female preacher

[Clare73]

Why?
You're saying that if something didn't happen in the first 1800 years of the church then it can't happen.

Actually, that is not what I am saying. . .q.e.d.

You continue to demonstrate the merit of Paul's prohibition (1 Tim 1:12-14).

So that should apply to things like computers.

There were no computers in the first 1800 years of the church (or if there were, they were not like ours) because the technology had not been discovered.
There were no female clergy in the first 1800 years of the church (or if there were, they have been quietly ignored) because people had not asked questions about female clergy or debated the matter. In my experience, something only needs to not happen for about 5-10 years before people start saying "we've never done it this way before" and use that as an excuse not to start.
Yet there were women like Mary Magdalene who told the disciples that the Lord had risen. Jesus appeared to her first, not his male disciples. There were women like Phoebe who was a deacon and Philip's daughters who were prophetesses. Later on there was Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, Hilda of Whitby who founded monasteries/convents, wrote devotional books, helped and advised the Pope, taught nuns and Cardinals etc etc. John Wesley appointed women to be preachers. Catherine Booth preached and helped to lead the Salvation Army. And so on.

 

[rjs330]

When you look at 1 Timothy chapter 3 it all becomes clear. Paul only reders.to pastors as men. Pastors are not supposed to be women.

What about all those women Pastors? We rhey and rhe churches that have them are violating Biblical Doctrine.

I seriously commend women who want to.serve the Lord and his flock. But the way to do it properly is to follow scripture. Can they be good ministers? I suppose rhey can do good things and still help people. But they are still in violation of scripture. And ultimately won't receive the same rewards as a man fulfilling that role.

 

[Strong in Him]

When you look at 1 Timothy chapter 3 it all becomes clear. Paul only reders.to pastors as men. Pastors are not supposed to be women.

I don't think God got that memo.
He has been calling, and continues to call, women to ordination.

What about all those women Pastors?

Doing what God called them to do.

We rhey and rhe churches that have them are violating Biblical Doctrine.

No, they're not.
Not least because this is not doctrine, but church practice; gender of the clergy is not part of the Gospel or Christian faith. It can't save anyone, nor prevent salvation.
There are people here who've said "no way will my church ordain women" - fine. They are being true to their interpretation of God's word.
There are women here who are Pastors/Ministers - they are being true to the God who has called them to that role.
All are saved, have eternal life, are filled with the Spirit and will fellowship in heaven.

The bottom line is if female clergy upset you - go to a church where they don't have any.
If you find it upsetting that some churches don't allow women to use their gifts and test their calling from God - don't go to those churches.

But the way to do it properly is to follow scripture.

They are - and following the God who wrote it.

I suppose rhey can do good things and still help people. But they are still in violation of scripture.

Nope.

And ultimately won't receive the same rewards as a man fulfilling that role.

Well, I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that, but I'm certain they will.
If, on the other hand, you and others are wrong, I would not have to want to explain to God why you prevented women from following his calling.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think God got that memo.
He has been calling, and continues to call, women to ordination.

O don't thinknhe does. I think its a personal desire to serve. Which is absolutely commendable. Having such a strong deaire to serve God is great and I think women have a strong place in the church in service and they can do a LOT of things besides being a pastor. God doesn't violate his own scriptures.

Not least because this is not doctrine,

Yeah it is. Churches violate doctrine all the time. Such as allowing homosexual ministers. Having a female pastor is a violation of scriptural instruction, thus a violation of church doctrine.

They are - and following the God who wrote it.

I'm not saying they aren't Christians or not trying to follow God. We all try to follow the Lord and we also fail to follow scriptural instruction. No one is perfect all the time. In this case one can still follow God in their lives but also fail in following scriptural instruction. This is one place where that occurs.

Well, I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that,

I'm sure we will all have to wait and see about a quite a few things. But when something is clear and we ignore it, we shouldn't expect to be rewarded for doing something that we were told is improper.

I think this is one of those matters where our hearts dictate our doctrine rather than the instruction dictating our hearts. We need to conform our actions and beliefs to scriptural instruction rather than try and make scriptural instruction conform to our actions or beliefs.

 

[Strong in Him]

O don't thinknhe does.

I'm sorry but, though I can't speak from experience, God certainly does call women to ordination.

