An email question about why our church has women deacons was the start of this post. . . . BUT it’s also about how to approach/interpret scripture and so much more. Here is a sampling:

I guess I need to start with some of my fundamental assumptions (everyone has them, so we might as well be honest about it).

1) I assume that scripture cannot be taken pure, that is, without interpretation. Everybody brings something to the scriptures, some preconceived notions.

2. I assume in order to get the meaning of scripture we have to do the hard work of excavating that cultural context, then interpreting scripture in light of the intent.

3. I assume every interpretation requires taking the whole counsel of God into account (both the OT and the NT). And that means weighing the scriptures.

4. Hold on to your seat . . . I do not use the word “infallible” in referring to scripture. I know in some circles this makes me a flaming liberal, but please hear me out before you blow a gasket, delete this email, and burn your computer (just in case it might be catching). . . . The Bible does not make this claim for itself! Go ahead, look for yourself. It’s not there. . . . Jesus didn’t treat the scriptures as if they were infallible. . . . So we end up with a proposition about the Bible (that the Bible doesn’t claim) and actually take the Bible less seriously, because we don’t put the effort into understanding the intent of God.

5. Finally, I assume Bible interpretation requires rigorous thinking, what I’ve been calling “wrestling.” This is really significant for me. And I don’t think that only seminary-trained individuals can do it. . . . “Wrestling” is an honored stance toward God in the scriptures. It’s what Jacob does in Genesis 32. It’s what earned him the new name of Israel (not coincidentally, it’s also God’s name for his people). “Wrestling” implies taking God seriously, if not quite having a handle on him. Why would God’s word be any different in that regard? Why shouldn’t we have to wrestle with his word, just like we wrestle with God, himself? . . . . I believe God is more concerned with our taking him and his word seriously, than whether or not we can claim to have a “handle” on him and his word.

If you really want to read on about women deacons and the whole conversation . . . here is the email I received . . . my full response follows . . . (very long)

Ok, …here goes.

I Timothy 2:11-15 - Paul is very specific about a woman’s stand re: authority over man. (I have always believed because of Eve’s sin and because of the image of men/women—as relates to marriage—Christ being the head with man under Him and woman, yes, as a help-meet, but as subject to her husband. I know this is a delicate balance. God’s word is specific as to husbands’ responsibilities to love their wives as Christ loves the church as well as women’s subjection to their husbands.) But this passage is concerning instructions on worship.

Then it goes onto Chapter 3 speaking to them as “overseers” referring specifically to men. Vs. 8 says, “Deacons, likewise, are to be MEN worthy… and in vs. 11 speaking to the WOMEN to be worthy… > Vs. 12 again saying “a deacon must be the HUSBAND (MAN).

I realize this is Paul speaking and not God. I also realize there are situations which are specific to biblical times and are not pertinent to today. But what about this? Would this be one of the areas of flexibility we have in our beliefs? It would seem that if we are to follow God’s word, and it is specific, that we can’t change it to suit our lives. Otherwise, how could we say the Bible is God’s INFALLIBLE word?

I really do need your input scripturally as well as perhaps a background which has led Seven Hills to accept women in leadership over men. I’m not saying you are wrong—But this is one of those areas which has really bothered me. Please understand I am no judge as to what You believe God is leading you—it’s simply foreign to the way I have been taught. And when I read this in black and white, I have to question. I’m praying about this and that you can help me to further understand.

I am excited to see where it will lead. It should be interesting. Looking forward to your answer. Thanks.

MY ANSWER - part one

This may be hard to put into an email message, with all the nuances of meaning in scripture, but I will try. I guess I need to start with some of my fundamental assumptions (everyone has them, so we might as well be honest about it).

1. I do not assume that scripture can be taken pure, that is without interpretation. Everybody brings something to the scriptures, some preconceived notions. Even those people who say they take every word literally, do not. For instance, some of the same people who say 1 Tim. 2:12 literally means for women not to speak in church, do not think v. 9 means women should not wear jewelry, have braided hair, or wear fancy clothes. In verse 9 they say that in that culture, jewelry, braided hair, and fancy clothing were related to prostitution, so verse 9 is culturally conditioned. I say ALL of the Bible is culturally conditioned. So we have to interpret its meaning.

