I was reflecting this morning on the need for healthy, sound reasoning in the pulpit and the pew from something Paul told his protege Titus.
“The overseer (another word for an elder or pastor) must be above reproach as the steward of God, not self-willed, not angry, not a lover of wine, not pugnacious (one who loves a good fight), and not after anyone’s money.
“He should be given to hospitality, a lover of what is good, clear-headed, just, devout, and self-controlled….” (Titus 1:7-8)
The expression “common sense” isn’t found there, but it sure is implied, to my thinking.
A friend said, “Our church has women deacons. Do you have a problem with that?”
I said, “I just finished a deacon training thing for a church in South Carolina with women deacons. I’ve never pastored a church that had them, but I served a couple that could have benefited from some strong, godly women in those meetings!”
I told him, “To me, it’s a decision the congregation makes. In the same way the church chooses what role it wants its deacons to fulfill, whether to minister, take a more administrative function, or be the outright leaders.”
Common sense. What do we need our deacons to do? The line from Acts 6 says, “Choose seven from among you whom we may put in charge of this need.”
What is your church’s need? That’s usually where you’ll want your deacons.
A friend reminded me today of the devastating power of a common sensical word well spoken.
Eunice was a member of the church I was pastoring. Her husband, Ira, was one of our deacons. They were mainstays of the congregation, humble, sweet, low on maintenance and high on productivity (every pastor’s dream). I served as their pastor for a full dozen years and received only love and support from them.
Our Minister of Education, Bill Hardy (he reads this and won’t mind my telling it; this was over 30 years ago), had enlisted a number of couples from the congregation for a projected 10 session workshop on “The Christian Home.”
In the first session, he was driving home the line from Ephesians 5 about wives submitting to the husbands.
Here’s how my friend remembers it.
Bill: “Wives must obey their husbands in all things.”
Someone: “That is, if he’s a Christian?”
Bill: “No. I mean always.”
Someone: “But what if the husband won’t let you go to church?”
Bill: “Then stay at home. Tell him sweetly you’d like to go to church, but because you are a Christian, you will obey him. Your sweet spirit will eventually win him over.”
Someone in the group: “But what if he won’t let you take your children to church?”
Bill: “The same. Stay at home and win him over by your sweet spirit.”
At this point, Eunice Fuqua spoke up. Now, she is a soft-spoken Southern matron with a deep Mississippi accent (okay, she has a drawl!).
Eunice: “Do you mean to tell me that if I have my little child by the hand on the way to church and Ira Fuqua tells me I can’t go, I have to say to my child (hers were all grown by this time; she’s simply making a point), ‘Darlin’, we can’t go to Sunday School today because Daddy doesn’t want us to’?”
Bill: “That’s exactly what I mean.”
Eunice: “Mista Hardy, thaat’s the biggest piece of poppycock I evah heard in mah life.”
The group erupted in laughter; it broke up the session. Every woman in the group agreed with her.
My friend says, “Thus ended in one night the scheduled 10 session workshop. This is probably my favorite story in the whole world.”
On that first Easter afternoon, when the Lord appeared in the midst of the disciples, they exploded with excitement. As Luke tells it (chapter 24, verse 41), the disciples were beside themselves with joy and amazement, when Jesus says, “Anyone got anything to eat?”
Ah. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the wonderful way you bring us back to earth and keep us grounded.
When the pastor studies in his office and hammers out the points for his Sunday sermon, please keep him grounded in reality.
When the professor stands before the class of future church and denominational leaders, keep them tethered by thy grace and sober thinking.
When the student preacher leaves the classroom to take his first pastorate and is beside himself with joy over the potential for changing the world from this base, bless him with a clear mind as well as a hot heart.
Give every pastor a liberal quota of Eunice Fuquas who recognize poppycock when they see it and don’t mind calling the minister’s attention to the portion he is in the process of ladling out.
In Jesus’ name, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.
