Public Statement on Orthodox Deaconesses by Concerned Clergy and Laity

American Orthodox Institute ^ | January 18, 2018 | FR. JOHANNES JACOBSE

[Carpe Cerevisi]

WASHINGTON — Fifty-seven Orthodox Christian clergymen and lay leaders, including the heads of two leading Orthodox seminaries in the U.S., have issued a public statement calling on church leaders to defend Orthodox teaching on the creation and calling of man as male and female by opposing the appointment of deaconesses in the Orthodox Church.

The statement comes in response to a public statement issued in October by nine Orthodox liturgical scholars in the U.S. and Greece, expressing support for the Patriarchate of Alexandria’s November 2016 decision to “restore” the ancient order of deaconesses and its February 2017 appointment of deaconesses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Roman Catholic Church has also taken the first step toward the appointment of deaconesses with Pope Francis’s 2016 establishment of a commission to study the issue. That commission is headed by Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Half of the commission’s members are women. One of them, Phyllis Zagano, professor of religion at Hofstra University, is a well-known advocate of deaconesses.

Several Protestant churches, including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians, began appointing women as deaconesses in the nineteenth century. Most have since ordained women to all higher orders such as priest and bishop.

The statement by the Orthodox opponents of deaconesses takes issue with the liturgists’ representation of the place of deaconesses in Orthodox tradition and raises serious doctrinal issues relating to the appointment of deaconesses. It also questions whether Alexandria’s appointment of deaconess in the Congo revived an ancient order or instituted a new order with an old name.

[pgkdan]

I wonder what Paul would have to say about the “ancient” order of deaconesses.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Somebody needs to jump in here who knows more than I do, but as I've heard it, even when diakonos was used in old texts with a female reference it meant either the wife of a diakonos (deacon, male) or the equivalent of a catechist who taught, counseled and baptized women and children, i.e. not an ordained clerical role.

As I've heard it said.

[Carpe Cerevisi]

Not sure...but the statement itself is interesting and gives some good historical background on deaconesses and their roles .

[LouieFisk]

“I wonder what Paul would have to say about the “ancient” order of deaconesses.”
—
Actually, he did peak about them - Phoebe in particular - Romans chapter 16 verses 1-2.

[Paulie]

First, I very likely do not know more than you do.

That said, I’m pretty sure you are correct.

[Paulie]

Actually, he did peak about them - Phoebe in particular - Romans chapter 16 verses 1-2.”

But I don’t think it was in the context you are hoping for.

Incidentally, just because something is ‘in the Bible’ does not in itself mean that it is acceptable or pleasing to God.

The devil tempting Jesus is recorded in Scripture, but no one can say we should therefore temp the Lord our God.

[LouieFisk]

"Incidentally, just because something is ‘in the Bible’ does not in itself mean that it is acceptable or pleasing to God. The devil tempting Jesus is recorded in Scripture"

--
Huh, Paul wrote "Satanic Verses" just like Mohammed did - who knew?

[wardaddy]

Don’t go there trust me

Keep your traditions

Study camels and noses and tents

[Paulie]

In other words, wisenheimer, you need to think a little more deeply and encompass other parts of Paul’s Epistles before drawing conclusions.

But nice try.

[pgkdan]

Nope. The scripture you reference only refers to her as a ‘servant’. Paul specifically states in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 the requirements for a deacon. Among other things a deacon must be the husband of one wife. That means male deacons only. No deaconesses.

[LouieFisk]

“you need to think a little more deeply and encompass other parts of Paul’s Epistles”
—
I know I’m certainly open to seeing where Paul disowns or refutes any part of the book of Romans.

“before drawing conclusions.”
—
The only conclusion I’ve drawn here is that Paul did have the office of deaconess to write about in his day and I even cited one by her by name, giving a specific bible passage for a source. So it’s more of an objectively observable fact than a conclusion. I merely pointed out the fact.

If you can cite any other conclusion I offered, I’m also open to reading that.

[Paulie]

And I am just pointing out that just because something is referred to once needs to be taken into context of other letters and the Bible at large.

You appear to be trying to mislead readers with incomplete information. Just counteracting that.

I know about certain evangelists who cherry pick Scripture to lead their ‘flock’ astray. Hope you are not one of them.

[LouieFisk]

"Nope. The scripture you reference only refers to her as a ‘servant’."
--

Did Paul write his epistles in English? The term is diakonos - διάκονος in Greek script - it's the same word Paul used for both male and female deacons.

[LouieFisk]

“You appear to be trying to mislead readers with incomplete information.”
—
Nope, I don’t hold others in such low esteem as to assume they can’t think and research for themselves, especially in this day and “information” age.
As I sez, I was just pointing out a patently obvious fact that a female deacon certainly wasn’t an unknown concept to Paul.

[LouieFisk]

“The scripture you reference only refers to her as a ‘servant’.”
—
I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but this from Strong’s Concordance might be of interest.
http://biblehub.com/greek/1249.htm

[pgkdan]

Paul makes it very clear in 1 Timothy that deacons are to be men. He’s also clear about the role women play in church in 1 Cor 14:34.

[LouieFisk]

“Paul makes it very clear in 1 Timothy that deacons are to be men.”
—
So you got Paul v. Paul - commending a woman as deacon in Romans and, in your view, denouncing the very idea of such a thing elsewhere.

But, at any rate, when it’s all said and done, whatever a denomination wants to go with is the bottom line (for them).

It’s as it is with the question of clergy and marriage - Catholics forbid their ministers to marry while another denomination might be wary of appointing a minister who’s not married.

And both sides of that coin could justify their druthers on the topic by using Scripture.

[Paulie]

pgkdan wrote: “Paul makes it very clear in 1 Timothy that deacons are to be men. He’s also clear about the role women play in church in 1 Cor 14:34.”

Sorry Louie, gonna have to agree with this.

In addition Paul mentioned the women as helpers of the Church, as in when females were baptized. NOT part of the Holy Order.

[Paulie]

“Nope, I don’t hold others in such low esteem as to assume they can’t think and research for themselves, especially in this day and “information” age.”

In all due respect, you need to get out more.

It’s not that people ‘can’t’ think for themselves, it’s that they simply will not. Multitudes permit the gossiping neighbors and the newspapers to do their thinking for them. Simple observation of the world should tell you that.

As Mark Twain once asked: “What’s the hardest job in the world?”.
Answer: “Thinking. That’s why so few people do it”.