Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 26)

Taken together then, not only do the words sound very similar to that which is spoken of widows (“for some have already wandered away to follow Satan”), but combined with the need to be well thought of by those outside the faith, one can here sense a prohibition against being a gossip or a busybody, about being lazy, and about going from house to house talking about things they should not.  There’s no reason to believe that this is somehow the exclusive domain of women. 

If this is what will give the adversary the opportunity to vilify the church when such activities are undertaken by the widows (those normally dismissed by the wider culture), how much more than when the overseers of the meal table---the ones who would naturally be looked upon with as leaders of the assembly by the surrounding world (though they do not hold a formal position)---engage in the same.  Concurrently, one can notice that the same words are not applied to deacons. 

This is understandable, because as table servants they would not be accorded the same type of respect by those outside the church as would the meal overseer, though those who serve are accorded the highest honor within the church.  Such is the nature of Paul’s witness to the church, as he always has his eye on the church’s interaction with the culture and its need to be a counter-balance to the stifling of true humanity that takes place in the cultures that do not bow the knee to the Lordship of Jesus.

Finally, rounding out his words for Timothy and the church in regards to widows, having given this group a seemingly inordinate amount of attention, Paul writes “If a believing woman has widows in her family, let her help them.  The church should not be burdened, so that it may help the widows who are truly in need” (1 Timothy 5:16).  While Paul’s words clearly operate at a level that allows the church for all time to ascertain direction and ideals, one can’t help but believe that Paul has some specific people in mind here as he writes. 

There is little reason to think otherwise, and there is even less reason---considering the fact that Paul is dealing with specific situations that have arisen in the church letters---to imagine that Paul is suggesting guidelines to be applied to the church universally and for all time.  What should get a reader’s attention, when considering how to apply these words of Paul, are the counter-cultural elements and the implications for service within the church and the church’s interaction with the world. 

One stumbles dangerously into anachronisms when losing sight of the fact that Paul writes to real people, in real churches, at a definite time in history, dealing with real and pressing situations as the church sought to find its way in representing the kingdom of the Creator God while standing against the forces, though defeated by the cross and by the Resurrection, that sought to infiltrate and destroy the people of that God---attempting to destroy the church’s ability to stand as witness to its sovereign Lord. 

When taking the honor and shame competition of the day into consideration, while also considering the possibility that in all of this talk (concerning overseers, deacons, and widows), Paul has certain problematic individuals in view, one can move helpfully away from reading this letter solely as some tractate concerning church discipline, and instead read it as a clarion call to a church, through the apostle’s emissary, to continue to align itself with kingdom ideals, seeking the way of the cross and of shame, as all honor continues to accrue to Jesus. 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 25)

Continuing what has turned out to be a rather lengthy dissertation on widows (a normally dismissed and marginalized segment of the populace---Paul’s extensive treatment of widows should tell us quite a bit about the way the church should operate), Paul goes on to write “So I want younger women to marry, raise children, and manage a household, in order to give the adversary no opportunity to vilify us” (1 Timothy 5:14). From whence might this vilification arise?  It could arise from younger widows “going around from house to house,” learning to be lazy, while also being “gossips and busybodies, talking about things they should not.”  Again, the directive to marry, raise children, and manage a household fits well with that which has been said about overseers and deacons.  The overseer “must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity” (3:4).  Likewise, “Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households” (3:12).

To the avoidance of vilification, Paul adds “For some have already wandered away to follow Satan” (5:15).  Here, he still writes about widows.  Lest one think that Paul is specifically singling out widows or that he is calling out women in general for being gossips and busybodies, it can be seen, once again, that the same type of language has already been on offer in his talk of overseers.  One must not allow the thinking that Paul is being overly harsh with the women of the body of Christ.  Rather, he must be heard within the context of his efforts at leveling out the church, realizing that Paul believes that all classes of people are to be treated equally. 

Whenever an initial reading of a passage leads one to believe that Paul is placing general restrictions on a class of people in such a way that could lead to the structuring of spiritual hierarchies, to the demeaning or restricting of a group based on ethnicity (Jew/Gentile), gender (male/female---especially the passages about women being silent in the church), or social status (slave/free/widow/children), or the erection of a spiritual authoritarianism inside the church, it serves the reader well to re-read and re-think the text until the conclusion concerning the text accords with the egalitarian nature of the church as it was envisioned by Paul (as he attempted to live out and encourage what he understood to be the mission and vision of the church as enacted by Jesus and informed by the prophets). 

Paul demands to be heard in his historical and cultural context, as the church found itself attempting to countermand, through the manifestation of the Spirit of the Creator God, the spirit of death that animated the world into which the church had been placed and out of which it had been called, that it may serve that world well (a bit of the paradoxical mystery of the faith---called out to be separate so that it may serve and transform, functioning as the kingdom of the covenant God and being the point of overlap between heaven and earth---the Temple---as an ongoing foretaste of the new creation and restoration of the earth).    

So as one considers whether Paul is being heavy-handed with groups of women, upon returning again to the third chapter, one reads “He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact.  And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap” (3:6-7).  This has followed from “But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?” (3:5), which has followed the fourth verse and talk of managing a household, controlling children, and maintaining dignity.  Remember, an observer needs to encounter the text on the lookout for Paul’s efforts at leveling out the body, in contrast to the culture, rather than setting up hierarchies.  

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 18)

As Paul would give his instructions concerning deacons, he would be unable to escape the weighty and terrible fact that he had been involved in the death that had come to the martyr Stephen.  How ironic that believers (at least in terms of the order of the books of the New Testament) are introduced to Paul at the death of the first person to be mentioned as a deacon of the church, and then here he is, years later, instructing Timothy in regards to the qualifications and conduct of deacons. 

Re-reading the words concerning deacons that are on offer here in this letter, along with an underlying contemplation of the culture into which this position was introduced and against which it gravitated and stood as a counter-cultural witness in its revelation of the functioning of the kingdom of the Creator God, should be done with Stephen in mind.  To that end, one hears that “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:8-9). 

Truly, Stephen went to his death with great dignity, expressing a desire, like Jesus, that those taking His life be forgiven.  Not being given to excessive drinking would serve him well in his service of others.  Not being greedy for gain, which is fundamentally an honor proposition, would enable him to conscientiously take the lowest place.  His holding to the mystery of the faith, part of which was a reversal of the social order, in which the last become first and the first become last as a significant component of Jesus’ kingdom teaching, is demonstrated by willful service to those considered last, treating both first and last as equal in the eyes of the covenant God as they participate in their God’s kingdom come to earth.  In a world defined by honor competition, these can be difficult propositions, which is why, with Timothy and the first set of deacons in mind, one can go on to read “And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless” (3:10). 

Why must they be tested?  Because in the kingdom of the Christ it is servants that were to be honored, rather than those that are being served.  Therefore, if this is rightly grasped by a congregation, there would be a significant temptation to give undue honor to those that serve, elevating the individual that serves rather than elevating the position of servant and ideal of service.  Accordingly then, a deacon would have to be willing to relegate the position if it became vested with honor, distancing himself from the undue honor that might be heading his way, and allowing another to take up the role.  In a way then, divesting oneself of the position of servant is a way of embracing shame.  This elevation of service as conducive to honor, as opposed to public speech acts such as speaking in tongues or words of wisdom and knowledge, could only take place in a community transformed by the re-shaping message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord---and all honor is due to Him). 

Going further, it is said “Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.  Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households” (3:11-12).  As was seen with similar words said concerning overseers, this may very well be a way to specifically identify certain men that should not be considered for this position.  Why provide such limitation?  Would not the service serve to bring about what may be much-needed humility and change to such a person and to their family?  Though this may be a position held by an on-looker from outside the congregation, who sees the role of servant in opposition to the accrual of honor, this would not be so inside the church, as the taking of the role of servant at the table becomes that by which honor can be accrued. 

A person that is not “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” may take advantage of this reversed situation, using it for their own advantage.  So in rounding out the treatment concerning deacons, with all of these thoughts in mind, Paul writes “For those who have served well as deacons,” with service being the crux of the matter, “gain a good standing for themselves and a great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (3:13).  Truly then, honor and standing in the church come from service, though it is not an honor or a standing that should cause one believer to be set over another believer in an intra-chuch honor competition.  The boldness comes from taking the role of servant, living out the principles of the kingdom, and even experiencing, to an extent, as the surrounding community viewed a person of honor taking the role of a lowly servant, a portion of the shame that came the way of their Lord.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 17)

Despite what could be viewed as the short-sightedness of the disciples with their statements about the ministry of the word of God and praying, and their setting that against their own taking up of the role of slaves at the church’s meal tables, the church prospered.  Luke writes that “The proposal pleased the entire group” (Acts 6:5a).  Seven men were chosen as deacons (diakonous in the Greek, which means “servants”).  “They stood these men before the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands upon them” (6:6).

Not surprisingly then, with service at the root of the church’s witness, and men chosen specifically to serve food to widows (and all who came to the table, with no distinctions or divisions), “The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith” (6:7).  With this success in mind, and this success much owing to the counter-cultural witness of servanthood by the ambassadors of the kingdom of the Creator God, it is possible to step back and wonder if it is possible to imagine Jesus creating this division of labor.  While believers stand in the stream of that Spirit-led success, can they dream about the church that may have developed had the very men that were looked to as the pillars and foundation of the church, been the ones that had served all, in full equality, at the church’s meal table?  What divisions may have been avoided had the church of the Christ had this example from which to draw?

