Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Public Statement on Orthodox Deaconesses by Concerned Clergy and Laity
American Orthodox Institute ^ | January 18, 2018 | FR. JOHANNES JACOBSE

Posted on 01/18/2018 9:26:34 AM PST by Carpe Cerevisi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2018 9:26:34 AM PST by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

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


2 posted on 01/18/2018 9:31:33 AM PST by pgkdan (The Silent Majority STILL Stands With TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
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.

3 posted on 01/18/2018 9:41:22 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (From the malice of evildoers, defend us, O Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

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


4 posted on 01/18/2018 9:45:49 AM PST by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

“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.


5 posted on 01/18/2018 9:49:35 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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

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


6 posted on 01/18/2018 9:49:37 AM PST by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LouieFisk

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.


7 posted on 01/18/2018 9:53:26 AM PST by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paulie
"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?

8 posted on 01/18/2018 10:06:41 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

Don’t go there trust me

Keep your traditions

Study camels and noses and tents


9 posted on 01/18/2018 10:08:46 AM PST by wardaddy (As a southerner I've never trusted the Grand Old Party.....any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouieFisk

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.


10 posted on 01/18/2018 10:10:55 AM PST by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LouieFisk

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.


11 posted on 01/18/2018 10:20:12 AM PST by pgkdan (The Silent Majority STILL Stands With TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paulie

“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.


12 posted on 01/18/2018 10:30:04 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LouieFisk

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.


13 posted on 01/18/2018 10:37:47 AM PST by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
"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.
14 posted on 01/18/2018 10:39:44 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paulie

“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.


15 posted on 01/18/2018 10:43:34 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

“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


16 posted on 01/18/2018 10:46:15 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LouieFisk

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.


17 posted on 01/18/2018 10:46:21 AM PST by pgkdan (The Silent Majority STILL Stands With TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

“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.


18 posted on 01/18/2018 11:00:34 AM PST by LouieFisk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan; LouieFisk

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.


19 posted on 01/18/2018 1:42:11 PM PST by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LouieFisk

“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”.


20 posted on 01/18/2018 1:47:29 PM PST by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson