more of Haagen Daz - kinda new at this forum stuff - read the old one years back and stumbled on this one and decided to give it a go so missed the quote thing this time.

The role has not changed, servants so the labor in the word can go on. Everybody wants authority to go with the title and no body wants a boss.