2. I assume in order to get the meaning of scripture we have to do the hard work of excavating that cultural context, then interpreting scripture in light of the intent. That’s exactly what Jesus was doing in the Sermon on the Mount, and what he was giving us, his disciples, permission to do. This involves thinking deeply about scripture . . . wrestling with it . . . taking it seriously, even if that means not taking it literally. I know lots of people who take the scripture literally (at least in their mind - remember what I said about nobody takes it pure - it’s simply not possible), but some of them do not take the scriptures very seriously. There is a difference. Jesus was always more interested in the intent of scripture, than the letter of the law. That’s why he was always breaking the laws. It’s why he said things like, “You have heard it said (where had they heard it? in the OT) . . . , but I say unto you . . .” He “fulfilled” the scripture by seeing through the veil of the literal words to draw out the intent.

[This does not mean we have free license to just do whatever we want with the scriptures. Remember, I said "taking them seriously." It's also why this "taking them seriously" needs to be done in community. Jesus gave us permission to grapple with scripture when he said, "whatever you (plural) loose/bind . . . will be loosed/bound in heaven." So it is to be done in community, not in private, and not just by the preacher. We knew the decision about deacons was one of those loosing/binding decisions, so it was a community process of wrestling with what the scriptures said . . . and more importantly, what they mean for us.]

The early church clearly understood that they had this kind of freedom to interpret scripture. This is evidenced by the relaxing of dietary laws, especially for Gentiles . . . the substitution of the first day of the week for worship, rather than Sabbath (the seventh day), and many others. Those two, in and of themselves, are HUGE. It’s easy to see that the early church were not literalists. They contextualized scripture in light of its intent. For example, was the intent of the Sabbath law (one of the ten commandments - so if you’re going to mess with the law, why not start somewhere else?) to set aside a particular day, OR to set aside time for God? By the way, Jesus seemed to have the most difficulty with the literalists of his day, the Pharisees. Where are the literalists, today, who think we ought to go back to Sabbath worship? Jesus said, “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (That leads to my next point about weighing scripture.)

3. I assume every interpretation requires taking the whole counsel of God into account (both the OT and the NT). And that means weighing the scriptures. That doesn’t necessarily mean counting the number of opposing thoughts and choosing the one with the greatest number, but it does mean comparing them. This is especially true when comparing the words of Jesus with the words of the OT. Jesus’ words (and deeds) have greater weight than the words of the OT. Some people don’t like to say it that way (as bluntly as I have), but that’s exactly what we do . . . and what we should do as Christians. Otherwise, the dietary laws of the OT would still be binding on us. That’s what Jesus was doing when he gave greater weight to the great commandment (Deut. 6:5) and the second great commandment (Lev. 19:18), than the whole rest of the OT. It’s also what he was doing, and especially what the early church did, in regard to Sabbath laws. Remember, for Jesus, the point was God’s intent, not legalistic adherence to the letter of the law. We can often see intent best by viewing scripture through the lens of Jesus.

4. Hold on to your seat . . . I do not use the word “infallible” in referring to scripture. I know in some circles this makes me a flaming liberal, but please hear me out before you blow a gasket, delete this email, and burn your computer (just in case it might be catching). First of all, the Bible does not make this claim for itself! Go ahead, look for yourself. It’s not there. That is something people have brought to the Bible (historically, to counter the claims of the Roman Catholic pope to be infallible, but that’s another discussion). So that we end up believing a proposition about the Bible (that the Bible doesn’t claim) and actually take the Bible less seriously, because we don’t put the effort into understanding the intent of God.

Jesus certainly didn’t treat the scriptures as if they were infallible, not to be questioned. He sought to “fulfill” it, draw out God’s intent. He invited us to wrestle with it, not just shut the door by saying it’s infallible. When we wrestle with it, we are taking it very seriously! (By the way, I love it that you take it so seriously that you are willing to wrestle, as evidenced by your asking me these questions. It’s also why I’m willing to take your questions seriously and devote so much time to write a lengthy answer.) Anther thing about infallibility is that during my lifetime (and especially in my Southern Baptist Convention - SBC - context), it has not been so much a serious theological proposition, as a battering ram. It has been used as a power ploy to get certain people elected to certain positions. I’m not saying that they didn’t believe what they were saying (although I have questions about that in some situations). I’m just saying that’s the way it was used. For instance, “Elect so and so, because he believes the Bible is infallible.” That red flag was waved successfully, and got people elected as president of the SBC.

