Deaconesses -- are they Biblical?

Note: This is in answer to some questions raised on the "Women teaching and preaching ...." thread, but that one is getting very long, and this itself is long, so I hope no one will mind if I start a new thread, especially since it is not directly on the original question about preaching and teaching.

First, THE NAME. I freely admit that the word "deaconess" is not in the Bible, at least not in the original text, though it can be found in some translations. But then again, neither is the word "trinity". In both cases, the word itself was not even coined until much later. The word "trinity" was coined to describe a concept that is implicit in the Bible, but that no existing word covered. The word "deaconess" was coined to describe a position that had already existed for quite some time (and which I believe had existed since New Testament times), but which there was no specific word for.

Suppose that in the 23rd century someone coined a word for female secretaries, to distinguish them from male secretaries -- perhaps "secretariesses"? Would that mean that there have been no female secretaries in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries? We know that's not the case. Yet this is much the same as trying to say there were no female deacons in New Testament times because the word was not coined until around A.D. 400.

Second, THE WORD. Our English word "Deacon" comes from the Greek DIAKONOS, which means "servant".

In many of the places where it is used in the New Testament, it means an ordinary servant and has nothing to do with work in the church. Several of Jesus' parables talk about servants, and this is the word used. At the wedding feast in Cana, when Jesus' mother told the servants to do what Jesus told them, the same word is used. When Jesus said that the one who wants to be greatest is to be the servant of all, he used the same word.

Even when the word is used of people serving in church work, we do not usually think that they had the "position" or "office" of "deacon". In most of these places in most translations, the word is translated "minister." Christ is referred to as a DIAKONOS in a couple of places, Paul refers to himself as a DIAKONOS of God's work, and calls Timothy also a DIAKONOS, yet we don't believe any of these three had the position of "deacon." In Romans 13, Paul says that the secular ruler is a DIAKONOS of God.

Yet there are two or three places that seem to refer to a position of official DIAKONOS in the local church. One is I Timothy 3, where Paul gives the qualifications of overseers, then says, "Likewise, the deacons ..." and gives qualifications for them. The second is Philippians 1:1, where Paul writes to the "saints in Jesus Christ" in Philippi, "with the overseers and deacons." I think a third place is Romans 16:1.

PHOEBE (Romans 16:1). Paul says, to the Romans, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a DIAKONON of the church in Cenchrea." This is the ONLY place in Scripture where a specific individual is referred to as a DIAKONOS of a specific local congregation. Paul continues by saying how much help she has been to him, and requesting that they help her in any way they can. If there were a man's name here, I doubt if very many -- if any -- would hesitate in giving this person's name as the only "deacon" clearly identified in Scripture. The ONLY reason for not wanting to give her this title is that she was a woman. I think this reluctance has more to do with misconceptions about the position and work of deacons than it does with what is actually said.

Incidentally, Paul also calls her PROSTATIS. This is obscured in most English translations, where she is simply called a "help" or "helper", but this was an actual title that meant (of a woman), something like "patroness". The masculine form was used (according to Vine's) as "the title of a citizen in Athens who had the responsibility of seeing to the welfare of resident aliens who were without civic rights. Among the Jews it signified a wealthy patron of the community."

QUALIFICATIONS OF FEMALE DEACONS ARE GIVEN (I Tim. 3:11). The Koini Greek language did not have separate words for "man" (male) and "husband"; the same word was used for both. In I Tim. 3:11, most translations read, "in the same way, their wives" -- but many also give a footnote that says, "or deaconesses". Either one is a matter of interpretation or explanation, rather than strict translation. The word is GUNI, which can mean either "woman" or "wife", depending on the context. I do not believe it means "wives" here; I think it refers to the female deacons. Why?

(a) There is no possessive pronoun, e.g. "their", as we would expect if it meant the wives of the deacons. There is nothing else to clearly indicate that it is talking about "wives", as opposed to "women" members of whatever group is being discussed.

(b) This short paragraph is introduced by the same word HOMOIOS ("likewise", or "in the same way") that introduces the qualifications of deacons in verse 8. The overseers are to be like this; the deacons, "likewise", are to be like this; and the women (i.e. women deacons, in my opinion and that of many reputable scholars), "likewise", are to be like this. It is true that he returns to the qualifications of male deacons in the next paragraph, but that is not inconsistent with Paul's general writing style. One or two have said that women could not be deacons because they could not fulfill the requirement to be "husband of one wife" and "manage his ... household well." No, but she could fulfill the qualifications that are given specifically for the women. In fact, notice the arrangement -- there are first some general qualifications that could apply to either men or women (the word "men" in verse 8 in the NIV is not in the Greek text), then he gives specific qualifications for the women, then he concludes with the qualifications that would apply only to the men deacons.

