A husband of one wife...

Thank you,
Yes, Phoebe a deaconess, though some may disagree if she was, I do not.
I believe phoebe was a deaconess, and I believe that this affirms my conclusion.
The criterion for deacons is presented as male, here is a female deacon(ess)
Ergo the criteria is not a binding criterion.

Which is what I am saying, there are deacons and elders at my congregation who are single.
I believe this is not fulfillig the mandate to marry,
but if we are making an exception for that why not have women elders and deacons?
(Why not have polygamists?)

In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity. - Augustine
Remember I am asserting that this is what it was,
I am applying that this is what it means.

What is the cultural context into which Paul wrote these instructions? Your previous answers have been either incorrect or inadequate.

Why don't you tell me because, I am not sure were in the same wavelength.
And I think my answer will still be:

"Words no longer have meaning..." Antonin Scalia
"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter1:21
Even if Paul intended to say, "husband of but one wife" that is not what he said. The inspiration is not relevant to Paul's intent.

What is Cultural Context? - Vocab Dictionary

I will readily admit that Paul uses innuendo sometimes, but unless you are going to apply cultural context to every item of criteria, it does not work here. For example, I know I can drink more than the average person, and that is not a boast, but for me three beers are like drinking water, some other people it is like a keg, when we say not given to drunkenness, which should we apply?
There is a relativity present, not total relativity, but some.

Because, generally speaking,
Deacons are not doing the jobs they should be doing. I've run into few who actually do the job for which they were voted in or assigned to do.

Which is to regularly meet the people and famies and nurture them, advise them, and get all involved in their daily lives as a friend.

And as such they are to be a positive influence on these people. A person who is single and without children cannot advise those how to deal with stubborn children. The advice is worthless. Also their advice for those of us who are married on how to settle disagreements with our wives....also worthless.

You have to live a life "successfully" as well as a bit unsuccessfully to learn how to advise people in EVERY walk of life.

And if your children are true brats....well....then your advice on kids probably is not ever going to be right....proof is in your kids. Same with a hostile wife.

This is what Paul is trying to describe for Timothy and Titus and living out in his personal choices. Phoebe was just such a choice. She most definitely was a deaconess....but a widowed one who was wealthy and childless. (Church met at her house in the suburbs regularly) She was available, moral, and upright in most ways as well as theologically astute. Which is why Paul used her as the standard bearer to the Romans. She knew what was what and lived a rich life reflective of her faith.

Now tell me I'm wrong and how I'm wrong.

So...
Today we have "accountability partners" instead of deacons. It's the same stupid thing....no different in function than a deacon. But with a different title and no voting or class distinction. (As if there ever was to be one)
The major difference between when Paul, Timothy and Titus was alive and today is theological knowledge of the congregation. Today most people attending church know more theology today than then. What was generally accepted behavior then is inexcusable today. And Deacons were there to help bring Christian families up to speed.

Just saying....

That's following the Spirit of the instruction and not the letter. And we take liberties with the gnats but swallow the whole gnat infested camel all at the same time.

I don't see this working out well in the future.

I reject your claim of being “thorough”. People who are thorough in their research don’t ask others to supply answers. I have learned that in this realm, when you tell someone something, they won’t accept it. They have to find out for themselves.

Also, I don’t see how Peter’s statement is relevant here.

Find out what was happening in Ephesus and Crete in terms of religion, culture, and economy. These things have a direct impact on the interpretation of Paul’s instructions.

I have a similar gene which allows me to drink a LOT of adult beverages or caffeine.. a lot more than I should.

They condemn the alcohol vocally but cluck their tongue at the caffeine.

But....

Still don't drink much. It has been a New Years resolution to drink more that I've failed at for the past several years.

THere's hope for next year to do better.

Forgive me, but I am not seeing where we differ? I am that Titus and first Timothy mandate and officer to be married. No church applies this even orthodox tradition, that requires they be married at one time, allow widowers and I think divorcees. This is because such a command is very problematic in applying to the church then and now. Since we are interpreting that part liberally by implementation we should hold each part to that looseness. Which would allow women deacons but would also allow polygamists.

Is what is happening in Ephesus and Crete, recorded in the Scripture? Truly, answer me?

Ummm....not me personally,
But some churches take the "one wife" thingy to the divorced and remarried group. They do not allow divorcees to be deacons.

Today, single parent families are the largest demographic in America.

Maybe the churches should reflect the culture more in this regard and the Spirit of the suggestion instead of the letter. And then assign the deacons accordingly.

Just a thought.

I thought "Cretans are always lazy brutes".

Am I wrong?

I think we can agree that the scripture can say something, mean different, and be applied differently.

For instance, the scripture commands, anyone who murders should be put to death, Saul murdered Christians, came to the faith, and was received by the church as an apostle, I think the letter of the law argument could be made that Paul should be executed for Saul's sin, but in the application of this circumstance, I think we would all agree, the church did the correct thing by show him mercy when they could implement justice.

Saying this is a rule/mandate is not saying there should not be taken into account other factors.

No, you are not wrong.

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

But I fail to see your point?

"If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination." Titus 1:6

I am saying that this verse says this, if anyone is above reproach, [is] the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

We are not going to allow polygamists today to be deacons.

One, it's illegal activity.

Two, the reason why the Law of Moses had polygamy was for the welfare of the women and to grow their families larger and grow the population.

(A case for legalized polygamy today with our declining populations is not a bad idea candidate for making it legal again. )

Third reason is perception. Nobody engages in the practice in America. Well, there's a few Mormons and Muslims that do....but it's underground. It is definitely not mainstream.

Fourth reason is that Paul explains why polygamists cannot be deacons. Cody Brown demonstrated on documentary television that his three or four wives kept him so busy he did not have time to be a church deacon and go visiting families. He barely had time to know all his children. (He really didn't)
Today three of his former wives (both sisters included) have divorced Cody and the only one left is the young wife Robin.

The kids?
Not really mentioned much in any of the updates. I don't know if any of them have a relationship with Cody.

I'm not saying that this one family speaks for all polygamists....but just the most obvious fact that Cody was always wayyyy too busy to be a deacon.

It was something of a joke. Titus being stationed in Crete....marriage was the least of his worries.
And Timothy as well as Titus were not married. Neither was Luke.

You do not have to be married to be an accountability partner....but it helps.

You can have women as an accountability partner....if you are a woman. Or a single if you are single.

At this point I am going to start another conversation thread addressing biblical grounds for polygamy.
But yet again, I am not arguing polygamy here just that Paul in Titus and 1 timothy presents and mandate to marry,
I am saying that it says, "an overseer must be above, reproach, [must be] the husband of one wife, [must be] respectable.
What mainstream Christianity is doing is saying that "an overseer...must be the husband of one wife" means that "He must not be a polygamist." Which is not what it says because there are qualities presented in the text that say "not"
For instance, " An overseer must not [be] given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money."
If the text said, "Must not have more than one wife" the debate would be over, but it says, "An overseer...must be the husband of one wife."

Well first id have to ask what you mean by “ amendable criteria “ ?

Where is "accountability partner" mentioned in the scripture? Again "An overseer must be... the husband of one wife."
Let's stay on track, does the scripture say this?

R
Ready for a curveball question?
What is the only criteria Christ presents as grounds for divorce?