What's So Important About Phoebe? Part 1

I started to write a post about the ever-famous Phoebe, whom most people affirm as a deacon. I figured this post would be quick and simple to write. I knew what I wanted to talk about: first century letter writing and the weight which sat on Paul’s words about Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2.

Well, my post started to get really, really long. The more I researched (about things other than just first century letter writing) the more I realized I couldn’t fit everything into one post. So here’s part one: on translation and the role of deacon.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.” Romans 16:1

We don’t know much about Phoebe, as Romans 16:1-2 is the only place she is mentioned in the New Testament. Paul makes the reference in the closing of his letter to the Roman church. While the reference may seem short, it is certainly important when given its proper weight and understood in its proper context.

Ah, where to begin…

Well, first…the transliteration for the word describing Phoebe here is the Greek word diakonos, which literally means deacon (and no, not “deaconess” as that word—diakonissa—is not used in this text). Unfortunately, some versions have chosen to use other words in this passage instead of “deacon”… such as “servant” or even in others: “helper.” While “servant” is not an inaccurate translation, as yes, deacons are servants; it fails to show the fullness of what Paul is saying.

Before I get into the logistics, I want to say a quick thing about translations:

Translations are just that…they are translations. Translated by…people…just like you and I with their own biases, traditions, presuppositions, etc. The Greek language is WILDLY different than our own, and as people study the Greek text, they come up with their own version of what Scripture says/means. This is particularly why we have hundreds of English translations. Translating Scripture from Greek to English completely word-for-word is nearly impossible, as there are legitimately NO words for some Greek words, so a lot of translating involves explaining type, like-ness, etc. It’s more of a “defining of a word” than translating it, itself. For those of you who are fluent in Spanish (or any other language), think of how many idioms, phrases, or even specific words in Spanish that just don’t translate literally into English. When trying to explain, you say something to the extent of… “well, it’s sort of LIKE…”

All of that to say, when translators choose specific words over others in their translations…they are not doing so objectively (without bias or presuppositions).

With that in mind, we notice how most English versions of Scripture translate diakonos in Romans 16 concerning Phoebe as “servant,” while these same English versions translate that same word diakonos in other places (i.e. the pastoral letters, Ephesians, Colossians, Corinthians, etc.) when referring to a male as “deacon” or even “minister.”

Of course, when read in Greek it’s the same exact word with absolutely no difference, but when read in an English translation, there are two different words used—giving readers two different ideas of what it means. So naturally, I can’t help but ask: why the inconsistency? Why “servant” for Phoebe, but “deacon” or “minister” elsewhere?

As Arland Hultgren expresses in his commentary on Romans, “Although the term can be translated simply as ‘servant,’ as in some versions of the English Bible, suspicion arises that the translators of those versions could not come to terms with the idea that a woman could possess a title or office comparable to that held elsewhere by persons who were male.”

Interesting…

Another thing to note about diakonos is the instances in which it is used. As I mentioned previously, the word can be seen a few other places in Scripture. What’s important here is the stark difference in the use of it in Romans 16 vs. all of the other passages.

In every other passage besides Romans 16, diakonos is always spoken of in a general “servant-like” role—like Paul referring to himself, Apollos or Timothy as such. In these instances, it is never about a specific congregation, but always about general ministry—evangelism, teaching/preaching of the gospel, co-laboring, etc. (Some can argue that the seven men chosen to focus on the widows in Acts 6 are specific “deacons,” but this is a moot point, as these men were chosen in the moment, for a particular response to solve a temporary situation). The difference between Paul’s general use of diakonos, and the way he uses this word in relation to Phoebe is that in Romans 16, Paul is localizing Phoebe’s position of deacon to a specific congregation—the church in Cenchreae. This suggests that Phoebe was not just a general servant, but a deacon—a servant who held a position at a specific church.

Why is this important?

Well, nowhere in Scripture do we see the position of church pastor or overseer of a church being given to any specific person (except Jesus, of course). Phoebe is THE ONLY person mentioned BY NAME as anyone holding any type of office in a specific church in the New Testament. The closest we get to something similar is John calling himself “the elder.” Even so, nothing in the context of what John is writing insinuates a specific/local church. Phoebe is the only specified person—deacon—named by Paul, holding an office of a particular congregation.