(c) If this meant the qualifications of the wives of the deacons, why is there no similar requirement for the wives of the overseers, when this is the more important position? If this means, as a few suggest, women in general, why is it given in the middle of the qualifications for specific positions in the church, and why introduced by the word HOMOIOS, which suggests that it is part of the series of qualifications for specific offices?

(d) If the specific qualifications for the women are looked at in detail, they are very similar to the qualifications given for the men overseers and the men deacons -- just in condensed form.

THE WIDOWS. In I Tim. 5, Paul talks about the church giving aid to certain widows who had to meet certain qualifications (faithful, well known for good deeds, etc.). Many think that these "enrolled" or "listed" widows were not only helped by the church, but were also expected, in return, to do work for the church. Some, who accept that there were female deacons, suggest that that may be what this group was. (On the other hand -- see the historical notes below -- others suggest that there may have been two separate but parallel groups, the female deacons and "the widows.")

"THE SEVEN" (Acts 6). These were all men, but EVEN IF they were deacons, all it would prove is that a particular group of deacons happened all to be men, and NOT that women could not be deacons. Second, many scholars doubt that these were deacons. They are never called "deacons" -- they are always only referred to as "the seven". Some suggest that they may have been the first elders or a prototype of elders, rather than of deacons. They were appointed to distribute the aid to the needy. In Acts 11:30, when the church at Antioch sent famine relief to the church at Jerusalem, they sent it to "the elders." In Acts 15, when the council was assembled in Jerusalem to discuss the question of the circumcision of Gentiles, it comprised the apostles and elders. In neither place (in fact in no place, regarding the Jerusalem church) are deacons mentioned, though it would seem more natural for the relief funds to have been sent through "the seven" and/or through deacons if there were any. So perhaps "the seven" were the first elders.

CHURCH HISTORY. In other early writing of and about Christians, there are numerous references to female deacons. Some are ambiguous, simply because the words (like DIAKONOS) can have more than one meaning, but most seem relatively clear. Pliny, Roman governor of Bythinia, in a letter to Emperor Trajan in 112 tells of having tortured "two maidservants who were called deaconesses" (Latin MINISTRAE) to try to get information from them about the Christians. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 180-200) says, of women's work, "So the Lord's teaching made its way into the women's quarters too, and in a manner above reproach; for we know what the honourable Paul in one of his letters to Timothy prescribed regarding women deacons." Tertullian, 208-217, speaks of two "orders" of female church workers, the "virgins" and the "widows", and speaks disapprovingly of a twenty-year-old virgin having been enrolled in the order of "widows." Many believe that the order of virgins that he refers to is the same as others call "(women) deacons" or "deaconesses." And there are numerous other references in other writings of the first two and a half centuries. (Note: I am indebted to J. Stephen Sandifer's book, "Deacons: Male and Female", for these citations from early post N.T. writings.)

THE WORK/RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEACONS. What did the DIAKONOS do? If "The Seven" from Acts 6 were not the prototype of deacons, then all we know is that they served (since the name means "servant"). Unlike the overseers, they were not required to be "apt to teach", so prohibitions on women teaching (or any other speaking) have no relevance. There is nothing said about them "ruling" or "exercising authority" in any way.

Even if The Seven were deacons or prototype deacons, we still don't know much except that they served. Stephen and Philip also preached, but that was not part of their original mandate. They were "appointed to the business" of the daily distribution. Whether they were overseers of some kind, supervising the work (and possibly prototype elders, rather than deacons), or did it themselves, is not very clear. The apostles, in suggesting that others do the work, said that "it would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables" (Acts 6:2). The closest parallel I can think of in today's church would be the "food pantry" or wardrobe for the needy that some churches have for feeding and clothing the needy of the community. I personally cannot find any reason for excluding women from being responsible for this kind of work, and in churches I have visited that have something like this, it usually seems to be women who manage it.