Having such a strong deaire to serve God is great

All the women I know who were called to be ordained were already serving God - as nurses, teachers, social workers etc, as well as work within the church.

God doesn't violate his own scriptures.

No, he doesn't.
So the fact that he does call, and is calling, women to this role means that he can't have forbidden it in Scripture - he knows what he is doing.

Those who don't agree with women's ordination either don't see, or are unwilling to consider, this. Which is unfortunate because the only alternative that they can offer is to dismiss the women involved as being deluded, lying, being feminists or seeking to serve themselves. I'm not saying you are doing that - but if God isn't at fault, then women must be.

Yeah it is.

No, it really isn't.
Doctrine is the Gospel and the tenets of faith stated in the Nicene Creed.

Yes, some people may be profoundly disturbed at the thought of female clergy, or hearing a sermon from a female preacher, and it would not be good to force those people to accept it. But the gender of speakers, or the clergy, does not affect, prevent or negate our salvation or status as children of God. It may affect someone's growth if they never want to listen to female preachers, and it says a lot about their understanding of Scripture. But if someone can't accept a woman in ministry, they can go to a church where they'll never have that problem.

Having a female pastor is a violation of scriptural instruction,

Sorry, but do you honestly believe that if a Christian woman believed that the Bible was saying "God has commanded you to never be ordained", she would go ahead and do it? Or that some women read the Bible and think, "interesting command from God; not obeying it"?
There ARE people in the Bible who did that - Adam, Jonah and all the Israelites in the OT - and look what happened to them.

But when something is clear and we ignore it,

But it's NOT clear. If it were, do you really think there'd be so many debates about it?
"You shall not commit adultery" is clear - how many Christians argue with that or do the opposite?
Paul writing, "I do not allow A woman to teach or to assume authority" (the word means to violently grab), is not at all the same as saying "God has commanded that no woman anywhere should ever preach or be a Minister".

I think this is one of those matters where our hearts dictate our doctrine

I don't believe for one minute that a woman who believes that God is calling her to ordination may be letting her heart dictate her doctrine. I know a few such women and have read testimonies from others. Quite often it was a case of "anything but that, Lord"; in some cases the phrase "kicking and screaming" was used. Why would a woman who had an important, well-paid job where she was well-respected and maybe a high flier, want to give that up for a drop in salary, a lot of hard work and having to face the attitudes that have been expressed on these forums over the years?

I think that if someone is against women Ministers/clergy they may see verses which appear to reinforce that belief - we can all select Scriptures that say what we want to hear. The question is; have we understood what the author was saying?

We need to conform our actions and beliefs to scriptural instruction rather than try and make scriptural instruction conform to our actions or beliefs.

I'm sorry but I think you are doing some Christian women a huge disservice if you believe they are doing that.

 

[rjs330]

I'm sorry but, though I can't speak from experience, God certainly does call women to ordination.

He won't call women because he has said it's for men, not women. That being said i don't believe every man in the ministry is called either.

All the women I know who were called to be ordained were already serving God - as nurses, teachers, social workers etc, as well as work within the church.

And that's what they shoild have stayed doing.

No, he doesn't.
So the fact that he does call, and is calling, women to this role means that he can't have forbidden it in Scripture - he knows what he is doing.

I'm sounding like a broken record here, but God isn't calling them. It is their own desire and own decision.

But the gender of speakers, or the clergy, does not affect, prevent or negate our salvation or status as children of God.

Thats correct I never claimed otherwise.

I'm not saying you are doing that - but if God isn't at fault then women must be.

Thats correct. The women are incorrect. I certainly do t think they are deluded or lying. They are just mistaken. And I look at it from a positive standpoint that it's their personal desire to serve. They are just in error in the manner they choose and the church is in error to allow it.

It may affect someone's growth if they never want to listen to female preachers, and it says a lot about their understanding of Scripture.

If they think the woman shouldn't be a pastor then their understanding of scripture is correct.

Now that doesn't mean a woman cannot be a good teacher. Women are primarily teachers in school. I've also heard some very bad preachers that were men.

Sorry, but do you honestly believe that if a Christian woman believed that the Bible was saying "God has commanded you to never be ordained", she would go ahead and do it? Or that some women read the Bible and think, "interesting command from God; not obeying it"?
There ARE people in the Bible who did that - Adam, Jonah and all the Israelites in the OT - and look what happened to them.

