Book Recommendation: 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You by Tony Reinke

Book Recommendation: 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017) by Tony Reinke

Click here for a book review on the 9Marks website by Tim Chiang.
Click here for a review on the Desiring God website.
Click here for a review by Justin Taylor on the Gospel Coalition website.

Table of Contents

Preface
Introduction: A Little Theology of Technology
1 We are addicted to Distraction
2 We Ignore our flesh and blood
3 We crave immediate approval
4 We lose our literacy
5 We feed on the produced
6 We become like what we "like"
7 We get lonely
8 We get comfortable in secret vices
9 We lose meaning
10 We fear missing out
11 We become harsh to one another
12 We lose our place in time

Conclusion: Living smartphone smart
Epilogue

Read. Enjoy. Comment as always.

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues (Part One)

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues

These twelve principles originated in a book entitled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. In a previous thread (here), I used principles extracted from a book written by Tim Keller to address the most divisive issue among American Christians that I'm aware of, the Bible text and translation issue.  In that thread we were more focused on accurately representing the theological positions of other believers (would they agree with my representation, etc...).  Personally, I'm still certain no matter how accurate you try to be in representing others there is always a caveat or exception to a particular position (you probably even have an objection to my exception). Here we shall use Naselli and Crowley's principles to readdress this issue from a conscience perspective. These principles are extracted from Romans 14. A good overview of these principles is available online here.

My comments with each principle are areas of application I am trying to work out both theologically, practically, and an honest attempt to not be hypocritical in application. Again, my applications are entirely wrong if the text and translation issue does not belong in context of Rom 14 or even an overly-gentile understanding of the text may also be in error. Again, if certain positions on the text and translation issue are in theological or practical error, then it would not fit within the context of Romans 14. For a very thorough understanding of Romans 14, I recommend Mark Snoeberger's article, "Weakness or Wisdom? Fundamentalists and Romans 14.1-15.13" DBSJ 12 (2007): 29-49.
My applications for this post will be listed as sub-points A. B. C. etc.... Please note I am trying to personalize them with the first person pronoun "I" while the Bold points are produced by Naselli and Crowley. Here are the twelve points (pp. 96-115):

1. Welcome those who disagree with you (Rom 14:1-2).

     A. I am to be personally kind and gracious to every believer regardless of their position on the text and translation issue, I'm afraid I struggle with this more than I want (too much John Owen I think).
     B. As much as it depends on me, I am to live at peace with everyone who holds to a different position on the text and translation issue. I may not be able to attend their church, definitely not membership, but I'll try to live at peace (just by way a reminder, this still implies they are holding to a historically orthodox position).
     C. At what point, theologically or practically, am I welcoming those with a different position on the text and translation issue an endorsement of erroneous teaching or practice? Let's flesh this out a bit with some illustrations (some of these should be easy to answer but I'm typing or "thinking" out loud):
          a. If I am a guest preacher at a local church should I be required to adhere to their public policy for preaching? If so for how long? Would addressing a wrong position be considered divisive? What false beliefs and practices might they have that are too taboo to speak against? Texts? Which ones?
          b. If I am sitting in the pew during a worship serve, and not preaching or teaching, should I still carry with me the same translation as the one being used in the pulpit? I've been through scores of churches and not done this and I had no following along. There was no confusion.
          c.  If I am joining a church, and the church's position is XYZ, must I agree with position XYZ? Similar issues to sub-points a. and b. above: preaching/teaching, sitting in the pew, etc.... Would it not be easier to simply attend a church that agrees with a certain position? Here's a thought: Is it wrong or even sinful to impose an English translation position on church members? I suggest listening to Mark Dever's sermon on the sinfulness of requirements like this before answering (I found it helpful).

2. Those who have freedom of conscience must not look down on those who don't (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to look down on those who who hold to a different position on the text and translation issue.
     B. So let's expand on the scenario from Rom 14. Using the text, the advocate who can only use or will only use one English translation is in which category: strong or weak? The strong have liberty to use any English translation. The weak feel compelled by theology, culture, family, traditions, familiarity or a potential host of other issues to only use one English translation: the King James Version.
     C. Again, I'm not quite sure this issue belongs here but for sake of exegetical consistency, which side of the argument does Paul come down on?  Was he weak or strong? Rom 15:1 states, "We who are strong..." Seems as though both here and as his consistent practice he falls down on the strong side. I know these because he freely quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Also he does not slavishly follow either one verbatim.