[Now, I had friends on both sides of this issue. In private conversation, real conversation, there wasn't really ANY difference in how they handled scripture. They each took it seriously and often even interpreted it exactly the same way. The only difference was whether they used the word "infallible." I concluded it was really a semantic (words and how they are used) issue, not a substantive issue. I could go into this further - how the words were actually used in theological discussions - but I'll save that for another time if you'd like for me to go into it. Suffice it to say, I think they said pretty much the same things about scripture, and just said it differently. In public, however, it was used to gain power.]

5. Finally, I assume Bible interpretation requires rigorous thinking, what I’ve been calling “wrestling.” This is really significant for me. And I don’t think that only seminary-trained individuals can do it. In fact, I’m glad you don’t just take my word for things. This is exactly how we are supposed to do theology (thinking about God) and interpretation of scripture. “Wrestling” is an honored stance toward God in the scriptures. It’s what Jacob does in Genesis 32. It’s what earned him the new name of Israel (not coincidental that it’s also God’s name for his people). “Wrestling” implies taking God seriously, if not quite having a handle on him. Why would God’s word be any different in that regard? Why shouldn’t we have to wrestle with his word, just like we wrestle with God, himself? Didn’t Jesus have the most trouble with those who thought they had a handle on God and what God meant in his word, rather than those who wrestled with God and wrestled with his word and wrestled with never quite getting a handle on God? And do we really want a God who is so easily “handled,” or a God that leaves us with a “limp” when we’ve finished wrestling? After all, isn’t God bigger than our finite minds can “handle?” I believe God is more concerned with our taking him and his word seriously, than whether or not we can claim to have a “handle” on him and his word.

[Just a word---actually, its a lot of words---about words (our words about God and God's word) before I close this voluminous edition: ALL our words are human inventions. That may seem obvious, but it's not really that obvious to a lot of people. Somehow, people tend to forget that when it comes to the Bible. Of course, words are all we have, but they are human inventions. Translations, for instance, are just words (English words for us), trying to make sense of other words (Hebrew words in the OT; Greek words in the NT. We need them all to get at the sense or intent of the scriptures. That's why I do not just use one translation in our worship. The scriptures are deep with meaning and nuance and some translations capture part of it in one way and others capture another part in another way. I think Jesus' words are particularly relevant here, "to whom much is given much will be required." We are greatly blessed to have many translations and Bible helps and we ought to use what we have to unearth the intent of God's word. Theology, also, is just words, describing what we understand about God. Can you really imagine our words ever capturing the essence of God? This, I think, is the biggest problem with theology. In seminary we study "systematic theology." All the great theologians and their "systems" are covered, as well as some emerging theologies. These are not bad things to study---they makes you think, and push you to wrestle with God stuff. But when I look at scripture, there is nothing systematic about it. Why is that? Why didn't God just give it to us in a nice neat package? Could it be that God is just too BIG for our words? That he's beyond our comprehension? That in dealing with God we are most often left with a sense of mystery? And that's where faith comes in---just as it should be? Too often our words (our theology---That is, thinking we have it nailed) become just another substitute for God himself. Last, the word "infallible" is just a word used to describe the reality of the Bible. I think 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is really a sufficient description of that reality, without bringing in the word "infallible." Every theologian I know of who uses that word also defines what they mean by it (more words). Their definition is that the "original autograph" is that is infallible. The only problem I have with their definition is that the original autographs do not exist, so what is that saying about the Bible we have? It's just more words . . . and they don't even mean anything because they don't refer to the reality of the Bible we have. Besides, if we must use the word, wouldn't it be better to use it in reference to God himself? Otherwise, it again becomes a substitute (an idol) for God.]

Wow, this has gotten long. I’m sorry for that.

Got your prayer request email after I started this. Know that you are all in my prayers! May God bring healing and restoration in the midst of your struggle. May his presence be near. May his overwhelming mystery bring awe to your mind.

Wrestle on!

Bob

MY ANSWER - part two

Interpreting Paul is challenging, mostly because he is writing to different churches in different parts of the world in very different cultural contexts. So what he writes in one context was not even intended to be the final word for all time in all situations, but the right word for THAT church at THAT time. It is obvious, even from Paul himself, that he doesn’t consider everything he says to be “from the Lord.” And he is pretty good about saying so when that’s what he means. What is very clear in the NT is that there was a great variety expressions of church. Some had women in prominent roles, while others did not. So, whichever side the present-day church chooses to loose/bind leaves some “wrestling” with the scriptures.