Yes they certainly do know what the Scripture says, but they ignore it. They ignore it out of a desire to do it. Christians do that all the time don't we? We k ow what it says, but our desires become paramount and we either ignore it or twist it instead of following it.

And these women are not following scriptural instruction. And neither are the churches that allow it.

But it's NOT clear. If it were, do you really think there'd be so many debates about it?

Irs also clear that homosexuality is sin and there still are debates about it. Just becauae there are debates doeant mean Scripture isn't clear. People have a tendency to ignore Scripture or try and make Scripture fit their own beliefs rather than make their beliefs fit the Scripture.

Paul writing, "I do not allow A woman to teach or to assume authority" (the word means to violently grab), is not at all the same as saying "God has commanded that no woman anywhere should ever preach or be a Minister".

God also says through Paul that a minister is a man.

no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 3:3, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:4, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:7 - American Standard Version

no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money;

www.biblegateway.com

Sorry my copy didn't get it all. Here is the rest.

The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 3:2 - American Standard Version

A woman cannot be a husband of one wife. Not that the word "he" is used throughout the passage. No mention of a woman or she.

Why would a woman who had an important, well-paid job where she was well-respected and maybe a high flier, want to give that up for a drop in salary, a lot of hard work and having to face the attitudes that have been expressed on these forums over the years?

Becauae she wants to serve. But just because that is her desire, it doeant make it correct.

I'm sorry but I think you are doing some Christian women a huge disservice if you believe they are doing that.

I dont think so. Because many do that. I know i have done it myself. And later had to self correct and realize I what I was doing.

 

[Der Alte]

When you look at 1 Timothy chapter 3 it all becomes clear. Paul only reders.to pastors as men. Pastors are not supposed to be women.
What about all those women Pastors? We rhey and rhe churches that have them are violating Biblical Doctrine.
I seriously commend women who want to.serve the Lord and his flock. But the way to do it properly is to follow scripture. Can they be good ministers? I suppose rhey can do good things and still help people. But they are still in violation of scripture. And ultimately won't receive the same rewards as a man fulfilling that role.

Romans 16:1
(1) I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant [διάκονος masculine=deacon] of the church which is at Cenchrea:

 

[Strong in Him]

He won't call women because he has said it's for men, not women. That being said i don't believe every man in the ministry is called either.

He has called, and is calling, women.
You don't accept that; your choice, but it is happening.

And that's what they shoild have stayed doing.

In your opinion.
But then they would have been obeying the will of men; taking the easy way, and not heeding God's voice.

I'm sounding like a broken record here, but God isn't calling them. It is their own desire and own decision.

I'm sorry but you don't know/never knew them, never heard their testimonies and have no idea.
You can only judge, from a distance, and condemn them for being self-serving.

Thats correct I never claimed otherwise.

I know you didn't, I was just explaining why this isn't Christian doctrine.
Put it this way; if someone on this site does not accept the Nicene Creed they cannot describe themselves as a Christian - forum rules.
If someone on this site fully accepts the Nicene Creed and who Jesus is, but does not accept that women can be ordained, they can describe themselves as a Christian.

Thats correct. The women are incorrect. I certainly do t think they are deluded or lying. They are just mistaken.

ALL of them?
We are not talking about a small group of women from one church who all met for prayer/Bible study, one of them said "I feel that God is leading me to be ordained" and the response was "we'll do it too." Nor about a couple of women who decided to be ordained and take a stand for equality. We are talking about women from several denominations/traditions, more than one country and over several decades.
I found an online article recently which said that the first woman to be ordained was in 1908. Assuming that is accurate, that is more than 100 years ago. When I was a child there were no female clergy in the Anglican church, but there were in the Methodist church. NZ and Australia, I believe, were also ordaining women - I could be wrong about that but it was certainly possible in other countries.

Were ALL those women mistaken?
If so, then why didn't the male clergy correct them/send them away instead of selecting, training and ordaining them? In the UK Anglican church, the motion to ordain women had to be passed by Synod. To get through Synod a motion has to have a 2/3 majority in all 3 houses - the house of laity, the house of clergy and the house of bishops. The members of those latter 2 houses were all men - they had to be; women couldn't be ordained. So a great number of male clergy accepted, agreed and voted that women should be allowed to go forward for ordination.

An awful lot of men were therefore also mistaken.

