A few months back, I did a series of posts about female deacons. I wanted to offer a few perspectives and make a few points. But I never really rounded off the discussion, never brought it to a close.So that's what this post is about. I've added links to the earlier posts if you'd like to go back and see what was said there.
The first post, "Why Not Start with Female Deacons?" was about something I think is strange. Some congregations of the Church of Christ are expanding the roles filled by their women; but why is it that they don't appointment female deacons as a first step in that direction? The ordination of female deacons would be, I think, a relatively easy case to make. Yet few congregations seem to be interested in the female diaconate.
In later posts, I mentioned that there seems to be plenty of good evidence that churches of the New Testament age ordained female as well as male deacons. To repeat, this position is consistent with
A. the distinctively-Jewish background of the New Testament (see "Female Deacons, 2")
B. what we know of early Christian history (see "Female Deacons, 3")
C. statements from early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (see "Female Deacons, 4")
In this series, I have not dealt with the important New Testament texts, 1 Timothy 3:8-13 (especially v. 11) and Romans 16:1-2. That's mainly because the scriptural pieces of the puzzle are the most accessible. Many people who visit this blog know those passages quite well already, and could comment on them as well or better than I can.
Not as a New Testament scholar (which I'm not), but more as an armchair historian I've added to the discussion what I can. Along that line I want to mention something else for your consideration. In his 1919 book The Model Church, the great G. C. Brewer--not exactly a flaming liberal--included a chapter on "The Diaconate."
Brewer does not refer to any of the corroborating evidence outside the New Testament. But he does point to 1 Timothy 3:11 and to Romans 16:1-2, and expresses his opinion that there probably were deaconesses in the earliest churches. However, he goes on to confess that he doesn't think we can decide the question for certain.
It is perhaps most significant that on this question Brewer declines to use his powerful influence and skill in order to dictate doctrine for the Churches of Christ.
Instead, Brewer's advice is for congregations to determine what they think the New Testament teaches and to act accordingly. In so many words he says, "Have a Bible study and make up your own minds." I find that respect for congregational autonomy both refreshing and instructive.
That most Churches of Christ today never make the time to follow Brewer's advice is not the result of new and better evidence against first-century female deacons. Just the opposite. As the previous posts have shown, the evidence "for" is stronger today, even if it's still regarded as inconclusive.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Churches of Christ don't know what deacons are. As someone said in the comments section of one of the earlier posts, if it is assumed that deacons are some sort of junior elders, then many of our people are naturally going to reject the very idea of female deacons before even considering the biblical evidence.
On the other hand, if deacons are understood as "special servants" commissioned to head up a certain ministry sanctioned and directed by the congregation's elders, then the way should be clear for even more-traditional people in the Churches of Christ to have a genuinely-biblical and clear-minded discussion.
So why isn't this happening?
Once upon a time, a church where I was a member decided to appoint a number of "ministry leaders" as well as "deacons," all for specific focused ministries. People who were already leading ministries, and some who were encouraged to begin one, all flowed into the process. The traditional criteria for "deacons," i.e., maleness, marriedness, were maintained, but not for "ministry leaders," which included some old widows, some middle aged single people, etc. There was a wonderful ordination Sunday that thrilled my soul as I took my vow with all the others to the ministry I was to carry out, and the congregation vowed support in return.
ReplyDeleteNext, photographs of all the deacons and ministry leaders were made, framed, and hung on the hall wall facing the wall where the elders and their wives' photographs hung. The deacons and ministry leaders were arranged from A to Z in alphabetical order.
Before long, a small metallic star appeared on the lower front corner of the glass of each deacon photograph. No stars on the ministry leaders' photographs. No one seemed to know who put the stars on.
Then not too much later, the deacon photographs were moved into a single alphabetical sequence facing the elders, and the ministry leaders photos were grouped together further down the hall. I was never able to find out who had rearranged the photos. No one seemed to know.
Frank, I certainly enjoy coming to your blog. This post, as with others, is well argued and quite insightful. Thanks for the link to Brewer's book. I need to do some more reading in our past thinkers.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that a congregation should start with female deacons. I think that you are correct that most congregations avoid female deacons because they consider deacons as junior elders. We have not distinguished oversight over tasks vs. oversight over people. Deacons have oversight over tasks not people, as elders do. I'm wondering though if congregations who feel more "egalitarian" want to leap frog over deaconess and into higher stuff (you know like passing communion trays). It seems to me that although I don't share their viewpoint, deaconess would be an easier place to start than with the worship assembly.
Even though I'm unsure as to whether we should use the title "deaconess" I am quite sure that qualified women can and should be appointed by a congregation to special ministries and tasks. I think our ladies would do a better job of handling (i.e. running it) our Bible class program than we men (including the adult section, though not teaching mixed classes).
Why isn't this happening? Because we live in an age where you are on one side or the other and there is no mixing of ideas. The conservative side has its list and the progressive has its list and the two shall not be mixed. The conservatives think we have arrived and restored everything that needs to be restored. If you suggest any change, you are a change agent. The progressives want to challenge everything (or that's the way it appears to me) that is traditional because they think traditional is wrong-headed and backwards. I'm not sure where we can go from here as a whole.
Many of the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ have had deaconesses for years. Some among us find it perfectly natural, and others object to it along lines similar to those stated by brethren in the a cappella churches.
ReplyDeleteThen again, there are a few small independent churches here and there with women ministers and elders, though this is far from standard.
I've never had any problem with deaconesses. Honestly, though, I need to think carefully about actual congregational leadership and women.
Here's an interesting piece from NT Wright on the topic of women in church leadership:
http://tinyurl.com/ywnvy6
Carisse,
ReplyDeleteWhat a revealing story. Congregations are strange animals, aren't they? I'm glad I got to see you while I was in Abilene.
Bob,
Thanks, as always, for you input and observations. I lean towards the leapfrog suggestion, although I don't want to, because I think that would be a negative commentary on those churches.
Adam,
Thanks for mentioning some of what you've seen among the Christian churches. Thanks also for the link. I had come across that speech by Wright a few months ago. I don't know that I find it convincing. But I haven't really spent much time with it so far. Regarding the important passage in 1 Corinthians 14, G. D. Fee makes a strong case for its exclusion from the NT text. Most conservatives have resisted that position, I think because they didn't want to look like they were taking the easy way out.