The "Didaskalia Apostolorum" (A.D. 200-240) describes the work of female deacons at that time -- to assist at the baptism of women, especially in the act of anointing, which was a part of baptisms at the time, to visit believing women in heathen homes, to nurse the sick, to be the community's guardian of women and children, and, in some churches, to distribute communion to women and children. Helping with baptism was especially needed since baptism at that time was done in the nude, and the nude body of the candidate was anointed with oil -- something it was not considered proper for a man to do for a woman.

The main objection to women being deacons seems to come from church traditions where deacons in later centuries possessed some degree of authority and from modern habits of church government. In Baptist churches, there is usually a "board of deacons" that fulfills roughly the role that the "elders" do in most Restoration Movement churches. Even in "our" churches, the elders AND the deacons serve together on some kind of "Church Board" (a concept which fits well with the "management" and "corporate" view of the church that we have borrowed from the business world, but that I cannot find in Scripture). In many cases elders and deacons have equal standing in this "board" and can "outvote" the elders if they choose to.

I agree that it would be a violation of Biblical admonitions for women not to be in positions of authority over men in the church if a woman had a place of equal standing with the men in a "board" like this. But that is a modern American interpretation of what a deacon does, and I do not think even the men deacons in the Bible did anything like this, much less the woman deacons. (Some of the other early church writings that I did not cite also refer to things that the woman deacons were NOT permitted to do, but that the men presumably were allowed.)

All Christians should serve the Lord; most should be serving in the church. HOW we do that depends on our talents, our opportunities, the needs, and what the Bible teaches about what different groups can or should do. Not every man can serve as an elder, but only those who are qualified, and women cannot do the things the Bible forbids them to do -- though I think the Bible (both direct teachings and "approved Apostolic precedent") shows that they can do much more than the very strictest application of I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:11 would seem to allow.

Of the women who do serve in the church, some will inevitably have regular responsibilities. I don't know of any church that would forbid a woman to be in charge of the nursery, or to prepare the trays and emblems for the Lord's Supper and clean these after, or to prepare fellowship meals, or to clean the auditorium, or to play the piano (except for those churches -- sorry, Lee! -- which forbid anyone to do so in worship situations). These are all areas of "service" in the church. There are MANY areas of service in the church that woman can do without violating even the very strictest interpretation of the "restriction" passages. So why deny them the "title" of "servant" (which is all that DIAKONOS means)? And why not look at their qualifications and see if they fit the qualifications in I Tim. 3:11 before giving someone such responsibilities on a long-term basis?

I think there is much more support in the Bible for having woman deacons than there is for having a single CEO like most American churches have (and call him "minister", "pastor", "preacher", or "evangelist"). All these WORDS are found in the N.T., but not this kind of position. "Minister" is just another translation of DIAKONOS (or "deacon"). "Pastor", means "shepherd", and when it is used of a "position" in the church it is equivalent to "elder" or "overseer." "Preacher" refers to a work or a function, and I don't find any place where it referred to a position. From what we know of the work of "evangelists", both from the title itself and the examples we have of a few people who are called evangelists in the N.T., these seem to have been what we would today call "church planters", and there is no indication whatever that very many churches had them in N.T. times.

Personally, I believe that the New Testament only teaches two "permanent positions" in local congregations -- "supervisors", who have the overall responsibility for the organisation, teaching, and shepherding in the congregation, and "helpers", who "help" the supervisors in any way necessary. And these "helpers" may be either male or female, but either must possess the relevant qualifications. The female helpers are somewhat more restricted in what they can do than the men, but also are more suited for work with other women than the men are.

I also believe that there is much more support in the New Testament for having female "deacons" or "helpers" than there is for having the Lord's Supper every Sunday (and ONLY on Sunday, in the view of some). There is a very similar ambiguity in the terms used and even less evidence. Yet a great many make the latter a "matter of faith" and criticise others who don't do it, while many of the same people deny the existence of the former.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Answers

Hold on to your shorts everyone....this is gonna be a shocker....especially to Benjamin.....but....

I almost entirely concur with everything he has written here and have for almost 8 years now.

He is exactly right in pointing out, that one of the things that has caused the confusion is our VERY UNSCRIPTURAL church boards which feature deacons having positions of authority in the church. In most churches the deacons do not have equal authority with the elders....they have greater authority due to their sheer numbers. I served in one church where men would resign as elders and become deacons.....because....you guessed it.....more authority.