And I look at it from a positive standpoint that it's their personal desire to serve.

It's their personal desire to obey God.

Yes they certainly do know what the Scripture says, but they ignore it. They ignore it out of a desire to do it.

That's a massive generalisation, and a judgement.

We k ow what it says, but our desires become paramount and we either ignore it or twist it instead of following it.

There is a big difference between knowing that you should go and visit someone, for example and not doing it, or knowing that you should give to the poor but not wanting to, and saying "I think God might be leading me to be ordained", and then submitting yourself to the church, and to men, to be tested/assessed to determine whether you have heard God correctly.
Ordination is a long process and involves a lot of other people - it doesn't happen overnight.

And these women are not following scriptural instruction. And neither are the churches that allow it.

In your opinion.

People have a tendency to ignore Scripture or try and make Scripture fit their own beliefs rather than make their beliefs fit the Scripture.

How do you follow, and suggest that we follow, Scripture?
By wearing sandals/walking barefoot through muddy fields so that when you arrive at a Christian home a believer can have the honour or washing your feet? That's what Scripture says.
By owning a slave, so that you can follow Scriptural teaching on how to treat them?
By not allowing widows under the age of 60 to have financial support from the church? That's what Scripture says, 1 Timothy 5:9-15. So if you know a woman with a young family who has lost her husband in war, I suggest you tell her that, according to Scripture, she is a gossiping busybody who deserves no help from the church.
By making sure that all men have short hair, although Scripture doesn't specify the length so it's down to guesswork. Also by making sure that women do not wear gold (say bye-bye to wedding rings), pearls or expensive clothes. Though there is no definition of "expensive".
By obeying the Jewish law? Yes, Jesus came to fulfil the law, but it is still in our Bibles. No one ever said, "that doesn't apply to us, let's leave it out of the Bible."
By learning Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? By wearing robes? By worshipping in a Synagogue?

God also says through Paul that a minister is a man.

No, he doesn't.
If he did, he would not even allow women to be Ministers today, never mind call them to that role.

A woman cannot be a husband of one wife. Not that the word "he" is used throughout the passage. No mention of a woman or she.

Because women were not able to be Ministers - there was no point in instructing them how to behave as an overseer when it was impossible for them to be an overseer.
Just as when Jesus was asked about divorce it was about a man divorcing his wife, Mark 10:2. Women were men's property, they were not allowed to initiate a divorce. Yes, Jesus says in Mark 10:12 that if a woman divorces her husband - but in that culture, it was not possible. Jesus' followers would have laughed at such an idea.
If I were following the cultural norms of Scripture, I should be my husband's property - staying at home, unable to do anything without permission.

Becauae she wants to serve.

There are many - and much easier - ways of serving God than offering for ordination.
Apart from the selection, the assessments and all the study, there's having to defend yourself and your call, from opposition and sometimes, accusations of disobedience, being self-serving or wanting equality with men.
I doubt any woman would put themselves through that when there were other choices available.

 

[RamiC]

People have a tendency to ignore Scripture or try and make Scripture fit their own beliefs rather than make their beliefs fit the Scripture.

Yes they do, but when Christians do not agree about Scripture, what do you then rely on in order to establish who is doing that? Can I just say that everyone who disagrees with me is making Scripture fit their own beliefs, whereas I am going on what it says?

Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” John 20-15-18 ESV​

You see in my system of hermenuetics, because this part is Jesus Himself, and because it is the first thing that is happening after the resurrection, and it involves a woman being trusted by Him to provide men (and those we know He was closest too as well) with the world changing, revolutionary news of His resurrection, then this:

"12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim - 12-14​

must mean something like this - 3. Paul’s restriction was given in the context of a personal letter to Timothy giving advice about a specific issue in the church at Ephesus. It is relevant to me that the former thing is Jesus newly back from the dead, and the latter is Paul saying "I do not...." in a personal letter, to a specific local church. Which one is God?

 

[rjs330]

Romans 16:1
(1) I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant [διάκονος masculine=deacon] of the church which is at Cenchrea:

A deacon is not rhe same 5hing as a pastor. I have no issues with women being deacons. In fact when deacons qualifications are listed in Timothy, women are specifically mentioned along with men.

