The Apostle Junia?

I recently reviewed the book A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. About the same time, I had a Facebook acquaintance argue that the plain reading of Romans 16:7 is that Junia (and Andronicus) were apostles.[i] This friend did not make much of a defense of his position, simply restating several times that “of note among the apostles” meant they were apostles.[ii]

Romans 16:7 (Greek and English).

• 1894 TR: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν Χριστῷ
• UBS: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ.

• KJV: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
• RSV: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

The issue in Greek (TR vs. CT) is Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine).

Paul is addressing [You (all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints)] directing them (among all the other greetings) to salute Andronicus and Junia. He describes these two as “my kinsmen” (apparently related in the flesh), “my fellowprisoners” (having suffered persecution for the faith),[iii] “of note among the apostles” (two who are notable to the apostles), and “in Christ before me” (having been in the faith longer than Paul).[iv] The relative clause describes two people, Andronicus and Junia. Who are they and what are they? They are “of note.” Of note where? Of note “among the apostles.” Neither this sentence nor this clause means that Andronicus and Junia are apostles.

Neither the grammar nor the definitions of the words prove that Junia was an apostle. A plain reading of the Bible shows that Paul did not write, “Andronicus and Junia are notable apostles.” Instead, he was inspired to write that they “are of note among the apostles.” The expression is not the one which would have been used if they had been apostles. What the expression “of note among the apostles” means is that were well-known to the apostles. It is also worth considering that the word “apostles” is masculine plural (ἀποστόλοις, dative masculine, plural), grammar not fitting with Junia being part of the group.[v]

 

Brief information on the name.

In the Greek text, a difference of accent distinguishes between this person being a man or woman – Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine, Junia) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine, Junias).[vi] So, as we have it in the King James Bible, this is the name of a woman. The name itself is rare in Greek – the masculine form being even rarer than the feminine form.[vii] Some translations have (apparently) opted to remove the “difficulty” by changing Junia (feminine) to Junias (masculine).[viii]

Considering “of note” and “among.”

• Of note – (εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι) well-regarded, prominent, important, well-known, deserving distinction. 
• Among (ἐν) – meaning can be situated in, surrounded by, with, a part of, in contact with

• Inclusive use – “among” means a part of the body of the apostles
• Exclusive use – “among” is comparative to but not included in the body of the apostles

An example of exclusive use is found in Euripides’ Hippolytus (line 103), where the goddess Aphrodite is “prominent among mortals,” – although she is not a mortal. Exclusive use of “among” is not odd or unusual.

ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (exclusive or inclusive)

• 2 Peter 2:1 among the people ἐν τῷ λαῷ (exclusive and inclusive)
• 1 Peter 2:12 among the Gentiles ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (exclusive, they vs. you)
• Acts 15:22 among the brethren ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (inclusive)
• Matthew 2:6 among the princes ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν (uncertain)
• Mark 5:3 among the tombs ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν (exclusive)

Some history.

According to various sources, the early church writers thought Junia was a woman (as well as later writers).[ix] See, for example, Origen (ad Romanos), Ambrosiaster (ad Romanos), Jerome (Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ad Romanos), Theophylact of Ohrid (ad Romanos), Peter Abelard (ad Romanos), and Peter Lombard (ad Romanos).[x]

Final thoughts.

The debate about Junia/Junias and the apostleship is, in my opinion, a demonstration of just how far feminists are willing to stretch to Bible to make it say what they want it to say. There are some difficulties with this passage. It should be interpreted in the light of clear passages, and not made to walk on all fours. Our King James English translation can be trusted in both identifying Junia as a woman, and in not addressing her (or Andronicus) as an apostle.

---

[i] He was only arguing about Junia because he wanted to prove there was a female apostle. Whatever is true of Junia in this verse is also true of Andronicus. Andronicus were probably husband and wife, or brother and sister. Paul considered them kinsmen according to the flesh.