3. Those whose conscience restricts them must not be judgmental toward those who have freedom (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to be judgmental toward those who have even more liberty than myself on the text and translation issue.
     B. At what point do I begin to struggle with point A, users of the NASB, ESV, NIV, tNIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT? At what point based on my current understanding of the academic facts on this issue do I personally feel a person, church, or denomination has gone too far? When does theological or practical compromise begin?
     C.  Am I willing to acknowledge that simply because I personally may not be able to use a certain translation does not mean others will share my concerns?

4. Each believer must be fully convinced of their position in their own conscience (Rom 14:5).
   
     A. Am I fully convinced theologically and historically on the text and translation issue?
     B. Am I fully convinced that my position is the historical position on the text and translation issue?
     C. Am I academically willing to admit I may be wrong on the text and translation position?
     D. Am I willing to admit that the historical position on the text and translation issue might be wrong--basically meaning the vast majority of historical Christianity is wrong on this issue?
     E. What do we do when church members are not given the opportunity to be fully convinced or to have consciences that are truly informed on the text and translation issue and can function in a healthy manner?

5. Assume that others are partaking or refraining for the glory of God (Rom 14:6-9).

     A. Am I using or not using a particular English translation for the glory of God?
     B. Am I reading or not reading my Greek New Testament for the glory of God?
     C. I must assume that those holding to a different position on the text and translation issue are doing so to the glory of God. I must admit it is hard to grasp how some can hold to false historical position on this issue, refuse to be teachable, and yet still do this to the glory of God.
     D. Do I believe every translation in any language can be used to the glory of God? Or do I believe that only English can be used for God's glory? Oh what should we do for world missions?
     E. If I can't say "yes" to letter D. above then which of the four principles above am I struggling with? Not welcoming? Judgmental? Looking down? Not fully convinced?
     F. Have I crafted my own standards for what makes a good translation, then using my own standards for determining what translation I can use for God's glory (translations philosophy, grammar, vocabulary, etc...)?

6. Do not judge each other in these matters because we will all someday stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom 14:10-12).
   
     A. Am I judging (looking down on) others for their views on the text and translation issue?
     B. Do I realize I will stand before God alone concerning my own position on the text and translation committee?
     C. Do I realize every member of our congregations will stand alone concerning their views on this issue?
     D. Since I will alone answer for my position on this issue, can I justly or honestly impose my standard on other members in a local church?
     E. I pray God's church is not try to bind the conscience of unsuspecting believers with their own personal views on this issue.
     F. People in our pews should have liberty to read their own Bibles without persecution (a Bible they can understand).

Well this has gone rather long and there are twelve principles. I guess that means I'll need another post to complete all twelve of these principles. in the end, read your Bible and see all the God asks of us.  See how he has revealed his mind to us on the pages of scriptures. At a minimum, God desires that all repent and come to a saving knowledge of the truth. He has made a relationship with him possible, through the sacrificial death of his son, to pay the pentalty our sins deserve.

Read your Bible. Comment as needed.

Book Recommendations: Two books on Higher Life and Keswick Theology (Both authored by Andy Naselli)

No Quick Fix: Where Higher Life Theology Came From, What it Is, and Why It's Harmful (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017) by Andrew David Naselli.

This is an abridged version of his previous work on this topic which was nearly 450 pages. It is available in both kindle and paperback.

A review by 9Marks is available here.

A review on the Gospel Coalition site is available here.

A detailed review by the author is available here.

For a review in the Master Seminary Journal is available here or MSJ 28/2 (Fall 2017) 210-08.

Table of Contents

Part 1: Where Higher Life Theology Came From and What It Is

     Chapter 1 What is the Story of Higher Life Theology?

     Chapter 2 What is Higher Life Theology?