First, let me give you the “wrestling” issues for the “no women deacons” side, then for the side we have loosed/bound, and then tell you how we got there from our interpretation / application of scripture.

NO WOMEN DEACONS - Here are the scriptures to “wrestle” with:

Rom. 16:1 - Phoebe is addressed as a deacon (Gk., “diaconos”) and you can’t just follow the translators who prefer to call her a servant, which is what the word means, but it is used as a title here in the same way as elsewhere for men. Translators can be very biased, although some of the newer translations get this one pretty well (TNIV, NLT) and others avoid it by using less controversial words (“leader”-CEV, “key representative”-The Message).

Rom. 16:7 - Junia is addressed as an apostle. Again translators struggle with this one because of bias, but the earliest manuscripts have Junia or Julia (a feminine name). Some translators follow that tradition of a female name, while some use a male version, Junias. Some translate “apostolos” as apostle, some missionary. Either way, apostle or missionary, it is rather highly significant that there’s even a hint that a women held this position in the early church.

Acts 16 - Lydia is in the role of church planter along with Paul.

Acts 21 - Philip’s daughters are named as prophets

Gal. 2:28 - “there is neither . . . male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

How do you explain the presence of this broad range of roles in the NT? Where is the word from Jesus that excludes women? (The only passages which make this suggestion are all from Paul.) Taking the ministry and message of Jesus seriously, which was consistently inclusive, does it even make sense that Jesus would ever exclude women on the basis of gender? Jesus always included women, even within his inner circle. Was that because he saw them as disciples being trained, as were the men, for a future significant role in the Jesus movement? Is this exclusion of women consistent with what we have experienced of God’s grace? Didn’t Adam sin, too? Why wasn’t he equally punished for his sin by excluding him from leadership roles? Does it seem fair that only one of the sinning parties should be singled out for special “ungrace”? For that matter, does it seem fair that every woman for the rest of the history of the world should be punished for Eve’s sin? Isn’t grace the primary characteristic of God as revealed in Jesus? And what about the one situation where “Jewish (OT) law” required ungrace/punishment to be doled out inconsistently on the woman, but not the man - the adulterous woman in John 8? Jesus refuses to follow the “law” and offers grace to the woman, while at the same time calling attention to the sin of the others. Doesn’t Jesus’ whole attitude of grace lead toward equality of leaders, not inequality? And isn’t that reflected in the NT church’s emphasis on unity—and it is the very essence of Christianity (that we may all be “one in Christ Jesus”)?

WOMEN DEACONS - Here are the scriptures to “wrestle” with:

The Timothy passage you mentioned.

The Corinthian passage about women keeping silent.

The Ephesian and Colossian passages on submission.

All of Paul’s “instruction” passages.

I will try to address these more adequately in my next message, along with an explanation of how we came to our decision.

MY ANSWER - part three

Sorry this is taking me so long. I sure hope you have a lot of patience!
But perhaps, now, I can get around to your original questions. Please try to keep in mind what I have written you about what all is involved with interpretation. It is hard and serious work. I understand that my/our interpretation is not what you have been exposed to in the past. Just know that I/we take the scriptures very seriously, even if we come out in different places. Ultimately, I hope that our discussion proves helpful to you in your faith journey, regardless of whether you are convinced by anything I say. In fact, it is not even my goal to convince you. Rather, simply to help you to take the scripture seriously as you wrestle with this issue (and perhaps explain how different people could reach different conclusions).

You are actually raising several interrelated issues with the questions you’re asking. Therefore, it seems best for me to separate my answers so as to address each one in order:

“Submission”

The word that Paul uses that is sometimes (not always) translated “subject” is probably better translated “submit.” The reason is that “subject” implies “authority” or “lordship,” as in “power over another.” That does not seem to be the nuance of meaning that Paul is trying to convey. On the other hand, “submit” implies a voluntary deference to another. When you look at Paul’s primary discussion of submission in Ephesians 5-6, this appears to behis intent. In fact, the whole discussion begins in 5:21 “submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ.” So the context of the whole thing is “mutual” (and voluntary) submission. [It is surprising how many interpretations I've heard that begin at verse 22, and miss the whole context of mutual submission. It is also surprising how many men have used Ephesians 5:22 to justify abusive (even violent) relationships with their wives. That is clearly not the intent of Paul, nor any other scripture, for that matter.]

