The ways women serve in Scripture are extraordinary, but this does not even quality as circumstantial evidence for female pastors or heads of households.
In 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Paul sets forth the qualifications for the office of deacon. Here, he mentions women among those who may be qualified. Hence, Phoebe may well have been a deaconess. However, the office of deacon was not the same as overseer/presbyter. Deacons were to minister to people’s physical needs, as we see in Acts 6:1-7. Overseers, or presbyters, were to minister to the spiritual needs of the congregation. They were the pastors and teachers. Paul does not mention women when setting forth the qualifications for overseer:presbyter in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 or in Titus 1:5-9. There is evidence that women served as deacons during the first several centuries A.D. There is no corresponding evidence that women served as overseerss/presbyters during that time. Folks can make of that what they will.
Hey Will, appreciate the interaction! there is dispute about 1 Tim 3:8–13 about whether or not deaconesses are included. I don't dispute that they might be. But, I think the important thing is that the church officer "deacon" is not the same thing as presbyter as you point out. Regardless, from the context of Rom 16:1–2, I do not see Phoebe as being a deacon who is an officer of the church. It seems to be an honorific title.
Like the issues of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church polity, music that can be sung during worship, the speaking of tongues, etc. I don’t see this as one of salvation. It does have practical implications, so we each need to do our best to figure out how we can best function as a body, but we also ought to allow one another much grace and a lot of latitude. For example, this was not an issue the early believers felt they needed to codify in the “Apostles Creed”. Personally, when looking for a congregation where I might serve, I am more inclined to look for evidence of the fruit of the Spirit than whether the congregation is on my side of the complimentarian/egalitarian issue.
Appreciate this. I would put the issue in a Tier 2 category rather than a Tier 1. I do think how we answer this question has implications for how we handle other really important issues, such as original sin. But I do not think it is a salvation issue.
I largely agree, and I suspect we agree on most matters, but I don’t see the connection between female deacons and original sin. I do see a connection between original sin and other issues.
Hey yeah, I think it all depends for me what we mean by Deacon. If it is in an elder-led baptistic setting where they largely are in a non-authoritative role, I don’t mind. If Deacons are essentially under-elders as Anglicans use them, I have more of an issue with it.
I don't know if this is accurately representing Sprinkle's argument.
He doesn't argue Deborah led men, therefore women can be pastors.
He doesn't argue Mary Magdalene announced there resurrection, therefore women can be pastors.
He doesn't argue that because Priscilla instructed Apollos so she's a pastor also.
He does acknowledge these examples don't settle the issue for him. But to me, what he seems to be doing, is asking what these texts establish about women's authority and roles in teaching, prophesying, and serving in various forms of ministry, before he uses them to tell them what they can't do.
Hey I appreciate the interaction. You are right that he does not treat any of this as conclusive. I think you are underselling the importance of all these points for his overall argument. He’s absolutely trying to use them as justifications for his interpretations of the Pauline texts. They are definitely subsidiary arguments to his main argument, which has a lot less force if you take all this away.
Thanks for responding and I think that's fair. You're right I did undersell a point. Those are a large part of Sprinkle's argument and it can't help but affect the way he interprets Paul. But I still don't see the issue with their interpretation, considering we often read complex texts within the larger framework of Scripture.
I agree with you that if take away Sprinkle's evidence concerning women, his reading of 1 Timothy 2 loses some support but the opposite is also true. If we take away the headship framework then the other reading loses support.
And I understand the difference between narrative and exposition but I'm making the point we don't just have one. We have both. And maybe that's not a bad thing. It's kept us discussing for millennia.
This is a good discussion, especially when it's in good faith, because I really believe the majority of us simply want to be faithful to Scripture while honoring our brothers and sisters who labor with us.
Hey I agree! I appreciate the good faith back and forth. My point in this particular post is not that the narrative and other information are insignificant, just that they don't even come close to asserting what Sprinkle asserts they assert.
But, my third post will deal in more detail with some of the problematic ways he interprets some of these passages about Paul. There really is too much that is bad in the book to go into detail about everything, so I have to be a bit choosy, but I'll try to get to some of the more significant problems in that part of the book.
That's a fair point. It's hard to argue against. I will point out that in places like Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, he does let Paul's text push back. And this may be threading a gnat, but I his conclusion, not as him using them as evidence of egalitarian view as much as evidence against the argument that God hasn't used women in such capacity before.
So would you preach Deborah: Women lead when men fail to lead?