Part 2: Why Higher Life Theology is Harmful

     Chapter 3 The Fundamental Reason Higher Life Theology is Harmful

     Chapter 4 Nine More Reasons Higher Life Theology is Harmful

Conclusion

Afterward by John MacArthur

Appendix: A More Excellent Way

Recommended Resources on the Christian Life

A more robust version of the book can be purchased through www.logos.com.

LET GO and LET GOD? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010) by Andrew David Naselli. Foreward by Thomas R. Schreiner.

This version is nearly 450 pages long and gives a fuller treatment to the subject. It is only available in a Logos book format.

Read. Enjoy. Grow in Christlikeness.
Comment as necessary.

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller (My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller 

(My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

I've come across several books that include means and/or different methods for disagreeing with other people's theological positions. I would suggest these could be equally applied to other people's theological applications (at the risk of ad hominem name calling). Today I'm attempting to apply six principles from Tim Keller to the Bible text and translation debate. These six principles are taken from Tim Keller's book Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 376-38. Keller's points are in bold and my comments follow each point. These principles are as follows:

1. Take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of others' views.

I'm am fully convinced it is not possible to perfectly reflect the views of others no matter how hard we try. Perhaps you are able to do this. But it seems as though no matter what is written down, said, or practiced, there are always a series of caveats to every definition. For example try arguing with a dispensationalist on some issue (and I'm one of them), even listing off scores of quotes by leading dispensationsalists of the past. It seems as though there is a continual shift to "that's not  what I believe." Transfer this to the text and translation issue, phrases used by the KJV only position leave you wondering what they actually believe and practice. I have repeatedly requested individuals to clarify what they actually mean when they say, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English-speaking people" and no response given. Its hard not to understand things any other way without clarification in both writing and practice. This doesn't sound like preference, familiarity, or a Greek text argument. If your argument is simply, one Greek text is preferred and then we should produce translations from that text, then let's be consistent and produce a modern English translation from that text you believe is correct. If not then you really are in practice KJV only. I am left with no other acceptable alternative then to think that preaching from the ESV, NASB, or NIV is wrong to these people. This is not a difference of opinion or liberty but to them it is erroneous. If simply a preference, then why all the fuss? Is it remotely possible that a secondary or tertiary preference or application has been raised to a point of orthodoxy or the only acceptable practice? If I'm wrong in this understanding, please tell me what it means. Please explain to me in history when this different understanding (both belief and practice) started. I would suggest neither one Greek text nor the language of English has ever been a historical standard for the doctrine of preservation.

2. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.

I personally have a hard time trying to apply this point to the text and translation issue. It seems as though over the years there are so many versions of the King James Only position its getting harder and harder to figure out at what point error actually begins. As point one above tried to express it is very hard to understand a person's view if they will not elaborate on it. Obviously, we don't want to appeal to straw man arguments (see #4 below), definition hedging, or the like but this example phrase is directly from multiple websites, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English language."  How else can I understand this? I am left to believe that the doctrine of preservation not only depends on the English language, but also on a 400+ year old version in English. I have tried contacting many of them but to no avail nor clarification. Where does error begin? 

3. Take your opponents' views in their entirety, not selectively.

It is too common to make comments either positively or negatively about others writings but not comments on everything they say on the topic. Consider some examples, first in relation to MacArthur and term blood. Much ink has been spent by well-meaning conservatives on this issue. What becomes apparent is that these critics have not (for the most part) read everything he has written or said on this issue. A simple preview of every sermon or comment he has made on this issue is available (he actually has an entire page where he compiles all his comments on this issue). Perhaps ideas like hendiadys, synonym, or metaphor (you'll have to research this one) would help his detractors. Consider terms like repent or believe. Rarely do they occur in the same sentence in the biblical text. Yet at the same time they both are true and necessary for salvation. Or consider terms related to salvation such as Savior and Lord. Yet how often do people claim or deny one or the other because they simply don't reference every side of the coin every time the topic appears. Apply this to the text and translation issue and see where it leads you. How often do well-meaning people selectively pick words (present or not) or even verses to attack particular English translations or their particular translation philosophy? 