[ii] In a past writing on the apostles, I included “Andronicus and Junia” in a list of other possible apostles – not because I think they were, but because I was listing all the possibilities that different students consider on the subject.
[iii] Philemon 1:23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; (cf. Colossians 1:7; 4:10-12).
[iv] Early disciples, before Paul was converted. Likely they were converted elsewhere and then later moved to Rome.
[v] In the case of the masculine use for “kinsmen,” it would be used whether this was two men, or a man and a woman – that is, the plural form used to include both male and female persons is nevertheless grammatically masculine. That is in a different part of the structure of the sentence, though, from the use of “apostles.”
[vi] That is, in the Romans 16:7 passage, the name Junia is in the accusative case.
[vii] See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993, pp. 737-738.
[viii] For example, see ASV, DRA, NASB1995, RSV, RV.
[ix] There is more involved in the appeal to the church fathers than some (on either side) have suggested. For example, the evidence of Origen comes from the Latin translation by Rufinus. The manuscripts of Rufinus are not consistent, where some give the name as Junias and some Junia. Epiphanius believed Junias was male and the bishop of Apameia (Index Discipulorum from Epiphanius of Salamis). I am not saying that the name is masculine; I think Junia was a woman. However, those who appeal to the church fathers need to admit that there is no universal agreement among the church fathers about this verse. One interpretation of Origen on the phrase in Romans 16:7 was that Andronicus and Junia might have been among the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1) sent out by Jesus, then at the least implying he thought this was a man. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Origen wrote, “When Mary the prophetess spoke, she was the leader of some women; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, and I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man. And also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made certain concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse.” This tends to suggest that Origen thought Junias was a man, and those manuscripts are accurate representations of what he wrote.
[x] In many cases, it is not necessarily that they commented, but simply that they used the feminine form of the name in their writings/commentary. Of these, it appears that John Chrysostom thought Junia was both a woman an apostle (In epistulam ad Romanos). Some editor at Wikipedia (which loves to promote leftist liberalism) has misrepresented the writings of Bernadette Brooten to claim that all early patristics thought Junia was an apostle. According to the editor, Brooten “points to additional early Christian commentators, all of whom gave no indication of doubt that the epistle referred to Junia and that she was a woman and an apostle.” This is not correct. The accurate fact in the article is that Brooten points to Chrysostom believing Junia was a woman and an apostle. The most that can be derived from the other writers is that they took the name as feminine. B writes, “John Chrysostom was no alone in the ancient church in taking the name as feminine…In fact to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.” (“Junia … Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7), Bernadette Brooten, Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, Arlene and Leonard Swidler, editors. Paulist Press: Ramsey, NJ: 1977, p. 141).

The office of a deacon

The office of a deacon (I Timothy 3:10; Acts 6:1-6)

The New Testament mentions the noun deacon five times, in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8-12. There is a distinct correlation between the office and the function of the seven in Acts 6.

“The office of deacon originated in a state of things referred to in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.”[i]

“Let deacons be chosen for an indefinite period and then let them be solemnly ordained according to the example given in Acts vi.6.”[ii]

The church today has two offices.[iii] In the beginning, the church had neither elders nor deacons. Jesus their head, the Chief Shepherd, called disciples from among John’s disciples to follow him. He afterward set apostles in the church. After Jesus ascended back into heaven, the apostles functioned as the elders and deacons. The increasing overload of administrative duties necessitated help. The church selected seven helpers to “serve tables.”

The work of deacons in Acts 6 is:

• to solve a problem that arose in the church fellowship (6:1)
• to help preserve the harmony of the church (6:1-3)
• to free the apostles from administrative duties in order to give full attention to prayer and the ministry of the word (6:2,4)
• to serve tables, take care of business (6:2-3)

The position of deacons in Acts 6 is:

• a congregational position – from among you (6:3)
• an elected position – i.e. one appointed by the church, not a position to which one appoints himself (6:3,5; the apostles and church body take the initiative, not the seven individuals)
• a qualified position – men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom (6:3; Cf. 1 Timothy 3:8-13, which has spiritual, moral, and familial qualifications)
• an ordained position – i.e. one initiated by prayer and laying-on-of-hands (6:6)

Notes:

---

[i] Church Manual Designed for the Use in Baptist Churches, J. M. Pendleton, 1867, p. 30.
[ii] Ibid., p. 36.
[iii] Acts 11:30 first mentions elders in the sense of church leaders. The disciples in Antioch-Syria sent relief in time of famine to the elders of the churches in Judaea. We find both apostles and elders in the church in Jerusalem Acts 15:2-6, 22-23.

The Great Commission

Appendix P from my Acts commentary, looking at the subject of “The Great Commission,” a theme running through the book of Acts.

APPENDIX P – THE GREAT COMMISSION

“The Great Commission” theological terminology subsumes the final commands of Jesus to his disciples as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-49, John 20:21-23, and Acts 1:8. Bible students often consider Matthew’s account to be the most complete single statement of Jesus’s command. Therefore, teachers usually put it forward as the prime example. 

