women serving in the church in "deacon" teams?

[email]

Hello:

Can you help me with a question - our church is have discussion on how to serve the needs of the church - there are not enough men to serve as Deacons - our church believes men only should serve as deacons according to the Scriptures.

However,now there is discussion that the "needs" the deacons were meeting could be divided up into 5 "teams" and these "teams" could me made up of some women joining the men in serving.The teams would be: Visitation Team, Benevolence team, The Lord's supper team,Membership Team, and "Encouragement-keeping in touch" Team .

My question is how to explain and justify this "team" structure that includes women serving biblically. - if women can't be Deacons according to scripture, can they minister on these "teams" and get away with it biblically? And wuld we no longer have deacons? Our church only has 1 elder and that is the pastor. We would have "teams" and no deacons?

Thank you for your time.

[will]

1. Obviously, the church is not scripturally organized wi/ only one elder. They need to set this in order w/ scripturally sound preaching and obedience to it. If this is not done and the problem recognized/ dealt with then all other issues are moot!
2. The appt of 'teams' of any composition should be done by the elders(plural req here) w/ input from the congregation or by a men's business meeting. If the men of a business meeting are sufficiently able to do this, then why can't "all men's" teams be identified?
3. I believe the scriptural precedent that would apply to daily issues that are burdensome to the eldership, is addressed by Acts 6! These were all men - I find no women in this plan.
4. Practical matters of a mixed men's /women team are significant:
   • on a leadership basis( women leading men?),
   • husband vs wife and subjection of woman to husband and
   • subjection of a womman to another man not her husband,
   • abstaining from appearance of evil and avoiding temptations of men/ women associations in private settings.
   God knows best -
5. If the church is so limited to men qualified to serve as deacons(assuming for the moment availabilty of scripturally qualified plurality of elders), then they don't need "teams" at all but more , sound preaching and spiritural and numerical growth before trying to address other needs(w/out the God ordained means to deal w/ them).
6. What is the point of "mixed" teams , but to try to get around scripture and limits on women roles in church. Will these women lead team prayers, lead team business, speak out when they should be in subjection?
7. I believe the church of which this lady is a member needs to "return to the Old Path(s)" . Respect authority of scripture as to church organization and determine to abide by it.

[m273p15c]

I would have Scripturally based concerns for the arrangement you discussed, which would be as follows:

1. One Pastor - Even though you did not mention it, I understand the Bible to teach that a multitude of elders (synonymous with pastors, shepherds, bishops, overseers, and presbyters) must serve. A single elder, or pastor should never serve. The apostolic pattern is always for a plurality of elders:
   

   And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:21-23)

   Everywhere you find elders mentioned in the Scriptures, you will find them mentioned in the plurality - Phillipi (Philippians 1:1-2), Asia Minor (Acts 14:21-23), Ephesus (Acts 20:17, 28-29), Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-6), "elders in every city" (Titus 1:5), "elders who are among you" (I Peter 5:1-5), etc.. Not only does this accord with good sense (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 - strength in numbers, resistance to corruption, etc.), more importantly it is the New Testament pattern. This would be my primary concern above the other, because it suggests a deviation from the Bible pattern at the very heart of the leadership.
2. Authority of Office - Some authority and decision making power comes with the office of deacon. This is inherent in any office. If these teams are to be legitimate, they must not have any true decision making power; otherwise, they become a third office, which Jesus never appointed (Ephesians 4:10-11; I Timothy 3). This would be one point at which they would violate the organization of the church - creating a new office.
3. Reduction of responsibility - Should not every able-bodied, spiritually mature person be involved in visitation, benevolence, encouragement, and membership! These are not works I would expect deacons to oversee, because they are so central to the health of the church. I would expect the elders to oversee and be intimately involved in these works. Regardless, are these teams specializing the membership, relieving shared responsibilities from certain members? Are some members doing all the visiting, while no body else has to worry about it? Is each team specializing, such that other members are able to neglect their share in the other teams' works? This should be answered according to a practical reality, not an ideal situation that would likely not materialize. I can't say this is wrong, so much as it just seems unwise.
4. Women leading men - As you mentioned earlier, the Scriptures clearly teach against women serving as elders or deacons (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-11). They also teach against women asserting leadership over men. Would these teams involve women praying over men, teaching over men, instructing over men? Is this an attempt to make use of a loop-hole to put women in the effective place of deacons, serving where God did not intend (I Timothy 2:9-15; Titus 2:3-5; I Timothy 5:3-16)? Also, are these teams being appointed and directed outside the authority and guidance of the elders, or men of the church? If there are enough men to arrange a business meeting of men to discuss and direct these topics, then why can they not lead the works?
   