If we would go back to the N.T. pattern of assigning deacons to a "task" as opposed to an "office".....all under the authority of the eldership....the whole concern about women serving as deaconesses would disappear. Deaconesses have no authority....(except to complete their task)....just as deacons have no authority (except to complete their task).

I love the fact also, that Ben always suggests "if we accept the men of Acts 6 as the first deacons."

I also quit doing that 8 years ago. Where in the text does it give any indication they were the first "office holding deacons?" NOWHERE!!! They were appointed to "a task".....not an office.

For years, I've heard people use the argument....."If we do this, then the next thing they will be doing is preaching!"

How riduculous and intellectually weak. For 8 years now, I have worked with women "deaconesses"..(although we call them "ministry leaders").....and not once have any of them ever asked to preach. In fact, the elders appointed them because of their very humble servant attitude (often more so than any deacons I have known).

I would suggest to you that churches that do not have boards, the eldership is the sole authority in the church (under the Lordship of Christ).....who appoint qualified people to a task......are far closer to the N.T. pattern as opposed to a board full of office sitters.

My only disagreement with Benjamin concerns his understanding of the evangelist and why he does not feel that is a standing position in the church. When and why would that office had been done away with??

But.....that ought to be another thread.

BTW.....when I recently approached someone else about this subject and the way I felt....the answer I got was....."I think it (the board system) is a pretty good system....because.....if the elders can't get it through the deacons....what makes you think they can get it through the congregation?"

Answer: There are other ways of testing an idea as opposed to a system the N.T. knows nothing of.....(i.e., a church board).

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

If the "women" in 1 Timothy 3:11 are not deacons wives... must a deacon be married? Many would say "no", I still feel that v.12 says they must.

If women are qualified to be "deacons" (or deaconess)... must they be married?

I believe most feel that the elders are to be married... why not the deacons?

Also, must they have children... if so more than 1 (children is plural)? How old are the children to be? Scripture says they are to manage them well... how can we know this until they are older?

I realize that many may feel this is nit-picky, but I feel I need answers.

Thank you for the input.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Benjamin:

This is a true 'tour de force'. Thank you for your willingness to use your gifts to edify us.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Benjamin:

This was a true 'tour de force'. Thank you for using your gifts to edify us.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Marc,

Sometimes I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the qualifications listed for Elder & Deacon. I feel it more appropriate to view them more as guidelines rather than absolutes.

No man could be perfect in all the areas listed by Paul, but many could exhibit srtides in the right direction in each category. For example: Paul says an Elder is to be temperate or not quick-tempered. A man who NEVER gets angry is probably either asleep or dead. But a man whose lapse of control is an exception to his normal behavior, should be considered qualified in this area.

So, the ideas that a man HAS to be married and HAS to have children is probably reading too much into the texts. If a 1st Century Elder's wife or children were executed for the Faith - would that then disqualify the man? I would say not!

Then consider the fact that Paul recommended that men not get married if they weren't already in I Cor. 7:7-9. Would Paul purposely tell men to do something that would Disqualify them from leadership roles? I wouldn't think so.

Marc, There are a lot of old, preconceived ideas about the qualifications for Elders & Deacons. It is tough to go against some of the old Traditions in this area, but I think it behooves us to examine Paul's writings to Timothy & Titus in-depth and with no preconceived notions. Danny & I have both made a lot of "re- decisions" concerning this matter and I don't ever think anyone would ever consider us to be "Liberals" in Theology.

May God bless your study in the matter.

Oh, the deacon/Ministry Team idea Danny spoke of is execellent by the way. It answers the "Deaconess" thing and puts people to work in the Kingdom - a "win-win" situation.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Would you allow Jesus or the Apostle Paul to be either elders or deacons in your churches?

They were single, with no children.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Brother Ben:

I want to say that your present post concerning deaconess in the Church is excellent! It is very well written and clearly thought out. It has given me much to think about and examine in the light of the Word of God. Your words are probably the best arguments that I have yet heard concerning the idea of women being deacons in the church. I do have several questions concerning some of your arguments but I do not have time at the moment to put discuss them and besides that some of your arguments causes me to want to review my questions and my long held beliefs concerning this matter before I ask you or in any way oppose what you have said. So if you do not mind I will go back to the scriptues and examine my position and your excellent arguments in the light of God's inspired word and if I still oppose your position I will come back and give my reasons for doing so. If I only have unresolved questions I will write and ask them. I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to write these arguments for they do present the argument in a most sensible and convincing manner. I do believe that I will learn something from you yet! Ha!