Now, we must always remember something very important when considering the New Testament: it is indeed written in an entirely different time in history. When teaching Scripture, I always try to remind people that (as was so harped on me in seminary) we must honor the context and timing that Scripture was written in. With this in mind, Philip Payne suggests that the letter to the Romans was written before any remaining reference to the office of a local church “overseer.” Thus, when Paul called Phoebe a “deacon” in this letter, it could have very well been the only officially recognized title for a local church leader at that time and/or place. Making Phoebe even more…legit.

Lastly, we can’t ignore the amount of historical evidence that points to women holding leadership positions in the early church. Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in AD 110 calls two specific women he tortured “ministers.” Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Chrysostom all referred to women holding offices as deacons (leaders) in the early church and preaching the Word of God (all of these before the 4th century). Not to mention women holding these offices were also referred to in the Council of Nicaea and plenty of other ancient documents (more on this in another post).

So in conclusion: 1) translations are TRANSLATIONS and sometimes subjective 2) Phoebe is given a title for a specific, local church, 3) Phoebe is the only person mentioned by name holding a leadership position at a specific, local church, 4) There weren’t many other titles other than “deacon” to choose from for high-leadership roles in the church at the writing of Romans, 5) women holding high positions in the early church was not an uncommon practice according to many early sources/ancient texts.

Stay tuned, as I’ll be focusing on verse 2 on my next post! For references click here, here and here.


Church Unity: Is it Even Possible?

So, I sat down yesterday to write a heavily researched blog on Romans 16 that I was planning on posting today… and then two things happened: 1) I had a good conversation with a friend about culture and church unity and 2) I heard a few people dialogue about culture and church unity. So naturally, I felt inspired to talk about…culture and church unity.

Of course, since “coming out” with where I stand on issues like women, inequality and social justice, I’ve thought a lot about this “Christian unity” thing. My mental struggle goes back and forth between, “Do I share my story? Do I talk about what I’ve learned? Is it worth it? Do I speak up about certain issues? Am I being divisive? Is it worse if I’m silent? Is it worth it? Should I say something? Am I wrong? Am I right? Is it worth it?” This has been my struggle for a really, really long time. You can ask my husband. I’ve been/am a hot mess.

As I’m sure you figured…my final conclusion was something along the lines of: I don’t have all of the answers, but it’s worse if I stay silent…and…I hope it’s worth it.

The conclusion of my conversation with said friend yesterday pretty much ended with, “It’s hard. Figuring this unity thing, while still trying to stand up for what is right is…hard.” So, for this post, I’m just going to ask a whole lot of questions that I don’t have the answers to…and do some reiterating of the things I heard in the dialogue among the Christian thinkers, because they summed up some of what I was wrestling with…

These days, unity amongst the Church is difficult to see, as there is an endless amount of opinions on (and thanks to) the Internet.

I’m no exception, as I too am another Christian sharing another opinion…hoping for unity amidst a world of disunity.

Disunity has been found in the Church since the (literal) first century (think of the Jerusalem church vs. the church at Antioch fiasco in the beginning of Acts!) What makes it so difficult is that since the first century, so many “tribes” have formed under this one large umbrella “tribe” of Christianity, each with radically different beliefs. The funny thing is that most of these groups consider themselves to be the One True Christianity, so in an attempt to seek unity, each group tries to convince everyone else to believe their particular brand of Christianity is true.

So really, which “tribe” is true? What does it even mean nowadays, anyways? Christianity began with Jewish followers of Jesus and then eventually, Gentile-believers, with disagreements about which customs to keep (purity and table-fellowship) and which customs to get rid of (circumcision). Many schisms happened around this time, even Paul and Barnabas’s disagreement during their missionary journey. Fast-forward to a major rift in church history in the 11th century, the East-West Schism, where Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox traditions divided. And then from there we see another huge and relevant schism—the Reformation. But even within the Reformation we have Luther’s beliefs and Calvin’s and later Wesley’s and Whitefield’s…

Interestingly, all mentioned considered themselves part of the Church.

So what do all of the Christian denominations have in common, anyways? Well, it certainly is Jesus. But within that, people (who aren’t a part of the “tribe”) can’t help but wonder what Jesus each is talking about.

Is it the “TURN OR BURN” Jesus?

The snake-handling Jesus?

Is it the Catholic Jesus?

The feminist Jesus?

Or the Calvinist Jesus?

Of course, we know there’s only one Jesus. But when the rest of the world looks upon us, what Jesus do they think we’re affirming? I’m sure we all agree that it’s the same Jesus that tells us to love God with our whole mind, heart, strength and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves…

So, then…does this mean we’re all going for the same thing?