4. Represent and engage your opponents' position in its very strongest form, not in a weak "straw man" form.

I would suggest this is very similar to number one above. Trying to use the exact wording of the opposite position is usually not enough. There will always been a rebuttal to falsely representing the other position(s). I see this all the time (you probably have too). Try explaining a variant in the Greek or Hebrew text without getting accused of tampering with the scriptures. Try teaching your people on issues like this one. For example, try using the NIV as a Christian fundamentalist without getting that weird look (or even the NASB or ESV) in some circles. I've seen time and time again the same strategies used to attack the NIV as those who attack English translations printed after 1611. They quote some verses here or there then they criticize the translation for doing so--as if their (or my) academical credentials were asked to be on their committee (sarcasm intended). 

5. Seek to persuade, not antagonize--but watch your motives!

Unfortunately, past generations got more liberty here than we do today. Simply read past historical works by John Owen or Charles Spurgeon. People weren't always the most polite or congenial toward their opponents (who were professing believers too). Yes our mannerism count. Yes our speech counts. How many arguments (positions) get dismissed by a bad disposition. But even the best, well-organized arguments will face the same fate as the rest, "well that's your opinion." At what point in the text and translation issue are we willing to call historical errors and false teaching what it is? Error. We proudly call worldliness as such. We sadly in love have to correct disobedient professing believers in our churches. If this error festers in our own camp then shame on us for not trying to persuade them for not continuing down a road of error. To say nothing and to simply "agree to disagree" has done what for our local churches? Evangelicalism has moved on from this issue but it seems as though my bible-believing fundamental brothers are struggling with this one. Will the millennials share your view? Have they also moved on already to the NASB, ESV, or even NIV? 

6. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology--because only God sees the heart.

Clearly the text and translation issue has been raised by many to a gospel level issue even to the point of requiring that particular English translations be used alone for preaching, teaching, evangelism, and memorization (many other positions can be just as guilty). This appears is scores of churches. Just look at the multitudes of church, camp, and para-church ministry sites. On the other hand, if the gospel can be preached or taught from any translation in any country then why limit it to one English translation? Inspiration and preservation are historic doctrines defended throughout church history. But for the sake of your own personal research, I invite you to study the theological views of those who prefer a one English only position (see if can you notice any trends concerning the gospel itself). Carefully exegete the text and declare the gospel to all who will hear. Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures and he also bodily arose for their sins according to the scriptures. These scriptures are not limited to a translation in English, Spanish, or French.

With a clear conscience and pure heart motive preach and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

Book Recommendation: Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray



This is an older work but still edifying and power in the defense of a robust view of God's plan of redemption for mankind through his son, Jesus Christ. My version is the old cover 1955 edition from Eerdmans. The picture you see is the new cover edition published in 2015.  The foreword to the new covered edition is by Carl Trueman. This book was a blessing for outside reading while I was a seminary student at DBTS enrolled in a seminar class called of all things "The Atonement." I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find many presentations, sermons, and maybe even a pdf version online for this book.

A review by Tim Challies is available here.
A quick summary is available on the Ligonier Ministry website.
A review by Phil Gons is available here.

Table of Contents

Part I: Redemption Accomplished

1. The Necessity of the Atonement
2. The Nature of the Atonement
3. The Perfection of the Atonement
4. The Extent of the Atonement
5. Conclusion

Part II: Redemption Applied

1. The Order of Application
2. Effectual Calling
3. Regeneration
4. Faith and Repentance
5. Justification
6. Adoption
7. Sanctification
8. Perseverance
9. Union with Christ
10. Glorification

Read. Comment. Enjoy.

My Concerns for Biblical Fundamentalism and the Next Generation (Both Doctrine and Practice)

My Concerns for Fundamentalism and the Next Generation

Several items have been churning in my heart and mind over my twenty-six years in Independent Fundamental churches.** Just for record I'm in my mid-forties and have faithfully served as a United States Army Chaplain for nearly sixteen years. I currently serve as a Command and General Staff College Instructor. I'm not a local church pastor or seminary professor so I have neither position to motivate my answers. I am however concerned (as a movement) these churches and institutions address issues which we have faced and will continue to face in the future. 

