A question to protestants

[helmut]

So, doesn't this tell you about the nature of and reality of deaconesses?

A 19th-century "invention" by Mr. and Ms. Fliedner should me tell what?

 

[Albion]

The office of deaconess dates back to the earliest days of the Christian church, to what is called "the ancient church" when the Roman Empire still existed.

 

[Strong in Him]

... and this is an ill-founded assumption, for every time the couple is mentioned, Priska is named first, which indicates she was the leading part of them. She did at least 50% of the teaching, this is was Luke (in agreemenmt with Paul) indicates between the lines.

Yes, I agree.
But folk here have still said to me, "there is no evidence that Priscilla taught, and women are not allowed to teach."
Either that, or they say "well it's o.k if Priscilla taught because her husband was with her and she was under his authority". Yet when I say, "oh, does that mean that women can preach or be ordained if they preach, or are ordained, alongside their husbands?" they are strangely quiet on the subject.

 

[~Zao~]

Yes, I agree.
But folk here have still said to me, "there is no evidence that Priscilla taught, and women are not allowed to teach."
Either that, or they say "well it's o.k if Priscilla taught because her husband was with her and she was under his authority". Yet when I say, "oh, does that mean that women can preach or be ordained if they preach, or are ordained, alongside their husbands?" they are strangely quiet on the subject.

Thats the circle that must be broken to fit into a pattern of living stones being built up together into the NJ that is cubic.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, they are deaconesses. The word you are referring to simply means a servant and can, therefore, refer to either position. They have very different functions in the church. Deaconesses, for one thing, are laypersons unlike Deacons who are ordained, can administer the sacraments, read the Gospel in worship services, and so on.

It seems from my Greek dictionary that the word for Deacon can also be translated "servant", or "minister". And my Greek interlinear NT says is the word used of Jesus when he said that he came to serve, Mark 10:45, of the Apostles in Acts 6 when they said they were not called to serve at tables, Acts of the Apostles 6:2, of Paul and others who were ministers of a New Covenant, 2 Corinthians 3:6, and given the ministry of reconciliation 2 Corinthians 5:18 - and of Phoebe, Romans 16:1; deacon of the church in Cenchrea.

There is no account of anyone, in those days, being ordained. The believers broke bread together; they didn't need an ordained person to do it.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I agree.
But folk here have still said to me, "there is no evidence that Priscilla taught, and women are not allowed to teach."
Either that, or they say "well it's o.k if Priscilla taught because her husband was with her and she was under his authority". Yet when I say, "oh, does that mean that women can preach or be ordained if they preach, or are ordained, alongside their husbands?" they are strangely quiet on the subject.

Then they--WHO CONSTITUTE A SMALL MINORITY OF THE CHRISTIANS WHO OPPOSE WOMEN'S ORDINATION--are wrong, but the historic churches and their people who make their decision for a male clergy on a different basis are not.

 

[Albion]

It seems from my Greek dictionary that the word for Deacon can also be translated "servant", or "minister".

I believe that's what I said. So it means that the word itself does not answer the question as to women in the diaconate.

There is no account of anyone, in those days, being ordained.

That's a word we use now, it's true, but the meaning applies to the early church and to the church until very recent times.

The believers broke bread together; they didn't need an ordained person to do it.

That's not true. You may be thinking of the agape meal, a common meal, which accompanied the liturgy in the early church but was not a substitute for it.

 

[helmut]

The office of deaconess dates back to the earliest days of the Christian church, to what is called "the ancient church" when the Roman Empire still existed.

Therefore, I do not understand why you said the German deconesses should teach me something "about the nature of and reality of deaconesses" ...

What I do not know: How old is "ancient church"? Certainly not as old as the NT books, for there deaconesses are not mentioned, the word "deaconess" is absent from the nT, only deacons are mentioned (and all persons known to be deacons are female).

So "deaconess" was a later (early 2nd century?) invention.

 

[helmut]

And my Greek interlinear NT says is the word used of Jesus when he said that he came to serve, Mark 10:45, of the Apostles in Acts 6 when they said they were not called to serve at tables, Acts of the Apostles 6:2, of Paul and others who were ministers of a New Covenant, 2 Corinthians 3:6, and given the ministry of reconciliation 2 Corinthians 5:18 - and of Phoebe, Romans 16:1; deacon of the church in Cenchrea.

There is no account of anyone, in those days, being ordained. The believers broke bread together; they didn't need an ordained person to do it.

In Mk 10:45; Acts 6:2; 2.Cor 3:6 the verb "serve" is used, in Acts 6:4; 2.Cor 5:18 the word "service", which are related to servant, but not identical. "Servant is used in Ro 16:1.