If this is true, how do we reconcile our differences?

When considering “tribes” it seems people usually hang on to what one believes as the telling factor as to whether they’re “in” the Christian circle or they’re not. And no, I’m not talking about belief in Jesus. I’m talking about things like what one believes about God’s sovereignty, or hell, or women, or alcohol, etc. (as my friend, Dakota, mentions in her blog post, these things are in fact important, but should they be the means by which we judge how someone stands before God?)

I noticed that one thing most people don’t tend to look for to gauge whether someone is “in” or not is the fruit in their life. I can’t help but wonder what unity would look like if we determined where someone stands according to how much of this fruit they bear—how loving, faithful, patient, kind, peaceful, gentle, self-controlled they are, and not what their view on the book of Genesis is?

Naturally, I also think: how about Jesus? How does He tell us to identity one another? Well…

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 15:35

And then there’s grace. Does grace not apply to belief? I hear so many people say that there’s NOTHING I can do that can separate me from the love of Christ—there’s no specific thing that can get in the way of His love for me…but then these very same people tell me that I’m not “in” because of a certain thing I think differently than them. Where do we draw the line on grace? Can the adulterer be shown forgiveness for his trespass, but the “Arminian” cannot for his stance on sovereignty?

Is it doctrine vs. deeds? Fruit vs. belief?

In my conversation yesterday, my friend and I brought up unity, and Jesus’s plea for such when he prayed in the garden. This led me to wonder: does unity mean we never disagree? Does disagreement automatically mean disunity?

What must be considered when it comes to unity among a diverse and fragmented Church? Does unity mean uniformity? Does reconciliation happen only when we’re on the same page, think the same theologically, have the same culture and background?

I think we can all agree that this is impossible. I also think we may confuse unity with uniformity. When you mix slaves and masters, Jews and Gentiles, men and women, Asians and Africans, Hispanics and whites, rich and poor, you can’t help but get a beautifully diverse and broken Church with disagreements and conflicts. But even within that beautiful mess…is there a possibility that the Church can be united? I choose to believe the answer is yes. The fact of the matter is: we’re a family. And families fight from time to time. But like family, no matter what, we have each other’s back. So no, we will never be unified in our beliefs, in our culture, in our worship; but yes, we can still have unity…if we try.

So, why don’t we come to the table together and break the bread of communion? At the end of the day, saints, we’re all in need of the same grace. Now, it doesn’t mean we don’t call out abusive behavior, or stand against injustice. These are all results of the brokenness, and as much as I absolutely love the Church, I recognize her imperfections. I can’t help but think of Bonhoeffer and his wrestle with the Church he so loved. I think of his struggle with those in his “tribe” who silently stood by Hitler as he rose to power. I think about what it took for him to stand up and fight against the injustice in his beloved Church…to the point of being executed. I think of Luther, and his turmoil against the abuse in the Church during his time—his decision to fight for reform—his calling out corruption. I think about MLK Jr. and his sacrifice, his refusal to stay silent and the impact this made.

Just as previous saints did, we recognize the Church’s brokenness… and on her behalf, with arms open, we reach out and we heal. We embrace those with different beliefs among the body, and in our world, and together, we love.

Coming to the table together doesn’t always have to mean, “I stand for everything you stand for,” but it can mean, “I am broken in the way that you are broken.”

So let us agree, Church, and let us disagree; let us be united in our un-uniformity; and above all, let us love.


Postscript: Encouragement and (some) Resources

I just want to say thank you to everyone who reached out through Facebook comment, blog comment, private message and text message. You all (even two out of the three people who outspokenly disagreed with me) were so loving and encouraging...a true testament to what doing this journey together should look like.

I must say, I couldn’t help but notice one thing: many, many people (men and women) are truly struggling with this “woman issue” (which I so detest to call an “issue”). So many women reached out to me saying they are wrestling and haven’t known where to look or who to talk to. And you know what’s surprising? Even MORE men have reached out to me telling me they agree, are sorry, and want to also learn more. And so to those of you who struggle and wrestle and feel like you want to dig deeper in your knowledge of Scripture, I tell you: DON’T STOP SEARCHING. Don’t stop digging. Scripture is beautiful, insightful and divine. It is an endless treasure chest that can and should be explored and enjoyed. While it is dense and theological, it is also approachable and historical. There is so. much. to learn. And don’t let that discourage you. Oh, how exciting it is as you will never get tired or bored of discovering the beautiful truths within the pages.