**Working definition: fundamentalism--a Christian movement which believes in the historic fundamentals of biblical Christianity and a willingness to separate from those who deny in doctrine or practice these basic Christian truths. 

First, I have been a member of or regularly attended fundamental churches in six different states (WV, SC, MI, IN, AK and currently attending a Bible church in OH). As a graduate of several of their institutions, I desire to see them both to continue and to thrive spiritually and academically. I've seen and experienced what they practice and teach.  Worst case I don't want to see any more fundamental baptist colleges and seminaries close their doors.  Who might be next or for what reason? Financial strains? Compromise? Music? Translations? Internal division? Community college competition? What might it be and how can we avoid it from happening? So for starters I'm not out to protect a school, church, movement or my source of income. I simply don't want a movement to die out or refuse to adjust applications for the wrong reasons. 

Second, having read and listened to the concerns expressed by fundamental baptist leaders these past years, several things have become more clear than before. If fundamentalism is concerned about college and seminary graduates from within our own ranks leaving then we really need to consider why or what the motives for leaving could be? And once these concerns are heard will they be acted upon? A point of clarification: they are not leaving Christianity they are leaving Fundamentalism as a movement as expressed in local churches and related seminaries. I have four children and I hope there will still be schools we can support in operation 10-15 years down the road. 

So based on my limited twenty-six years within fundamental churches and forty plus years of life I offer my concerns for fundamentalism below. I hope they are received well.  I know others have these same concerns since I've heard some of them explicitly made publicly in fundamentalists fellowship gatherings. So for sake of space and time I'm taking up one issue for each of the following articles. My guess is any of these concerns can be or have been already read on sites such as SharperIron, FBFI, or from IntheNickofTime (Bauder).

Issue one--If one camp, denomination, or group of churches is making or has made one English translation a matter of orthodoxy then as I understand it this means they are making it a doctrinal issue (not just a preference). The issue has been pushed beyond just being a secondary or tertiary issue. This throws out Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 as well.  If someone's beliefs (doctrine and practice) are now in question because of this one English translation then if fundamentalism believes this position is doctrinally incorrect then we have an obligation (for sake of consistency) to separate from these men. It is not a matter of friendship or club membership. Many seminaries and local churches have made tremendous changes in a positive directions: both in doctrine and practice. Just to be clear there are professing fundamentalist schools and seminaries on both sides of this issue. If it is simply a matter of preference, then we need to use different terms. On the other hand, if this is a doctrinal issue, then we have a greater threat for future generations than we may be willing to admit. 

If I remember correctly multiple books have been written on this subject, classes taught, and public statements made. I have a list of these here. They are useful and thoroughly academic in presenting the reader with information to make an informed and historical decision on this issue. The good thing to know is that more and more pastors are understanding the historical position on this issue, many of which are helping their churches to move away from a one translation only position or a least a translation in more modern English understandable by current and future generations. Fundamentalism must be willing to move beyond being defined by a position on an English translation. I applaud those using the ESV and NASB. May they continue to flourish and grow. 

For sake of argument only one of the two seminaries I've attended was consistent in doctrine and practice (not a crime but simply a concern).  In one seminary we used one particular Greek text in the class room but then required memorization from an English text produced from another.  See the problem. At least the other seminary was consistent if one particular Greek text was used then give liberty to preach and teach from English translations produced from it.  If not hold to another position. We have to be willing to move beyond arguments "for the sake of unity" or "people in the pew can't follow along." I'm glad to see improvements made in this area in literature produced, both textbooks and periodicals.  

This is not foregoing a liberty/right when preaching or visiting at a local church and publicly expounding the scriptures.  At least follow their policies on the issue.  Following a institutional policy for sake of consistency is not the same as imposing that position as the mark for orthodox Christianity. If you can't do that (or follow their appointed standards) then maybe you shouldn't publicly teach/preach in that particular church. Move on to another church or attend school elsewhere (or be willing to restrict yourself to that particular church's doctrine and practice). I have far more respect for those who are willing to go elsewhere if it helps them be more consistent or keep a clear conscience.