   There is nothing to say that women cannot serve, or minister in the work of encouragement, visitation, admonishment, Lord's Supper preparation, etc. The woman's place is not a place of public, authoritative leadership. However, a godly woman commands a tremendous influence, when she indirectly leads by an example of service. Her obligation and privilege to serve is as important, real, and necessary as that of the man. The only difference is in the form of service, not the magnitude or criticality.

Now, I am not saying that all "teams" or "groups" are unscriptural. We have "groups" at the church, which I just left, but each group was responsible to visit, encourage, assist, and see to the needs of people in their group, as well as the whole church. We divided into smaller groups, just to fight the "big church" syndrome. This facilitated getting to know each other better and dissolving social barriers. There was no responsibility given uniquely to each group. No power or authority was given to each group. We also mixed up the groups every few months. Also, the groups typically focused on activities outside of the assemblies. The boundaries of the groups were transparent. The responsibilities were shared among all members, not groups. There was no authority given to the groups. I would have no problems with such groups, any more than divided Bible classes. The question is one of authority and function: Do these teams command authority that is not rightfully their own? Are these teams doing work in which all members should be involved?

I know you are not in a strong position to directly change this, but my primary concern would be, "Why are there no men qualified to be deacons, much less additional elders?" If a church is new, then that is expected, but if it is established, then why is not bearing fruit in producing strong, male, Christian, leadership? Such situations call for strong, Scriptural teaching and passionate persuasive attempts for hearts and homes to change, such that qualified men may grow into place. If God's pattern is followed, these gifts should be available to the church (elders, deacons, teachers, etc - Ephesians 4:10-16). Has teaching and discipline not been "meaty" enough to produce mature Christians (Hebrews 5:12-14), or has materialism (Matthew 6:19-24; 13:1-23; II Timothy 2:3; I John 2:15-17) and toleration of wickedness been allowed to abide (I Corinthians 5:1-3; 15:33-34; II Corinthians 6:14-7:1)? I am sure you are already sensitive to these points, else you would not have been concerned to even write; however, I wanted to provide this for additional meditation. What is being done to fix the real problem, of which the lack of deacons is only a symptom?

I have not been confronted with this exact situation, so my thinking is not as crystallized on this scenario as it is on some other topics, even ones related to church organization. Consequently, with additional prayer, study, and meditation, I may refine or redirect these thoughts, but hopefully this will provide you something to consider during this upcoming selection.

You and the church where you are will be in my prayers. May God bless you such that His will is evident and cherished.

[email]

My husband and I want to thank you very, very much for all the time and help you gave to us!! We are studying the scriptures you gave to us and in much prayer. Our hearts are very heavy and it is a difficult time to see the church changing so rapidly before our eyes. We appreciate that you care so much too. Brethren like you on the Internet help give us incentive to carry on.

With many blessings.

[email]

Hello:

I had written to you in September regarding some concerns with our church and had appreciated your help. Now my husband and I have another question and would like your insight. ( I am writing this as the wife as I have more time to be on the Internet) Our church is putting together a "trained team" of people who will be called the "In Touch" team. Their purpose will be to make telephone contacts with everyone in our church on a regular basis. They will update the database of names for the church leadership, assess needs, encourage greater involvement, and communicate information back to the leadership. Our church has about 400 attendees and 300 are college students. Many in the church are in small home groups that meet during the week. ( We are not in one. We tried 2 and could not go along with what they were studying.. Willow Creek books) The deacons used to be more involved doing this kind of work that the "In Touch telephone team" will do, but they have stopped.