My journey began with lots and lots of prayer. Most of my initial findings were legitimately found by accident—reading through commentaries and textbooks assigned to me in my classes.

Things began to get a bit more serious when I took my first Greek exegesis course and learned about 1st century Palestinian culture, specifically Jewish culture. I learned how Rabbi’s and their disciples interacted, and what the story of Mary “sitting at Jesus’s feet” while Martha did housework would have actually meant to a 1st century Jew.

In my Greek exegesis of the book of Acts I learned about nuances in the languages. I learned about patron-client relationships in the ancient world, and how that affected Paul’s relationship to Lydia when he met her in Philippi.

I learned about Junia, the apostle, mentioned by Paul in Romans 16, and how her name has even gone through the measures of being changed by certain translators, adding an “S” to the end of it to make it sound like a masculine name.

I learned the details and insights into 1st century letter writing, and what it actually meant that Paul would mention “Phoebe” first in the ending of his letter to the Romans.

I learned about Greco-Roman “household codes” and why slave-master, husband-wife and father-child relationships are always mentioned as a unit in the New Testament.

I learned about the context in Ephesus—the prominent cult-worship of the goddess, Artemis, and how this provided the background of what Paul wrote in his letter(s) to Timothy.

…and I could literally go on for pages and pages and pages. I promise to get into the details of each of these points…eventually. But for now, I want to leave you with some resources:

On Women in the Ministry of Jesus I recommend Ben Witherington's work. This was the focus of his doctoral thesis in 1980. While a hard copy of his book, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life can be quite pricey, you can find a summary of his work by clicking this link. 

Ben also has some of the most renowned socio-rhetorical commentaries on the New Testament that I HIGHLY recommend when wanting to understand context in the 1st century. They can be found for sale here. He also has done extensive research on women in the early church; his book about that can be found for purchase by clicking this link.

Kenneth Bailey is the leading expert in Middle Eastern culture concerning the New Testament right now. For a general summary of what he has to say, click here.

For information on Greco-Roman household codes, which is vital to understanding much of what's being addressed in the NT about wife and husband relationship, visit here and here.

1 Timothy info: there's SO MUCH on this that it would take an entire post, but a general understanding of Ephesus and the cult-worship of Artemis (think of the fiasco in Acts 19), you can watch this video. Witherington also goes into some contextual exegesis here

For women in Philippi click this link.

Ahhh, Junia. This is a big one. There's a whole lot out there which I will get into, but for now, you can start here.

Okay, that should be a good start. While it literally doesn't even scratch the surface, it will at least get the ball rolling. As I break things up post by post I will provide more and more resources. If you're interested in podcasts as well, let me know, as I also have great ones concerning this topic!

FYI, read these at your discretion, as many are academic writings.


My Official Breakup with Complementarian Theology

 

I listened to a sermon today.

That’s not too odd, considering it’s Sunday and I’m a regular church attendee.

But, I listened to a really, really good sermon today (which doesn’t happen every time I attend church).

The sermon was about walls—walls we build and walls we tear down. It wasn’t just about our personal walls, but social and cultural walls. Walls sometimes play a positive role, providing protection and security. Sometimes, they play a negative role, causing separation and isolation.

The sermon talked about the way walls are used for good and for evil. The Jerusalem wall in Nehemiah was referenced, as well as the mention of walls in David’s writings, and the analogy of walls in Ephesians chapter two—where the imagery speaks of a wall of hostility being broken down by Jesus. This wall is that which separated God’s people with the rest of the world, as well as the physical wall that was in the Jewish worship center separating the Gentile (non-Jewish) court from the holy place (where non-Jews were not allowed to enter).

The sermon today was informed, educated, contextually accurate, and culturally relevant.

The sermon spoke about the physical walls that were built in the ghettos of Poland where people were living in forced labor camps. It spoke of the barricade-walls that were used during Jim Crow era to separate whites and blacks. It referenced the metaphorical walls we’ve built in our own society, the “us” vs. “them” …the walls between political parties, social classes and races.

When speaking about the negative aspect of walls—the ones built in society, the preacher displayed this picture…

churchclergy.jpeg

A physical wall formed by church clergy during the terror at Charlottesville. They stood firm, hand-in-hand, forming a wall against white supremacy.

I left this sermon with tears in my eyes. I walked away with an overwhelming desire to step over boundaries I’ve unknowingly created in my world. I left broken yet encouraged, saddened yet hopeful. I walked away reminded of what God intended for his people through Jesus—that the wall of hostility would be broken down; that all would be equal; that there would be no distinction between a Jewish person and a Gentile person, a man or a woman, a slave or a freed person.