The four primary views of the extent of this command are:

• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as apostles (therefore only for apostolic times).
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as preachers (therefore incumbent upon preachers through the ages).
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as individual Christians (therefore incumbent on Christian individuals through the ages). 
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as officers and representatives of the church (therefore incumbent upon the church through the ages).

I have combined the first two views, and consider it under three headings.

To the apostles as either apostles or preachers

Most, if not all, agree that the apostles were present when Jesus gave the commands. Some conclude that only the apostles were present (e.g., Matthew 28:16 – “Then the eleven disciples went...”). Based on the latter understanding, one interpretation is that the “Commission” was given only to the apostles, as apostles – and therefore only for apostolic times.  The apostolic times recorded in Acts disputes this conclusion. While the apostles are in the forefront, other disciples – that is, other than the apostles – preach, baptize, teach, and even perform miracles. A study of the book of Acts should make note of such occasions. 

1. The scope of the commission is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men  – “teach all nations.” While the apostles fulfilled this to an extent in their lifetimes, Mark 16 makes it clear that the gospel is for “all the world” and “to every creature.”

2. The time of the commission is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men – “alway...until the end of the world.” Jesus does not command just the eleven. There is something bigger than and living beyond the eleven, based on the end of verse 20.

3. The act of baptizing herein commissioned is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men. The book of Acts tells of men who were not apostles who performed baptisms (Cf. Acts 8:12-13; 8:36-38; 9:5, 9, 18).

4. The act of teaching herein commissioned is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men. Even in the days of the apostles, men who were not apostles evangelized and taught (Cf. Acts 6:9; 8:5, 35; 11:19, 22; 13:1; 18:24-26).

The Luke and Acts passages militate against the “apostles only” position. Luke 24:49 says they will be endued with power from on high, and Acts 1:8 states that they will be witnesses after the Holy Ghost comes upon them. Acts chapter 2 records the fulfillment of this. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, the promise of the Father, came not only upon the apostles, but also upon the entire church (cf. Acts 1:15; 2:1-4; they were all filled). The Holy Ghost came upon the assembled church and empowered them as witnesses to fulfill the given commission. The apostles (representing the church) were given the commission, and the church (as a church, not as individuals) were baptized in the power of the Holy Ghost.  Others in Acts took part in preaching and baptizing. Paul’s statement that “Christ sent me not to baptize” (I Corinthians 1:17) is hard to square with an “apostles only” commission or an individual commission.

To the apostles as individual Christians

Other Christians believe that Christ gave the Great Commission to individual Christians. In practical terms, this means any Christian can and should – independently and without any necessary reference to others or to the churches – commence to evangelize, baptize, and teach.

1. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may go independently and without regard to the churches. However, neither the Acts nor the rest of the New Testament endorses “unattached” Christians.

2. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may baptize converts indiscriminately. There is no evidence in the New Testament of such a practice in the early church.

3. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may teach and instruct regardless of their status in or with a church, or with or without recognition by any churches. However, God sets the gift of preaching and teaching in the church, and the church recognizes God’s gift (I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11).

The “individual” answer to this question bypasses the authority of the church and makes individuals authorities unto themselves. Even the individual apostles were set “in the church.” I Corinthians 12:28.

To the apostles as officers and representatives of the church

The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 is a command fulfilled by local assemblies of believers. The task of the commission and the people of the task will last the length of time God promises it to last – “...I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world...”

1. The New Testament examples of fulfilling the commission points toward church authority rather than apostolic or individual authority. Other church representatives who were not apostles engaged in the evangelistic, baptizing, and educational ministries of the church. They were always visibly connected with other baptized believers.

2. The time period of the commission given expects a continuity through the time. The churches of the Lord provide that continuity.

The Holy Ghost came upon the assembled church and empowered them as witnesses to fulfill the given commission. Jesus gave the apostles (representing the church, Matthew 28) the commission, and the church (as a church, not as individuals; Acts 2) were baptized in the power of the Holy Ghost. The Lord Jesus Christ testified of his position of power and authority. He delegated authority to the church. The church has the authority to disciple – to preach, baptize, and teach as the Lord’s representatives.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. 

• Evangelizing all nations. Acts 17:26-27; 20:26-27
• Baptizing the evangelized. Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:47-48
• Teaching the baptized (to observe all things). Acts 2:42; 18:11; 19:8-10

A collated commission of the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts passages

Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. (And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them) Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 

Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Answering William’s Thirty Questions

Thirty questions on our ecclesiology, by William Thornton, posted on SBC Voices.