Our question is about the discomfort we feel with this "trained team" "assessing our needs", especially over the telephone. We find this to be weird and will not be doing this especially with strangers but are concerned that the college kids and others think this is normal behavior. I suppose they would pray over the phone if people requested it. Also, do you think that a "team'' on the phone should be "encouraging" greater involvement? This sounds more like big brother and feels like pressure to us .. are you familiar with this style of communication and direction? Our church did the Rick Warren (40 days" book and program last winter. We don't know if this is part of that or what). We could simply be cordial on the the phone when the "In touch" person calls and not really let this bother us and just go along with this.. and give out answers they need for their data base update,and then let them mention that we need to "be more involved", and just listen and say we will pray about it.

Thank you for your time and perspective. We seem to be the type that appreciate on-line discernment ministries so much more than most people we know. Our Pastor even told the congregation to stay away from them.

[m273p15c]

It sounds as though things have moved in the wrong direction. My concerns would remain similar to the ones that I provided previously (see note below). However, I would again emphasize that this work is to be the work of elders and everyone. Elders are to oversee the flock. If this team is really the ones who are "in touch with the flock", checking on their spiritual health, then what are the elders doing (Hebrews 13:7, 17; I Peter 5:1-5)? Everyone is to be given to brotherly love and encouraging each other (Hebrews 10:23-25). A team that is doing the special work given to elders or concentrating the general work given to all members seems a significant, sinful, and ill-fated variation from the pattern and organization of the New Testament church.

Why aren't the elders and members doing the work given to them? Teams are formed to delegate authority and responsibility. Why is everyone bent on getting rid of the work given to them and elevating a few beyond the offices described in Scripture? These are the questions that would be going through my mind...

Additionally, I agree that this approach seems unwise at the least. It seems strange to me, and it would make me uncomfortable. But, I would primarily be concerned about the unscriptualness of such an approach.

People must learn to follow God's Word exclusively. Otherwise, they will follow their own wisdom, mixing what they have been taught from the Bible with what they think is right in their own eyes. If you feel there is a growing irreverence for God's Word or the New Testament pattern, or if you feel this situation might have a detrimental impact on you, then I would advise you to look for another local church that is truly trying to follow the New Testament pattern. Here are the common-sense criteria (although based in Scriptural principles) that I use for determining whether or not I should leave a local church:

1. The candlestick has been removed, best you can determine, i.e., They are deliberately teaching or practicing false doctrine, and I: a) Cannot stay without supporting, practicing, or joining in their sin. b) OR, I am no longer able to influence the congregation in the right direction.
2. Staying would produce a detrimental spiritual impact on:
   • me
   • OR, my family
   • OR, my evangelistic influence with my non-Christian community - Would you feel comfortable inviting your neighbor to worship with you? Or, would you have to prepare them with several disclaimers, before they attend with you?
3. The benefit of joining a church that is more spiritual and Scriptural greatly outweighs any responsibility I have in staying.

Do any of these apply to you or your husband? It is always difficult to leave a congregation, especially when you feel like it has gone soft underneath your very feet, or if you have friends and loved ones, whom you are leaving behind. However, you have to do what is right and best for the spiritual health of you and your family. I cannot know the situation, but it does not sound good to me.

I have no interest in encouraging you to join my church. I don't have one. I am trying to be a member of Jesus' church. I hope and pray that you can find the same.

Please let me know if you have any more thoughts or concerns,

May God grant us with eyes open to the truth and hearts bold to obey it

[email]

Thank you so very much for your counsel. My husband and I are waiting on the Lord and appreciate the pointers so much !.There is a major meeting Thurs night regarding many issues.

[m273p15c]

For what is worth, I was glad to help. Your family and the church you attend will continue to be in my prayers.