Paul’s beginning point of mutual submission is really pretty radical for the first century. But it’s difficult to see that sometimes from the twenty-first century. Consider that in the first century women had no rights, legal standing, or “status” at all and it changes everything. In this new Christian community, women now have a status they never had before. They are now equals with every other member of the body of Christ, “for there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave.” I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for the early church to navigate this whole new social order within their community. No wonder the church was asking Paul for advice in these matters. And here’s where it get interesting and shows how radical Paul really was. He says for the women to submit, not because they should or must (because their new status in the Christian community precludes that reason); rather out of “reverence for Christ.” As you said, it is certainly a “delicate balance” to dance between voluntary submissiveness out of reverence for Christ and a subservient “lording over” relationship between husband and wife. Paul’s real concern, then, is for the harmony of the church, not getting women to be obedient (compliant) to their husbands.

That this is Paul’s primary intent becomes more clear as you read further in Ephesians, where he says basically the same thing to children and slaves and their masters. I know of no one today who thinks Paul is really endorsing the cultural custom of slavery when he tells them to submit. (Believe it or not, when I first started to pastor 30 years ago, there were people in the congregation who believed in slavery and used the Bible to prove their point, but I don’t hear that espoused much anymore.) Paul is walking a very thin line between observing the cultural norms (at least to some degree- even though he reframes the reasons) and practicing egalitarian Christian community. It’s similar to Paul’s grappling in Romans with what is “legal” or “lawful” and the dilemma he poses in 1 Corinthians 6, between “all things are lawful,” and “not everything is helpful.” So that while it may be lawful (in Christ) for slaves to be free from subservience, it may not be particularly helpful to keeping order and harmony in this topsy turvy Christian community. So he tells the slaves to submit “voluntarily” to their masters. That is far from endorsing slavery, however. (The same could be said of Paul’s not endorsing male dominance over women.) [For more on Paul’s wrestling with the slavery issue, see Philemon where Paul is sending the slave, Onesimus, back to his owner/master with the instruction that he be received as a “brother,” rather than a slave.

Now, consider the teachings and example of Jesus. Clearly, he taught that there is to be a new social order among his followers. He constantly violated the cultural norms of his day. He broke the “clean/unclean” laws and included those who were being marginalized by society or religion, including women. He taught his followers to “love one another” and to not reflect the same prejudices found in the world around them. Jesus taught us not to even seek positions of favor (whether at the table or otherwise); rather to be a servant to all. Positions of power and authority are undermined throughout his ministry. Although the Gentiles (and the Jews) “lord it over” each other, Jesus said, “it must not be so among you!” In the Christian community there is to be a new order of mutual respect and voluntary servanthood.

“The sin of Eve”

In 1 Timothy 2:12-14, Paul is doing what Jesus gave us permission to do, interpreting and applying, “binding and loosing.” Jesus does not tell his disciples (nor us) that we will be infallible when we do this, just that we have permission to wrestle with (take seriously) the scriptures in this way. I know I miss it lots of times. That’s because, as hard as I might try, I still bring my baggage to the scriptures and I see things through my personally/experientially/culturally colored lenses. I simply think that’s what Paul is doing here-he is seeing through his cultural lens, which leads to poor interpretation. (Or maybe, my interpretation is poor-I’m not positive I’m right.) The point is, we all make mistakes. I do, you do, even Paul does (yes, he was human, too). Just look at how egotistical he sometimes was, like the way he treated John Mark and Barnabas-later he even kinda apologizes for this. Clearly, he was capable of making mistakes. If he is not infallible in living life, why is it that we want to make him infallible in everything he writes? And Paul does not think he is writing scripture. He is simply writing letters-advice to a young pastor, encouragements to churches, personal appeals to fellow Christians. Couldn’t he just have made a mistake here . . . like we all do?

Should we give Paul’s words here equal weight with Jesus’ words and action? Is there any indication that Jesus would have held Eve responsible for all the sins of the world? Or that he would exact more judgment on the female gender because of her sin? No! In fact, quite the opposite. In Luke 14 and again in John 9, Jesus rejects the whole commonly-held notion that sin is directly linked to punishment. This belief was so common that the disciples assumed Jesus believed the same way. Notice, they do not ask if someone sinned; they ask who sinned-the man or his parents (John 9:2). In both passages, Jesus corrects their misinterpretations and misunderstandings about God and punishment. And in John 9, Jesus refuses to punish the woman caught in adultery, even though it is the law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). He not only refuses to uphold the law (by stoning her to death), but he does not insist on following the letter of the law either (by asking for the man
to be stoned with her). Instead, he pronounces her forgiveness, at the same time that he points out the sinfulness of the others. Jesus is not the least interested in maintaining or endorsing the mistaken cultural practices, even when they are embedded in scripture. He practices “loosing and binding” to a degree that went far beyond the other Rabbis, to include actually releasing people from bondage to the scriptures themselves.