I would like to quote something from Brother Moses E. Lard that seems to support your position that you may find valuable in addition to your current excellent arguments that I am not yet convinced are correct though they can certainly be credited with causing me to seriously question and review my position. Brother Lard said these words concerning Romans 16:1:

Deaconess literally means female servant, but without determining the nature of the service rendered. Phebe was a servant of the church in Cenchrea. This much is actually asserted. Was she appointed to the service by the church, or did she assume it of herself? The question is not material. For whether she assumed the service of her own accord, or was appointed to it, she performed it with the apostles sanction. This stamps it as right. If the church had appointed her to the service, then other churches may do likewise; for the action of that church, being sanctioned by the apostle, becomes a precedent. Or if she merely assumed the service, then for the same reason other good women may also assume it."

"But did Phebe belong to an order of official women in the church? She certainly belonged to an order of women called servants of the Church, who performed their service by apostolic sanction; and the duties of this order were the same as those usually ascribed to deaconesses. I am therefore of the opinion that Phebe was a deaconess in the official sense of that word."

"What were the special duties of this order of women, it would seem not difficult to conjecture. Their work consisted in serving the sisterhood. This much may be accepted as certain. In all churches there would be among the females, the poor, the sick, the untaught, the erring, and unfortunate. These would need attentions which no order of persons could so delicately and successfully give as the deaconesses; and to this class of duties they seem to have been devoted. Indeed, even in this present day, whenever the necessities of the churches are such as to demand it, the order of deaconesses should be re-established. They are often as much importance to a church as deacons, if not more so. Certainly the need for the one order is seldom less than that for the other.

Commentary on Romans by Moses E. Lard (p. 452). 1875.

Now this was written in a time when men would not favor such a position. So not everyone is unable or unwilling to view the facts without prejudice. I know that you do not think that all would be prejudiced but your following comment indicates that most would treat this passage differently if a mans name were mention here instead of a womans:

If there were a man's name here, I doubt if very many -- if any -- would hesitate in giving this person's name as the only "deacon" clearly identified in Scripture.

I can honestly tell you that I would not draw that conclusion simply by finding the word diakonos in this verse. This word would not cause me to believe that either a man or a woman was being spoken of in an official sense as a deacon or deaconess. So if their were a mans name here instead of a womans would not cause me to see the word diakonos as referring in any way to an official position in the church. But your arguments along with brother Lards arguments have caused me to decide to review completely my present position on this matter. When I finish that review, which I will immediately begin this very night, I will give you and the entire forum the results that I obtain. I do appreciate the time you spent in preparing such arguments and I intend to review every one of them in minute detail.

Now before I finish my response I must say something about your following comment:

or to play the piano (except for those churches -- sorry, Lee! -- which forbid anyone to do so in worship situations).

Now Brother Ben, if you are going to say something and at the very same time you feel that you should apologize for saying it then why not just refrain from saying it in the first place? I say this so that you can see why I sense that your apology is purely hypocritical. It just does not come across as being sincere in the least so it would be ridiculous of me to accept such an apology since it is very likely that you did not mean it in the first place. Now I do not need your apologies brother Ben. I have told you often that such is not necessary. And they are especially repulsive when they are so apparently insincere. But I know that you must keep up your self- designed image of being one who is loving and kind and never harsh. You have not fooled honest people with this feeble attempt to cover up a deliberate misrepresentation with a false apology.

But I did think that you knew our arguments against instrumental music well enough to know that we do not believe that it is the churches that forbid the use of instruments in worship but that it is the scriptures that forbid it. Now that is a subject that I am fully convinced is the truth and I do not think that you really want to be side tracked into discussing it in this thread. I have already offered to debate it in this forum. It does seem a bit unfair to ascribe this refusal to use instruments in the worship to the churches forbidding it when the Christian churches have things that they refuse to practice because the scriptures forbid it but others mistakenly think that the churches are the ones that forbid it. Now I know that you think that I am wrong when I say that the scriptures forbid the use of instruments of music in the worship but you know that we do not refrain from its use because the church has written some laws that forbid it. We do so sincerely because we believe that such is not authorized in the scriptures. We do not use instruments for the same reason that you do not accept the addition of peanut butter sandwiches on the Lords Table in addition to the bread and the wine. Such is not specifically forbidden but the scriptures surely do not authorize it. We believe in having a thus saith the Lord for all that we do in our worship and we cannot use instruments in our worship because the Lord commanded it because he most certainly never did so. Now I know that you disagree and I understand your reasons but to say that we do not use it because the churches forbid it is very much a misrepresentation and you have told us that you never do such things. This even appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation because it has nothing to do with the subject that you are discussing. I do sincerely hope that you did not intend to misrepresent. But it does seem that you intend to cast something my way for a reason that no one can possibly know for sure but it certainly does not contribute in the least to your subject or your argument as far as I am able to see. Therefore it did not seem to be a good reason. But you have most certainly misrepresented us in this matter. And you have made this comment in a context that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion.