William is a retired SBC pastor who is quite amiable, with whom I have interacted in a couple of forums (Baptist Life & SBC Voices), and who I would describe as slightly to the right of moderate. On the Baptist Life forum, which tended very moderate to liberal, he stood out as conservative there.

The subject of women pastors is one of high alert in the SBC at the moment. Discussions abound. In their June 2023 Convention the delegates voted to uphold the decision of the Executive Committee, which sees churches with women pastors in violation of the Baptist Faith and Message (the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture) and not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. One was the high-profile Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, founded by Rick Warren. A lot of current SBC discussion is nuanced on positions that may not be pastoral but has pastor or minister in the job title, or positions that are pastoral, but do not have pastor or minister in the job title (e.g. director, instead).

I am not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of the questions are really outside my interest, since they are pretty specific to the SBC. On the other hand, I noticed few people at SBC Voices seemed willing to tackle them head on. Rather, they just post what they want to say, throwing something in the general vicinity of the questions. So I thought I would do so, primarily to exercise my slumping brain on the subject of Baptist ecclesiology (a very important subject).

The thirty questions and thirty answers:

1. If a church has multiple pastors, who is the pastor and how does the congregation express this?

If a church has a scriptural plurality of pastors (elders) then they would express it by calling them all pastors equally. The problem is that many churches that have multiple pastors usually have an hierarchy of employees called “pastors” while employing many of them in positions that have little resemblance to biblical pastoral ministry.

2. Is the fresh-faced nineteen-year-old summer student pastor the same as his ultimate supervisor?

I have no idea what a “summer student pastor” is, and less inclination to find out. It does not sound like a biblical pastoral position to me.

3. The SBC spent decades with a pastor/deacon model. Those decades were the greatest in our growth. Why is that model so easily discarded?

I am not SBC, so probably not highly qualified to answer this question. The one SBC church with which I am most familiar concerning their “pastor/deacon” model may have employed it successfully, but not scripturally, in my opinion. The business of the church was conducted in the private deacon’s meeting and then presented to the church for approval by “perfunctory” vote (see William’s question 24). I think that model should be discarded.

4. How much of our ecclesiology can be traced to American affluence and liberty?

I believe that American affluence and political views on freedom, liberty, and democracy have influenced the ecclesiology in Baptist Churches in the U.S. I have no idea how much, but do believe it has had some negative effect – in the sense of looking to the “U.S.” as a model rather than the Bible.

5. If churches didn’t have buildings and budgets would church governance look different?

I expect so, at least somewhat. Nevertheless, our bigger problem is the more general lack of focus on biblical faith and practice.

6. Is it fair to say that Southern Baptists, once megachurches and their celebrity pastors moved to the multi-site model, changed their ecclesiology to accommodate that?

Yes, I think megachurches and celebrity pastors have negatively affected the ecclesiology of Southern Baptists, as well as other Baptists in the U.S. A church meeting in several locations does not meet the biblical definition of a congregation.

7. Concomitantly, why do we always avoid the title “bishop” when referring to the pastor who has charge of multiple churches?

I do not think this is new. It is my own experience in the churches with which I have been associated in my lifetime, that they have generally either avoided or neglected the use of the word “bishop” to refer to pastors. This was well before megachurches, multi-site churches, and (mostly) celebrity pastors. It is my opinion that this scriptural word was avoided mainly because of its misuse by other denominations and in a desire to steer clear of misunderstanding – that “elder” and “pastor” would carry less baggage than bishop in most cases.

8. If any kind of woman pastor is constitutionally prohibited, don’t we have to get into the business of functional job duties?

No, just do not have women in pastoral job duties. However, it is problematic that some churches give women the same functional job duties they would consider pastoral, but skirt the issue by calling them by some “title” other than pastor.

9. If we delve into job duties are we not then forced to decide on the age of males at which females are prohibited from teaching, supervising, and directing?

Yes, I would say that some churches give women authority over males at certain ages, which, if they were called pastors, to which they would object.

10. Is there any ecclesiastical component other than women as pastors that would receive the level of scrutiny that we are now giving to churches?

Is there? I don’t know. Should there be? Yes – divorce and remarriage in the ministry being one of them. And all the other qualifications should be resurrected with proper emphasis. It is a fact that many churches have punted the biblical qualifications in favor of instead judging one’s experience, educational, and executive qualifications, and such like.

11. Is the focus on women motivated in large part by the ease at which men can distinguish between a woman and a man?

Probably not. Hopefully Southern Baptists still can distinguish, but many in our society cannot profess to tell the difference between a woman and a man.