Joe, my bible must read a little different than yours. Acts 6 verse 3 Wherefore, brethren,look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
I still read and believe the scriptures as written in the King James Version and I enjoy your writings, but I cannot accept women preachers or deacons, its just not scripture.
That’s the best story I’ve heard in a long time. We, as members, are not to follow every whim that is put out by the newest “research” in winning family to Christ. I took my son by the Hand (and may have to again) and we went to church. Art was welcome to be there with us, but he worked. About 15 years ago, son grown, his Dad started coming to Sunday morning services. About a month ago he started coming on Wednesday night. I tried to set an example, I didn’t nag. He will come around soon and be there Sunday nights. He has taken on duties in the church and is the first one to just in and help anyone in need – especially our ministers. If I’d stayed home – I sent no message to him.
And I don’t see women deacons and preachers in our SBC any too soon.
Love your writing , as always
Lara
I think women deacons and preachers is the “biggest piece of poppycock I evah heard in mah life.” I believe 1 Timothy 3 explains these qualifications pretty clear. Nothing wrong with a woman holding certain positions in the Church, but these positions are not one of them.
I enjoy reading your articles, but I would have to disagree (friendly) with this one.
I read the old fashion folks put down of women with interest. Bless their hearts. Please note that none of the scriptures placing limitations on the service of women are the words of Jesus. These were written by other men and it is quite questionable who did that. Any good bibical historian will tell you that early translations and copies of what was considered holy scripture was done by hand since there was no other way of making copies of any document. They will also tell you that is is quite clear that sometimes the copier would change things. Sometimes it was done with good intentions of making a sentence clearer or correcting an obvious spelling or grammar error. But sometimes it was due to their own interest, views, ideas, or for political purposes. The sentenses in Ephesians chapter 5 about women being submissive to their husbands was clearly added to the original text. There are many copies of that text that predate what we have now and those sentenses about women are not there. Therfore someone added it along the way. This is not just my words it is well documented. The same thing occured about the text saying women should keep quite in church and not be teachers or preachers. These guys were afraid of upsetting the status quo. They were afraid of strong women. At the time of these writings women were not quite as important as good breeding stock. And in some cases that was how they were considered. Breeding stock for men to have sons. Marriages were arranged by men for political purposes and for money and power. Love was not a factor. That still goes on today in many places in this world. Deciding what jobs or positions in this world can or cannot be held by women is disgusting. Show me a man that can say that God does not call women to his ministery as Preachers or Priest or Deacons and I will show you a fool. It should be noted that God called on a “meer” young girl to bear his only son the Saviour of this world. So get over it you old guys your time of being the only ones in charge is gone.
John, you obviously have read a little bit on the transmission of the early manuscripts of the Bible. It seems you have read some books or articles, but you have only scratched the surface. It’s aso clear that for you personal experience has a higher priority than Scripture. You do not place much confidence in the biblical text as we have it today. That’s all fine. However, you have made a statement relative to textual criticism without knowing the facts. You said, “The sentenses in Ephesians chapter 5 about women being submissive to their husbands was clearly added to the original text. There are many copies of that text that predate what we have now and those sentenses about women are not there. Therfore someone added it along the way. This is not just my words it is well documented.” Actually, sir, that is simply untrue. Those “sentences” are in the earliest manuscripts we have, specifically P46 which dates to around 200 AD. The text called Vaticanus, which dates from the 300’s also contains the accepted reading. Some manuscripts from the fifth and ninth centuries contain a slight variation (it’s true what you said about copyists at times changing things for clarity), but even those variations do not change the meaning of the text (they only clarify). I’m not sure where you got your “well documented” information, but whatever source you use is just plain wrong. I actually have the Greek New Testament along with the textual apparatus open before me, and this isn’t even a close or controversial call.
All that is to say that the issue of women deacons and preachers can be discussed civilly, and everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Moreover, the degree to which one holds the biblical text as a source of authority is a personal matter. However, we need to be careful when speaking authoritatively abbout matters in which we are not properly schooled.