If fundamentalism, at least the portion of movement self-identified with one English translation, falls or is inflicted by unnecessary scrutiny due to the English translation issue then they have brought it upon themselves. We need to teach our people over and over. We need to be willing to withdrawal from institutions who will not paint a clear picture here. As for the institutions, both seminary and local church level, who are making changes in a healthy direction, may they be rewarded for their efforts to both teach and practice consistently on this text and translation issue. We must be willing to practice separation both directions. First, to those within broader evangelicalism who have compromised in doctrine and practice. Secondly, we must consistently extend our position to those self-professed within our own camp who are trying to redefine fundamentals of the Christian faith. In so far as they preach the gospel unhindered then great. But great error is committed attaching an English translation to one's standard of doctrinal integrity. 

In the end, I would simply ask if you are reading this and you personally don't know Christ as your Lord and Savior, then simply pick up a Bible (any Bible in any language) and read what Christ has done for you in His death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead for your sins. Any translation can give you this information.  Read a Bible and come to know the Trinitarian God of the Bible, the Creator of you and me.

Read. Enjoy. Be challenged. Comment as needed.

Book Recommendation: The Compelling Community. Where God's Power Makes a Church Attractive

The Compelling Community. Where God's Power Makes a Church Attractive by Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlop (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015).



I found this book to extremely challenging and helpful for local church ministry.

A review by Tim Challies is available here.
A review on the Gospel Coalition website is available here.

A video promotion of the book by both authors on the 9Marks website is available here.

Table of Contents

Part 1: A Vision for Community
1. Two Visions of Community
2. A Community Given by God
3. Community Runs Deep
4. Community Goes Broad

Part 2: Fostering Community
5. Preach to Equip Your Community
6. Pray Together as a Community
7. Build a Culture of Spiritually Intentional Relationships
8. Structural Obstacles to Biblical Community

Part 3: Protecting Community
9. Addressing Discontentment in the Church
10. Addressing Sin in the Church

Part 4: Community at Work
11. Evangelize as a Community
12. Fracture Your Community (for the Community of Heaven)

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

Deacons and Deaconesses: Who are they? What do they do? (Part Two)

Last time we began a cursory study of deacons. We looked at noun forms of the Greek term and uses of the verb form: to serve or minister. Today I'd like to pick up on the two key passages which probably cause more people to stress out or exegetical back-flips than any other (at least on this topic). Those passages again are Romans 16 and 1 Timothy 3. 

Before tackling those two passages two ideas need to be recalled.  These two points serve as a reminder before we continue with this topic. First. deacons/servants are not leaders in the local church. This position of leadership is reserved for pastor/elders (there is simply no NT evidence to support otherwise). Second, local independent Baptist churches, at least ones without a plurality of lay or staff elders, have a tendency to create a rotating deacon board (which tends to be given a source of authority). Its almost as though a plurality of leaders is felt to be essential, but I would suggest history puts that leadership with elders, not with deacons. But in the end these deacons can be rotated out and do not stand on the same authority as their selected senior pastor or preaching elder. But to fair even churches with a plurality of elders in leadership tend to have deacon (s) in some capacity. So with that placed forward lets tackle the two main texts.

First, Romans 16:1-2, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (διάκονος) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help here in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well" (ESV). Let's extract some pertinent details. First, Phoebe is without a doubt a woman. She is described with feminine terms throughout: sister, feminine pronouns (twice), and of course here name is clearly feminine. Second, she is a deacon 
(διάκονος) from another church, not from Rome, yet she is to be received with this identification. Third, she has been helpful to Paul and to many other Christians as well. Perhaps she took flowers to a shut in or helped a young lady change for their baptismal service.  

What are our concerns? First, for those who have deacons in positions of leadership, even the thought of Phoebe holding a church office causes recoil in their conservative sentiments. Second, this misunderstanding of the role or function of deacons has caused unnecessary stress. Our family has attended multiple independent Baptist churches over the years, and yes some have even had a form of deaconness. Some I think fear this idea from giving this office false authority or overly male qualifications, and I'm guessing even setting a bad precedent for potential women elders or pastors. Some simply refer to her as a helper or servant in the local church without an official local church office (Ryrie Study Bible Notes, p. 1813). MacArthur comments, "Whether Phoebe had an official title or not, she had the great responsibility of delivering this letter to the Roman church" (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1723). The ESV Study Bible considers both as legitimate options (p. 2184). We'll wrestle with the applications at the end.