I left this sermon moved and changed. The message was one that I surely won’t forget. But more than that, tears filled my eyes because of one specific detail: this sermon was preached by a woman. A pastor. A woman pastor. And this sermon was preached at my new church in my new home in Southern California.

This might seem like a huge deal to some of you, and it may not seem like a big deal at all to others. But you see, the last ten months have been a bit overwhelming—flooded with an endless amount of praying, reading, studying, sleepless nights…and lots and lots of tears.

I’ve never considered myself a feminist. I didn’t go to the marches, I didn’t sign petitions, I didn’t repost any memes about women’s equality. I didn’t jump on the women’s-rights-train because I was a Christian—a Bible-believing, Calvinist-preaching, rightfully-submitting, conservative Christian. I belonged to the tribe of Reformed Theology. I read the right theologians, meditated on the right devotionals, listened to the right preachers. I even stuck to the ESV and the HCSB versions of Scripture. I didn’t give too much of my energy to social issues (unless it was about abortion) and I didn’t speak up against injustice, because well, I was to be set-apart from post-modernism, liberalism…culture.

I remained “unstained from the world”… until, well, until I began to feel the pangs of inequality myself.

While in my first two years of seminary, I was encouraged to study and learn and grow in my knowledge of God. I was taught that we were all given gifts by the Spirit, and that we should exercise them in obedience for the edification of the church….except, of course, if my gifting was to teach or preach or lead…because, well, I was a woman, and women can’t do that…their “role” is different.

The first church I attended during this time accused me of being “unsubmissive” because I initiated a Bible study with a group of young women. The problem was that I didn’t ask for their permission. And the pastor’s solution? Well, to speak hurtful things behind my back, of course. In the midst of this chaos, I called several other pastors and friends and asked for their opinion, wondering what in the world I did wrong. A good friend (and pastor) of mine admitted, “to be honest, Kat, you’re a woman. Some men in this context feel threatened by a woman’s initiative and leadership.”

Another time in a hermeneutics class, a well-meaning professor went off on a tangent to the class how important it was that everyone learns Greek and Hebrew, as it changes the way we read and teach Scripture. It was clear that he really was only talking to the males in the class when he finished his speech with, “and ladies…your husbands will be really impressed if you can exegete Scripture alongside them…” my heart sank as I heard this, flabbergasted that he would imply I go through the pain of learning Greek…simply to impress my husband. I nearly fell off my chair when he ended that sentence with, “right, Kat?” I was one of the outspoken students in class, not only debating theology, exegeting Scripture in Greek, and having an educated opinion alongside my male peers, but also spending just as much of my personal time studying…not to eventually lead the church, but to impress my husband, of course.

The more I spoke and shared my knowledge of Scripture, the clearer it became that my knowledge didn’t carry the same weight in a man’s world.

Thankfully, this knowledge I had gained led me to deeper study… sleepless nights digging through journals and commentaries, devouring the work of previous scholars who were experts in biblical writings and ancient culture. The more I studied Jesus’s teachings, Jewish religion, Roman and Greek culture, the more I saw that patriarchy was so clearly…wrong.

So I kept digging. I kept praying. I shed more and more tears. I became obsessed with the 1st century. I became obsessed with Greek words and their English translations. I became obsessed with, well, the Bible…and other ancient writings. The more I studied, the more I recognized the exegetical inconsistencies with fundamentalist translations and conservative interpretations…

Patriarchy.

It didn’t add up.

For so long I was blinded to it because I hadn’t stepped outside of the boundaries created by tradition. I was ignorant. I didn’t know any better. For years I sat silent and unnecessarily “submissive.”

And it didn’t just end with patriarchy…

Inequality.

Injustice.

It’s not what Jesus stood for.

“If you keep my commandments you will remain in my love. This is my commandment: love each other just as I have loved you.” (John 15)

I say this to you as someone who now understands inequality: I’m sorry. I’m sorry for my ignorance and for my silence. To my hurting and oppressed sister who has been taken advantage of, whose voice wasn’t valued because of her gender. Your voice matters. To my black brothers and sisters who fight the battle of inequality on a daily basis. Your life matters. I’m sorry to all of you who have been abused spiritually and emotionally by those who claim to represent Jesus. Sometimes, wrongfully so, right doctrine deems more important than His love.