Luke moves directly from the ordination of the group that came to be referred to as deacons, to the particular story of one of those men---a man by the name of Stephen.  Stephen, who is said to be “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (6:5b), which was one of the requirements as suggested by the disciples, served admirably.  One goes on to read that “Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (6:8).

As this performance of wonders and signs was undoubtedly linked to the fact of his service at the church’s meal table, and as it was owing to the covenant God’s special attention to widows as revealed by the Hebrew Scriptures, his service to widows must figure prominently in the Spirit’s growing presence in his ministry.  Might it also be presumed that the people wondered at what they were seeing from Stephen, which was his willful service to the least, eschewing both honor and shame?

While many are transfixed on signs and wonders, looking to such things as the evidence of the Spirit’s working, the working of the Spirit is just as present and just as powerful when a widow is served.  When that widow is served in a way that stands in sharp distinction from the way that she would normally be treated by her culture, with somebody sacrificing their own honor and prestige in order to see to it that she is served, then that is just as great a wonder and sign of the in-breaking kingdom of the Creator God as would be someone being raised from the dead.

However, rather than receiving honor and praise, Stephen would come to be accused of blasphemy, of speaking against the Temple and Moses, and was ultimately sentenced to death, experiencing the pain and shame of stoning.  This was the honor that one could come to expect from being a deacon---a servant of the church’s table.  This is the example that Paul, if indeed he is the author of this letter, would have in mind when writing to Timothy concerning deacons.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 16)

So this study has gone to Acts six, talked about widows (clarifying some unhelpful mental misconceptions in the process), mentioned divisions, made its way to Galatians, back to Timothy, and then on to Corinthians, all related to the mention of “deacons.”  This process has been necessary, and it has all been connected to food, thus allowing an observer to firmly link talk of deacons in the letter to Timothy with the church’s meal table, which also allows for the placing of talk of “overseers” within a meal table context as well.  Frankly, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the meal for the church, as it is a vital component of the Jesus tradition, a defining aspect of culture, and combined with talk of food in the letters of the New Testament, a repetitive element in the conversation related to the life of the body of Christ.

Returning then to Acts, what is the response to the complaint about the way that food is being distributed at the church’s gathering?  “The twelve called the whole group of disciples together and said, ‘It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2).  Now this could be a point of contention.  With the centrality of the meal assembly for the church, and the value placed on service by Jesus Himself, can the disciples rightly insist that this is the case? 

Would it not be most appropriate, in following the example of their Lord, who came not to be served but to serve, for these disciples to do this very thing?  Could having a hand in the distribution of the food, which would mean their being the ones that served the food to the assembled church, possibly be conceived of as neglecting the word of the Creator God?  One might very well lament this response of the twelve, as its enshrinement in Scripture handily created what very well may have been a dichotomy between preaching and service that Jesus never intended, thus furthering the construction of hierarchies within the church. 

Luke opens his account in Acts by stating that “I wrote the former account,” referring to the Gospel of Luke, “Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).  Here, Jesus’ own disciples have opened up a disconnect between doing and teaching.  That divide becomes evident in what has become the standard, contemporary reading of the letter to Timothy.  It is not evident because overseers and deacons, and the qualifications for such are discussed.  Rather, it is evident because one reads “overseer” and think of an authority figure, doing the same with “deacon,” though obviously to a lesser extent.  Regardless, it is obvious that, owing to the proclamation and example of the disciples of Jesus, that the church quickly fell into these practical and hierarchical divisions, and these divisions immediately began to have honor assigned to them.  This is more than comprehensible, as humanity is certainly prone to such things.

Since, unfortunately, they were not going to be waiting on tables, as they would later make clear that their plan was to “devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (6:4), the disciples went on to say “But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task” (6:3).  One could say that here things went from bad to worse, as the disciples, prone to affectation by a culture that was almost completely dismissive of women (even though women had been charged with the initial proclamations concerning the Resurrection of Jesus), limited that which would become a hierarchical position in the church to men only. 

One could say that, or one could look at it another way, realizing that they were not intent upon creating a spiritual hierarchy, but that this was an unintended by-product brought about by a lack of faithfulness to the mission and vision of Jesus, and chose men specifically to serve at the church’s tables, giving them the responsibility of being sure that all shared equally in the food and drink on offer because this is a job that would normally have fallen to women and to slaves.  Perhaps this is the genius of the disciples, but with so many set at such a distance from the culture of the day, it is quite easy to miss what is going on here.