“Man,” “woman,” “husband,” and “wife” in 1 Timothy

First of all, the words “husband” and “wife” are nowhere to be found in this passage, neither in v. 2, nor in v. 12. They are introduced by translators who assume that is what Paul meant. In the Greek, the phrase is literallytranslated with these three English words: “one man woman.” Unfortunately, the Greek structure of the phrase is a bit awkward and the exact meaning is somewhat ambiguous. The best hint as to Paul’s meaning is in how he emphasizes the words. He places the emphasis upon the first of the three words- “one.” This has led many to conclude that Paul’s primary concern here is not whether the deacon is a man or a woman, but whether that person is monogamous (remember that polygamy was still being practiced in many places). So the phrase could (and sometimes is) translated, “a deacon should have only one spouse.” Even the translations that still use the traditional language of husband and wife reflect Paul’s emphasis on the word “one” and sometimes even add a comment or phrase about “faithfulness” in an attempt to get at the meaning.

Verse 11 is perhaps the key verse to Paul’s intent. It has been traditionally taught that Paul is talking about the wives of deacons, here. But that seems a stretch, especially since the word “wives” is not used. (He could have used “wives,” but chose the more generic term, “women” instead.) Why is that? Also the context suggests something more. In the middle of this discussion about the qualifications for deacon, Paul says, “likewise, the women . . .” His use of “likewise” is the big question. In verse 8 it is used to refer back to the discussion about bishops, meaning they are in the same category. Could it be that this is what Paul is meaning? Some translators note that this may very well be a reference to women deacons, rather than deacon’s wives (or some even think a whole new category of “deaconess”). Isn’t it interesting that the very same passage that has been used in the past to deny women places of leadership, may hold the key to allowing it?

“Women deacons” and how we got there.

Finally . . . As you can imagine, this was not an easy decision for us. It involved more than a year of study, discussion, and prayer. Interestingly, it was the deacons, themselves who first suggested that we look into it. It was not something that I brought to the church. Although several years ago (and after much wrestling of my own) I had come to the conclusion that the Bible does not prohibit women from leadership roles in church, I had never made it an issue. For me, the “loosing and binding” of such things must be a church decision. And it certainly was for Seven Hills. For many of the people in this congregation, it just did not seem consistent with the teachings of Jesus that women should be excluded from leadership on the basis of gender.

What did seem clear from the scriptures, was there was no one single norm in regard to church leadership. Different churches in different places did different things. This is to be expected as the early church practiced “binding and loosing” as taught by Jesus. What is also clear is that while there was no uniform practice, women seemed to hold a wide variety of roles within the early church, to include deacons (Phoebe), apostles (Junia), and prophets (daughters of Philip). The very presence of such variety suggests that gifting and calling were more important than gender in assigning roles.

Notice I use the word roles, not offices. In the early church, roles were developed as they were needed and were about function, not prestige or position. Remember the teachings of Jesus about vying for position, saying, “it shall not be so among you.” Servanthood, not position, was the guiding principle. We have turned it into something else (perhaps the very opposite of what Jesus intended) with our emphasis upon ordination—not a biblical word or notion, by the way. Nobody (that I know of) thinks women can’t serve (servant being the actual meaning of the word deacon). Women serve in a whole host of ways in every church I know of. It’s just that they can’t be ordained. Not only does this seem petty, but it goes against the very intent of Jesus. Surely, all of Jesus’ teachings about his followers being servants was not intended only for men. Personally, I would prefer that we do away with ordination altogether and “lay hands” on everyone who serves. But that’s me . . . and this church hasn’t “loosed” that practice, yet. But I do think we’ve been making way too big of a deal about way too little of an issue. If Jesus said we should ALL be servants, what’s the problem . . . unless it’s really about position?

I hope all of this has been helpful. Godspeed in your struggle to take seriously the scriptures. Know that you are in my prayers. And also know that I will gladly discuss any of this further with you, as you feel necessary.

Blessings,

Bob