12. Is there any other qualification of pastor that is likely to receive such scrutiny? Why not?

Traditionally, “husband of one wife” has received a lot of scrutiny, but that bird seems to have flown the coop. See also question 10.

13. If a church has an executive pastor, why can that position not be filled by a woman?

What is an executive pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position to be filled according to the qualifications of I Timothy and Titus, how can it be filled by a woman?

14. What does a worship pastor pastor?

What is a worship pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position, wouldn’t all pastors be “worship pastors” whose qualifications are set forth in Timothy and Titus?

15. What other major statement of faith, creed, or confession utilizes forward slash phrases?

Huh? This was initially meaningless to me, until I found that William refers to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message using slashes in Article VI – “pastor/elder/overseer.” William always like to insert a little humor.

16. How much sense does it make to declare that your church can cooperate with other churches that have female directors or ministers but not cooperate with those who have female pastors?

A local church is autonomous, and so can cooperate with whomever she wishes. However, biblical cooperation is based on biblical principles. Are there any biblical principles for female directors, female ministers, or female pastors? What is the difference? I assume William is probably hinting at a hypocrisy hidden in there being no difference in function, only in name.

17. One of our few success stories of this century is the increasing proportion of African American and other ethnic churches who identify as SBC. Does it concern anyone that we may totally undermine these successes?

How is this being undermined? William does not say. We are not SBC, so this question is somewhat immaterial to us. Our church, as a local church, fellowships with “ethnic churches” based on shared biblical faith and practice rather than our supporting a common program.

18. If a mixed adult group has man/woman team teacher and the main teacher is the woman, is this a problem?

Yes, it sounds like a way of circumventing not having a woman teach adult men (i.e., by calling in a team).

19. How long has it been since your church prohibited women from speaking in a church conference?

We do not prohibit it, though they do not run the church business. We do not prohibit men who are not pastors from speaking in church conference either. Prohibiting women from speaking in conference is more an issue of one’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 than with the issue of women pastors. I know some churches that do prohibit this, based on that Scripture in 1 Corinthians. Is William trying to imply churches are inconsistent to refuse women pastors while allowing them to speak in church conference? We also allow women to sing and testify.

20. If our constitution says a woman may not be “any kind of pastor” is it acceptable to have other titles, e.g., minister, director, assistant?

This seems to be rooted in a progressivism that desires to create positions that the Bible does not create or recognize as Scriptural offices.

21. What is a co-pastor?

I suppose it is according to what the church that uses it means. Sometimes it has the sense “together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually” (suggesting equality); “sometimes it has the sense “auxiliary, subsidiary” (suggesting subordination). A group of equal plural elders would be “co-pastors” in a sense according to the first definition. A group of “under-pastors” serving under a the direction of a senior pastor would be “co-pastors” according to the second definition.

22. If a church has pastors, elders, and deacons should they be excluded?

What? Excluded from what? I do not understand this question.

23. If deacons have administrative authority, and in most SBC churches this is the case, how is this unbiblical?

Biblically, deacons are servants of the church. If the church assigns them administrative duties, then they could be biblically serving the church. If they have administrative authority over the church, it would be unbiblical.

24. Is a church legitimately congregational if only perfunctory votes are taken?

Perfunctory is likely a matter of perspective. Do you think some other church’s votes are perfunctory, and does that church see that operation as perfunctory? Perfunctory in this context likely means “performed merely as a routine duty.” The votes of the church I mentioned in question 3 seemed “perfunctory” to me. However, it is likely that their “routine” approval of the deacons’ motions and seconds could turn to something else if the deacons proposed something they did not like. So, though I did not like their system, and perhaps they were not congregational carefully enough, but in the end still exercised congregational oversight.

25. Should all women who have affixed to their church position the term “pastor” be considered carnal Christians, ipso facto disobedient, and out of fellowship with God?

They would be disobedient to the extent they disobeyed the biblical faith and practice. Same as a believer who refuses to be baptized, or one who deliberately chooses sprinkling over immersion, and so on.

26. How has our American system of itinerant ministry shaped our ecclesiology?

Here I am assuming William means the common practice of preachers moving from church to church (often upwardly), rather than ministering long-term in one church (especially the church in which they were raised and ordained). To me, a true itinerant minister is not a pastor. However, that has often be the effect in churches. A pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, and the church soon gives him to the boot. Or, a pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, but soon finds a much better offer which “calls” him away. I am not sure this has shaped our ecclesiology in terms of definitions (though perhaps so), but I do believe it has negatively shaped our ecclesiology in practice.