So from here we turn to the other major passage, 1 Timothy 3:11, "Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things" (ESV). Our main concern is simple: are these women the wives of male deacons or are these actual female deaconnesses? Consider if these are simply deacon wives, then why is there no mention of elder wives? On the other hand, deacons (at least if men only) are to be "the husband of one wife." I think if would at least be fair to say, if this a female deacon (deaconness), her husband is still the head of their home (1 Cor 11, Eph 5). In comparing English translations, every significant translations uses the gloss "their wives" (ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, and ESV). The only one that takes the alternative option is the NASB, "women." The NASB adds a marginal note, "either deacons' wives or deaconnesses" Just to stir up the pot a little, the TNIV, shifting away from the original NIV 1984, also uses the term "women" including a similar footnote in the margin. Quite interesting, the one English translation believed to be the most literal is the only one taking the opposite position.

Study Bible notes on this particular passage are various.  Again let's consider some well known Study Bible comments.  MacArthur comments "Paul likely here refers not to deacons' wives, but to the women who serve as deacons" (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1835). Ray Van Este, who provided the study notes for the pastoral epistles provides three options for 1 Tim 3:11, provides three options: wives of deacons, women deacons, or women who assist deacons (p. 2330). He closes his section hypothetically if deacons are involved in "church-wide teaching" then "1 Tim 2:11-15 would not permit women to carry out these functions" (ESV Study Bible, p. 2330).  Ryrie states concerning 3:11, "Most likely a reference to the wives of deacons, rather than to a separate office of deaconess." (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1921). Lastly, Gerald Bilkes, NT Study Bible editor writes, "The apostle here supplies requirements for the wives of deacons. Women are not office bearers..." (Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1756). 

So based on translations, comments and even leading Study bibles, what are we to conclude on this issue? First, are deacons men? Obviously yes, men are deacons, "the husband of one wife." Second, do we have an example of this same Greek term applied to a woman? Yes, her name was Phoebe. Third, the vast majority of conservative translations chose the gloss, "their wives" as the best contextual understanding. The NASB and TNIV being the dissenters. 

So can women be deacons in your local church? If you want to proceed down this route or way of thinking I would advise several alternatives as a priority. First, reteach or perhaps for the first time teach you people or read about the biblical roles for elders and deacons. Second, put the priority into establishing and training men of godly character to serve as lay elders in your church. By definition these are ordained men, no less important or authoritative than a bivocational pastor, of which don't rotate off the board and help lead the church as a group of men. Leadership is invested in them and the congregation. Third, if your truly want or need women deacons, then clearly establish these are not leaders in the local church but servants of the church. Even a basic understand of servant-hood extends to every member in a church. Overall advice here is simple: don't worry about ecclesiastical titles in your church and whether you qualify for them and instead start serving people. 

Read. Enjoy. Comment as appropriate.

Book Recommendation. The Healthy Small Church: Diagnosis and Treatment for the Big Issues

The Healthy Small Church: Diagnosis and Treatment for the Big Issues by Dennis Bickers

This is another treatment of small church issues.  Bickers if you may remember is also the author of several other books especially The Bivocational Pastor. Just a warning he spent 20 years as a bivocational pastor so much of his works that I have read are filled with practical wisdom and experience based decision making. Don't expect a great deal of scriptural text or a long exegetical handling of the text. Perhaps there's a nugget or two that can help in your local ministry.

Table of Contents

1. The Importance of Small Churches

2. The Problem of Unhealthy Churches

3. The Importance of a Proper Theology and Doctrine

4. The Value of a Vision

5. Transformational Worship

6. Acceptance of Change

7. The Ability to Handle Conflict

8. Spiritual Leadership

9. A Sense of Community

10. Financial Health

11. Mission-Mindedness

12. Long Pastoral Tenure

13. Involvement in Outreach

14. Pursuit of Excellence in Ministry

15. Lay Ministry Involvement

16. Time for a Checkup

Read. Enjoy. Comment.