 

[rjs330]

Yes they do, but when Christians do not agree about Scripture, what do you then rely on in order to establish who is doing that? Can I just say that everyone who disagrees with me is making Scripture fit their own beliefs, whereas I am going on what it says?

Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” John 20-15-18 ESV​

You see in my system of hermenuetics, because this part is Jesus Himself, and because it is the first thing that is happening after the resurrection, and it involves a woman being trusted by Him to provide men (and those we know He was closest too as well) with the world changing, revolutionary news of His resurrection, then this:

"12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim - 12-14​

must mean something like this - 3. Paul’s restriction was given in the context of a personal letter to Timothy giving advice about a specific issue in the church at Ephesus. It is relevant to me that the former thing is Jesus newly back from the dead, and the latter is Paul saying "I do not...." in a personal letter, to a specific local church. Which one is God?

Letters of Paul and the apostles were written certainly to various churches. However they were also circulated among the churches because what rhe apostle said to one church was accepted as authority to all believers. The believers didn't say, "well that's just Ephesus and so it doesnt apply to us in Corinth." No, everything written is accepted as apostolic authority. Inspired scripture. Otherwise we have no doctrinal or scriptural basis at all for instruction for us today. Of course what was written is for all believers and not just those of the time or the church.

We today when teaching scripture do not say that the scripturea.were only for the specific church and have no application for us today do we?

Now Paul is giving instruction to Timothy how churches should opperate. Yes, he says "I". But he is speaking with apostolic authority as one who met Christ and was instructed by him and he carries the weight of inspiration. We should listen to what he is telling us.

For example, Paul says pastors should have one wife. Does that then mean that it only applies to Ephesus and not Corinth? The Pastors at Corinth can have more than one wife because Paul didn't specifically mention Corinth or talk to Corinth in his letters about it?

When Paul speaks to the Philippians and says,

If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind; doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself; not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.
Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2:1, Philippians 2:2, Philippians 2:3, Philippians 2:4 - American Standard Version

Does that only apply to the Philippians or all of us? I think you know the answer to that. So let us not ignore scritpural teaching for our own ends. We should conform our beliefs to what scripture says rather than what we think is right.

Far too often we disagree on what scripture says because one of us doesn't like it or disagrees with it.

Now there are times when scripture can be confusing. Thats true. But this certainly isn't one of those times.

 

[RamiC]

Far too often we disagree on what scripture says because one of us doesn't like it or disagrees with it.

This was my point in the first place as it goes hence - "when Christians do not agree about Scripture, what do you then rely on in order to establish who is doing that? Can I just say that everyone who disagrees with me is making Scripture fit their own beliefs, whereas I am going on what it says?"

We end up with two different opinions on what it says, how do we know who is diagreeing with the Bible? To say "read it", does not help, we already both did that.

 

[jas3]

A deacon is not rhe same 5hing as a pastor. I have no issues with women being deacons. In fact when deacons qualifications are listed in Timothy, women are specifically mentioned along with men.

Where? Certainly not in chapter 3, unless you mean the deacon's wife.

 

[rjs330]

This was my point in the first place as it goes hence - "when Christians do not agree about Scripture, what do you then rely on in order to establish who is doing that? Can I just say that everyone who disagrees with me is making Scripture fit their own beliefs, whereas I am going on what it says?"

We end up with two different opinions on what it says, how do we know who is diagreeing with the Bible? To say "read it", does not help, we already both did that.

I dont think its that hard really. We are all human and want to see things our way. I've talked to a lot of people about various scriptures what I find is most of them who disagree with me end up saying, well I just don't believe that or I don't agree with the scripture. That tells me that it's about them and their personal belief system and not the scripture itself.

A really good example of this is when Jesus proclaims he is the only way to salvation, I know Christians who flat out don't agree with that. Why? Because they don't believe God is so restrictive. Why? Because it's their personal belief system.

And at some point you just have to shrug your shoulders and move on. But truth is truth. And the scripture IS truth regardless of what we believe personally.

Yea there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand. Even Peter said that.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 3:15, 2 Peter 3:16 - American Standard Version

And that's okay. Sometimes it takes time and it takes a willingness to accept exactly what is said and set aside our desire to believe something else.

 

[rjs330]

Where? Certainly not in chapter 3, unless you mean the deacon's wife.

I Timothy 3:11 mentions women. So Paul says how the men should be and says how the women should be as deacons. Remember deacons had a specific office with certain duties of service. Thats why Phebe's service was mentioned. Because service to the Church is what a deacon does.