Now if you want to discuss the instrument issue we can do so but only in a formal way so that we can have a fruitful discussion of the matter. So I am spending just a little time here to say that we do not use instruments in our worship because we believe that the scriptures do not authorize it. We do not have a creed written or unwritten by the church that forbids it. And you know full well that it is not the church that forbids it in our minds but it is our belief that the scriptures do not authorize it and therefore we contend that through the inspired word of God it is the Lord that forbids it. Your attempt to make us look as if we are making our own rules is unfair in the highest degree if you are unwilling to debate the issue so that we have the opportunity to defend the truth about this matter in an even and fair way.

Now if you cast this remark at me because you desire to engage in a formal discussion of instrumental music in the worship and you have determined that the best way to do so is to cast some snide remark toward me that is not at all the truth and get me to respond then I must tell you that such was not necessary. All you had to do was tell me that you would like to discuss it.

Did you do this because you thought that I most certainly would disagree with your position on deaconesses and you wanted to prejudice the audience against me in advance because you know that the majority in this forum use instruments and they would not want to hear the arguments against women deacons if they were made by one who is so ignorant as to hold the view that instrumental music is sinful? I just cannot tell why it is that you deemed that comment to be important to an otherwise thoughtful, reasonable and very thought provoking post. In fact your arguments have given me much to consider and I greatly appreciate it but this misrepresentation is very hard for me to honestly see as being anything other than deliberate and prejudicial.

Now we cannot discuss all these things at exactly the same time. But if you wish to engage in a formal debate concerning the use of instrumental music in the worship we can do it at a time convenient to both of us. Contact me and let us arrange the details and we will have the discussion. But right now you are trying to discuss women deacons. Your post is excellent, though I do have many questions and certain matters that I do not yet agree to be correct. I refrain from bringing those matters up just now because you have convinced me to reconsider and review all that I have thought about this subject previously and give all the benefit of the results that I obtain.

So we will discuss this instrumental music matter in due time if you are willing to do so in the format of a formal discussion or debate but not in the very middle of discussing deaconesses in the church.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Brother Lee Saffold,

Thank you for the quotation from Moses Lard. You talk about this as coming from a period when people were not very open to the idea of women's work in the church, but actually, in my reading I have found some of the earlier R.M. writers more open to the possibility than present ones. I'm not sure why. Maybe there has been an over-reaction and a polarisation because of the opposing ideas that would erase all distinctions and all restrictions on what women can do in the church.

Regarding the rest of what you said -- you are much too sensitive!! You are right in a way. The "sorry, Lee" that I threw in was not a REAL apology. (I didn't really think one was needed.) But I don't think it was hypocritical either, nor was it a "snide" comment. It's the kind of thing that people say when they are "just kidding", which is what I was doing at that moment. (Have I come across as so serious that no one recognises a joke when I make one?)

What happened was that I was listing a number of different areas where women do SERVE in today's churches. In fact, most of them were areas where it is more common for women to do it than for men. In most of the NON-acapella Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, i.e. any/all congregations that do use instruments, the pianist or organist is most often a woman. So it was a valid example of the point I was trying to make. On the other hand, I also realised as soon as I wrote it, that there are some people (including you) who would object to a woman pianist, not because she is a woman but because of the instrument itself. So I acknowledged that fact in a parenthetical remark. But I also did NOT want things to get sidetracked onto a discussion of the instrument, so, since you are the only person of the a-capella persuasion that I know regularly follows these fora, I threw in the "sorry, Lee", as a "just kidding" kind of remark to show that I was aware of your views, but didn't want to get side-tracked onto a SERIOUS discussion of the question of the instrument.