I do think that is an implication of the text. I don’t know that that is everything in the story haha
In 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Paul sets forth the qualifications for the office of deacon. Here, he mentions women among those who may be qualified. Hence, Phoebe may well have been a deaconess. However, the office of deacon was not the same as overseer/presbyter. Deacons were to minister to people’s physical needs, as we see in Acts 6:1-7. Overseers, or presbyters, were to minister to the spiritual needs of the congregation. They were the pastors and teachers. Paul does not mention women when setting forth the qualifications for overseer:presbyter in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 or in Titus 1:5-9. There is evidence that women served as deacons during the first several centuries A.D. There is no corresponding evidence that women served as overseerss/presbyters during that time. Folks can make of that what they will.
Hey Will, appreciate the interaction! there is dispute about 1 Tim 3:8–13 about whether or not deaconesses are included. I don't dispute that they might be. But, I think the important thing is that the church officer "deacon" is not the same thing as presbyter as you point out. Regardless, from the context of Rom 16:1–2, I do not see Phoebe as being a deacon who is an officer of the church. It seems to be an honorific title.
Like the issues of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church polity, music that can be sung during worship, the speaking of tongues, etc. I don’t see this as one of salvation. It does have practical implications, so we each need to do our best to figure out how we can best function as a body, but we also ought to allow one another much grace and a lot of latitude. For example, this was not an issue the early believers felt they needed to codify in the “Apostles Creed”. Personally, when looking for a congregation where I might serve, I am more inclined to look for evidence of the fruit of the Spirit than whether the congregation is on my side of the complimentarian/egalitarian issue.
Appreciate this. I would put the issue in a Tier 2 category rather than a Tier 1. I do think how we answer this question has implications for how we handle other really important issues, such as original sin. But I do not think it is a salvation issue.
I largely agree, and I suspect we agree on most matters, but I don’t see the connection between female deacons and original sin. I do see a connection between original sin and other issues.
Hey yeah, I think it all depends for me what we mean by Deacon. If it is in an elder-led baptistic setting where they largely are in a non-authoritative role, I don’t mind. If Deacons are essentially under-elders as Anglicans use them, I have more of an issue with it.
I don't know if this is accurately representing Sprinkle's argument.
He doesn't argue Deborah led men, therefore women can be pastors.
He doesn't argue Mary Magdalene announced there resurrection, therefore women can be pastors.
He doesn't argue that because Priscilla instructed Apollos so she's a pastor also.
He does acknowledge these examples don't settle the issue for him. But to me, what he seems to be doing, is asking what these texts establish about women's authority and roles in teaching, prophesying, and serving in various forms of ministry, before he uses them to tell them what they can't do.
Hey I appreciate the interaction. You are right that he does not treat any of this as conclusive. I think you are underselling the importance of all these points for his overall argument. He’s absolutely trying to use them as justifications for his interpretations of the Pauline texts. They are definitely subsidiary arguments to his main argument, which has a lot less force if you take all this away.
Thanks for responding and I think that's fair. You're right I did undersell a point. Those are a large part of Sprinkle's argument and it can't help but affect the way he interprets Paul. But I still don't see the issue with their interpretation, considering we often read complex texts within the larger framework of Scripture.
I agree with you that if take away Sprinkle's evidence concerning women, his reading of 1 Timothy 2 loses some support but the opposite is also true. If we take away the headship framework then the other reading loses support.
And I understand the difference between narrative and exposition but I'm making the point we don't just have one. We have both. And maybe that's not a bad thing. It's kept us discussing for millennia.
This is a good discussion, especially when it's in good faith, because I really believe the majority of us simply want to be faithful to Scripture while honoring our brothers and sisters who labor with us.
Hey I agree! I appreciate the good faith back and forth. My point in this particular post is not that the narrative and other information are insignificant, just that they don't even come close to asserting what Sprinkle asserts they assert.
But, my third post will deal in more detail with some of the problematic ways he interprets some of these passages about Paul. There really is too much that is bad in the book to go into detail about everything, so I have to be a bit choosy, but I'll try to get to some of the more significant problems in that part of the book.
But, for the record, in his conclusion, he does use all these in his conclusion as evidence for the egalitarian view.
That's a fair point. It's hard to argue against. I will point out that in places like Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, he does let Paul's text push back. And this may be threading a gnat, but I his conclusion, not as him using them as evidence of egalitarian view as much as evidence against the argument that God hasn't used women in such capacity before.
True, but again, it is all part of his main argument. And, my point in this post, is that it is fallacious to use them as examples in that way.