This is one of those verses which is not super clear which as I said can happen. When it's NOT as clear I'm okay with differing thoughts. Especially when one uses scripture to interpret scripture. Phebe was listed as a deacon. Therfore it is entirely appropriate to see women here as a category of deacon. Because the word can refer to wife or woman. And with Phebe being a deacon and Paul commending her it lends strength to the idea that women can be deacons.

 

[jas3]

I Timothy 3:11 mentions women.

"Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things."

Yes, the wives of the deacons.

Remember deacons had a specific office with certain duties of service. Thats why Phebe's service was mentioned. Because service to the Church is what a deacon does.

The Greek διάκονος can refer to the specific office or to the function of a servant in general, just like the English "server" can refer to a specific position (e.g. "altar server") or to a person who serves in general. Women historically fulfilled certain duties like assisting in the baptism of women to preserve their modesty (baptisms were performed naked at the time) but were never ordained as deacons. Phoebe would have been a deaconess in the general sense, not in the sense of ordained ministry.

 

[rjs330]

"Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things."

Yes, the wives of the deacons.
The Greek διάκονος can refer to the specific office or to the function of a servant in general, just like the English "server" can refer to a specific position (e.g. "altar server") or to a person who serves in general. Women historically fulfilled certain duties like assisting in the baptism of women to preserve their modesty (baptisms were performed naked at the time) but were never ordained as deacons. Phoebe would have been a deaconess in the general sense, not in the sense of ordained ministry.

I edited my post so you can see rhe reasoning. Basically the word there can mean woman and not just wife and when looking at Phebe who was commended by Paul I don't really have an issue with women being deacons. Letting scripture interpret scripture.

 

[jas3]

Basically the word there can mean woman and not just wife

I'm aware of that, but if you take that interpretation, you have to interpret the phrase in the next verse, "husband of one wife," in the dubious sense of "either a man or a woman married only once," in which case the same phrase when applied to bishops in verse 2 would leave open the possibility of women being bishops. But we know with even more certainty than with deacons, due to the much greater prominence of bishops, that there were never any women consecrated as bishops within Christianity. Also, every example of a bishop we see in the Bible is a man: the Twelve Apostles, Matthias, Paul, Timothy, Linus, Clement, and Titus.

If the phrase "husband of one wife" is taken in the natural sense, excluding women from the episcopate and diaconate, then this problem goes away.

 

[rjs330]

If the phrase "husband of one wife" is taken in the natural sense, excluding women from the episcopate and diaconate, then this problem goes away.

Yes it certainly does. Bishops I wholeheartedly support being men only. For all the reasons you mention.

However we have a sticky wicket regarding women deacons based on the reasons I mentioned. So its not a hill I am going to die on because of the points I mentioned. As I stated earlier scripture can be very clear in it's meanings and scripture will often interpret itself.

But I am not so naive to say there is NEVER any lack of clarity. I think this is one of these moments. We have a Phebe problem. And thanks to her, it muddies the water enough that I'm not going to sit on this. After all the Apostles disagreed on some things. And when it's not rock solid clear, I'm okay with some wiggle room.

With Bishops women are not mentioned at all. In the deacons section they are. And since the word could mean either one and combined with Phebe it is certainly possible that there can be female deacons and if it's possible then I'm not going to be a stickler.

 

[ralliann]

Yes it certainly does. Bishops I wholeheartedly support being men only. For all the reasons you mention.

However we have a sticky wicket regarding women deacons based on the reasons I mentioned. So its not a hill I am going to die on because of the points I mentioned. As I stated earlier scripture can be very clear in it's meanings and scripture will often interpret itself.

But I am not so naive to say there is NEVER any lack of clarity. I think this is one of these moments. We have a Phebe problem. And thanks to her, it muddies the water enough that I'm not going to sit on this. After all the Apostles disagreed on some things. And when it's not rock solid clear, I'm okay with some wiggle room.

With Bishops women are not mentioned at all. In the deacons section they are. And since the word could mean either one and combined with Phebe it is certainly possible that there can be female deacons and if it's possible then I'm not going to be a stickler.

Women teach women....
Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; {holiness: or, holy women } {false … : or, one who foments strife }
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, {sober: or, wise }
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.