Yes, I am aware that you believe that the instrument is not merely forbidden by the particular congregations, but by the Bible. (As I have said previously in at least one other thread, my father always tried his best to promote greater fellowship between the different groups, so I have been acquainted with and having fellowship with a-capella brethren most of my life, and I sent both my children to Harding University. My son graduated from there a year ago, "Summa Cum Laude." So I've heard most of the arguments on both sides many times.)

But in practical terms, there are congregations that allow it (because they believe that the Bible allows it), and congregations that forbid it (because they believe the Bible forbids it) -- plus also many that continue to forbid it, merely from custom, even when none of the leaders believe any longer that the Bible forbids it. In terms of the argument I was presenting about what women are normally allowed to do in today's churches, what makes the real practical difference is what the individual congregation permits or forbids. Of those that do not forbid the instrument as such, most or all do allow women to play it.

I agree with you that this thread on "women helping in the church" is NOT the place for a prolonged discussion of the question of the use of instrumental music in the church. This matter does interest me, and I would be happy to discuss it further. But I would like to make some suggestions about HOW it is to be done. Someone started a thread on instrumental music some time ago, and quite a lively discussion started, but it ground abruptly to a complete halt because of your insistence that you would not participate any further unless it was done in the form of a formal debate. (The same thing has happened since then in a couple of other threads that you were involved in.)

I would be interested in a free-wheeling "conversation" or "discussion" of the matter, where numerous people are free to join in and say as little or as much as they wish, adding new points when they think of them and have time to write, etc.

I am NOT interested in a formal "debate" on the matter, for several reasons. First, a debate requires taking sides. I'm obviously much more on one side of the fence than the other, but I don't think "my" side has always been absolutely faultless in the way they have handled things either. I'd like to be free to comment on the arguments of either side. Second, a debate is intended to "win the argument". I don't think this particular issue is worth that kind of treatment, since I see it as a matter of opinion. I'd like to just present "things to think about" on either/both sides. I would like to discuss (not debate) the implications of the different points of view and of the differing approaches to hermeneutics that lead to these opposing views. I would also ESPECIALLY like to discuss the the question of how to improve fellowship in spite of this kind of difference. A debate about which side is right and which side is wrong would seem to me to work in the OPPOSITE direction of that last wish of mine. Finally and perhaps least important, but still a factor, I cannot afford to make the commitment of time that would be required for me to be one of the main participants in a debate. But I would like to be allowed to contribute comments when I have them and have time to write.

So, regarding the use of instruments in worship -- my vote would be for a DISCUSSION but NOT a debate, and definitely in another place.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Benjamin;

A thought: You mentioned that the early "movers and shakers" of the Restoration movement were far more open to women deacons than we are today, and you didn't know why. I was thinking perhaps it may be an over-reaction to the split we had with the liberal wing of the movement (the Disciples of Christ). I don't know much of the history behind all of that but it seemed to me like a plausible explanation. For some reason we humans like to take things to extremes.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Ben,

I would apologize for my lack of imediate response, except that your comments have given me much to consider. And for that I do not apologize, but I would rather thank you for your thoughtful approach to this subject. You have given the entire forum something to chew on. I have printed out your article and questioned various points. At this juncture I am stumped as to continueing to hold the position that the Bible is silent on the existence of deaconesses. Yes, it is a difficult thing to change one's mind after holding a position for so long. Especially when one considers that position to be Biblical. But, as I have said before, I love to study the Word, and I am not above debating, discussing, and yes... even learning... (hee hee especially learning... I love to learn.)

I will admit that I am still somewhat skeptical, call it a stubborn will or the result of a long term bias. But I will tell you this, brother Ben, I will humbly study this more, and consider much deeper than I ever have before.

I do, however, maintain that the hermaneutic I suggested is still valid. And, whether your premise is proven to be true or false, you have followed that hermaneutic. Bye the way, that gives it more credibility (at least with me :) ). I still maintain, that the argument as to the order of names ie. Aquila and Pricilla is lost on me.

I have always realized that whether deaconesses existed or not in the New Testament, it does not affect areas of teaching or authority and such. They would be a problem if a congregation continued to give the deacons/deaconesses unBiblical authority, whether it be a church board situation or something else.

Thanks Ben, If you have any other information in this area, send it along.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2000