27. Is ordination a consideration in any discussion of women pastors or ministers?

Yes, it should be. If women should not be pastors (and they should not), then they also should not be ordained.

28. What determines whether or not speaking is preaching? Is it the furniture involved or the gender of the speaker?

Preaching is an act of public biblical proclamation and teaching. Furniture and gender do not determine it; the Bible is our rule of faith and practice.

29. How long before Lottie, Annie, and Bertha lose their high standing in today’s SBC?

I have no idea, but have always thought it a bit odd to have all the big offering pushes in the SBC named after women.

30. Do you think folks in the pews care about all this?

Yes, in our pews in our church they do care.

Questions about deacons

The following questions have been asked about deacons. I will attempt to answer.

1. Should deacons be ordained? Yes, deacons should be ordained. There is a clear correlation between the office of deacon and the function of the seven in Acts Chapter 6. The office of deacon originated in the sequence of events referred to there. This included ordination, that is, the laying-on-of-hands by the apostles.

The work of deacons in Acts 6 is:

• to solve a problem that arose in the church fellowship (6:1)
• to help preserve the harmony of the church (6:1-3)
• to free the apostles from administrative duties in order to give full attention to prayer and the ministry of the word (6:2,4)

The position of deacons in Acts 6 is:

• an elected position – i.e. one appointed by the church, not a position to which one appoints himself (6:3,5; the apostles and church body take the initiative, not the seven individuals)
• a qualified position – men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom (6:3; Cf. 1 Timothy 3:8-13, which has spiritual, moral, and familial qualifications)
• an ordained position – i.e. one initiated by prayer and laying-on-of-hands (6:6)

2. Should deacons be elected for a limited term (such as one year, or three years), or should deacons be given unlimited terms? Selecting deacons for a limited term seems to be a popular contemporary concept, possibly based on pragmatism. In 1857, J. M. Pendleton wrote, “Let deacons be chosen for an indefinite period and then let them be solemnly ordained according to the example given in Acts vi.6.”[i] This reflects past practice often ignored in recent times. In biblical times, “they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” In the 21st century, they that have used the office of a deacon well are soon removed and replaced with someone else. I find no biblical requisite to limit the length of service of deacons.

3. What are the duties of deacons? Deacons fulfill a servant role in the church body. 1 Timothy Chapter 3 lists some striking similarities in the qualifications for bishops and deacons. It also has some discernible differences, evidently related to their different roles. The functionary appellation “bishop” means overseer, implying general oversight over the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The functional appellation “deacon” means servant, attendant, implying a service-oriented ministry. Their primary role is to minister to the temporal and physical needs of the congregation – while the pastors minister to spiritual needs in the arena of preaching and teaching.[ii] Such functions include benevolence (e.g. administering funds and goods, or other assistance to the needy, widows, orphans), business (e.g. finances, such as collecting, counting, and recording the offerings), and the building, if a church has one (e.g. overseeing repairs, cleaning, and function of the facilities).

4. Should families be assigned to a certain deacon? This is something of which I had never heard until a few years ago – although it has likely been practiced for much longer. Some call this the Deacon Family Ministry Plan or Deacon-Family Plan. The plan divides up the church membership, evenly assigned between the deacons – so that each specific deacon checks on, contacts, visits, and helps specific persons or families. It is reasonable that some kind of organization is needed and used amongst the deacons for carrying out their work – especially in larger congregations. So this is not a matter of right vs. wrong. However, this way of organizing the work may have its positives, but could have some practical negatives – such as creating bias and favoritism,[iii] as well as limiting the deacons’ knowledge of and help to all the members of the entire congregation.

In addition, I would add that the office of deacon is a creature of the local church. It is not necessary to reordain a deacon who moves from one church to another church. On the other hand, one local church is not required to recognize the deacons of another church (that is, to receive that member in the office a deacon). Of course, this is true of bishops (elders) as well. One church does not have to recognize a preacher they feel is neither called nor qualified.

---

[i] Church Manual Designed for the Use in Baptist Churches, J. M. Pendleton, 1867, p. 36.
[ii] This is not to say that deacons cannot have any ministry in teaching, or that preachers can never help with the physical needs of their congregation. The Greek word διακονος means a servant, attendant – one who renders service to another or executes the commands of another.
[iii] For example, a complaint that our deacon does not do as good of a job as their deacon! Rotation rather than assignment could allay this problem.