A complete list of occurrences of "servant" (diaconos, strongs: G1249) according to my bible program is:
Mt 20:25; 22:13; 23:11; Mk 9:35; 10:35; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Ro 13:4; 15:8; 16:1; 1.Co 3:5; 2.Co 3,6; 6.4; 11:15,23; Ga 2:17; Eph 3:7; 6:21; Ph 1:1; Col 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1.Tim 3:8,12; 4:6 (Westcott/Hort have it also in 1.Thess 3:2, but this is irrelevant in my eyes).
I hope I have not introduced a typo in the list, if there is one, a hint is welcome.

 

[Albion]

Therefore, I do not understand why you said the German deconesses should teach me something "about the nature of and reality of deaconesses" …

I didn't say anything like that.

What I do not know: How old is "ancient church"?

Roughly speaking, that would be the church until about the fall of Rome or about AD 500. If you want to speak of the first century church in particular, the term Apostolic Church could be used.

Certainly not as old as the NT books, for there deaconesses are not mentioned, the word "deaconess" is absent from the nT, only deacons are mentioned (and all persons known to be deacons are female).

Look, the church calls them deaconesses in order not to be confusing. But we know that in the early church, probably as early as the first century, women who were laywomen, not called to be what we refer to as clergy or ministers, were chosen for special purposes applying to women and children in the church--teaching, preparing females for baptism (which was then done in the nude), and so on. .

Meanwhile, the church also had male deacons who were the advisors of the bishops, performed part of the worship service up to the preparation of the communion bread (which was the role of the presbyters/priests), read the Gospel to the congregation, and when needed, performed weddings and funeral services (among other such duties).

Two types of "servants," each with different qualifications, different responsibilities, different standing in the church.

It is ridiculous to insist, as some people do, that if the word diakonos appears in the text, it must mean that every servant of the church is identical to every other servant of the church in every way.

 

[helmut]

I didn't say anything like that.

I wrote about the German deaconesses, and you wrote in post #170:

So, doesn't this tell you about the nature of and reality of deaconesses?

How else can I interpret this than as a statement the 19-th century deaconesses should tell me about the nature of and reality of deaconesses?

Look, the church calls them deaconesses in order not to be confusing. But we know that in the early church, probably as early as the first century, women who were laywomen, not called to be what we refer to as clergy or ministers, were chosen for special purposes applying to women and children in the church--teaching, preparing females for baptism (which was then done in the nude), and so on. .

It is a guess that the situation (in this respect) in the 1st century was the same as in the 2nd century. We know that notable changes happened around 100, so we cannot just extrapolate 2nd century uses into the 1st century.

Meanwhile, the church also had male deacons

... and female ones, like Phoebe.

who were the advisors of the bishops, performed part of the worship service up to the preparation of the communion bread (which was the role of the presbyters/priests), read the Gospel to the congregation, and when needed, performed weddings and funeral services (among other such duties).

Again, this sounds like 2nd century, not like NT times.

It is ridiculous to insist, as some people do, that if the word diakonos appears in the text, it must mean that every servant of the church is identical to every other servant of the church in every way.

Of course not, Phoebe was most likely not the same type of diakonos as Stephen. But she is called diakonos, not diakone (deaconess).

 

[Albion]

Of course not, Phoebe was most likely not the same type of diakonos as Stephen. But she is called diakonos, not diakone (deaconess).

Yes, yes, this has all been explained already. The word is a general term, like "army." In no way does it mean that everyone covered by the term is identical in every way to every other one.

So it is that we know from history as well as Scripture that males who were "servants" (the root meaning of the word deacon) had certain functions while women whom we customarily distinguish by calling them deaconesses did quite different ones and were not considered ordained as the males were.

 

[helmut]

So it is that we know from history as well as Scripture that males who were "servants" (the root meaning of the word deacon) had certain functions while women whom we customarily distinguish by calling them deaconesses did quite different ones and were not considered ordained as the males were.

We know from history, that there were changes, some of them connected to diminishing the role of women in the church. So we should be cautious not to read 2nd century or later evidence into the NT.
Scripture does not teach that there were ordained male deacons and no ordained female deacons. We have the ordained deacons in Acts 6, who were also representatives of the Hellenists and much more than just "helpers" (Stephen did much evangelizing!).

Phoebe carried a "letter of recommendation", which Paul expanded to a lengthy letter since there were quite a lot issues he wanted to tell the Romans. They way she is introduced suggests she was ordained. If she wasn't, what evidence do we have to call other deacons in NT as "ordained"?

There were female apostles in NT times, and you say there were no female deacons? Hard to believe.

 

[Albion]

We know from history, that there were changes, some of them connected to diminishing the role of women in the church. So we should be cautious not to read 2nd century or later evidence into the NT.

It looks like you are intent upon reading 20th century social norms into first century history and scripture, however.

There is no evidence from either that women functioned as you want to believe, although there is plenty from both sources that supports the opposite conclusion. And that is really the sum total of all that this is about. Either a questioner accepts the evidence as he would in the case of other doctrinal controversies or else he supposes that the evidence, including what we say is the word of God, must be defective in some way.

 

[helmut]

It looks like you are intent upon reading 20th century social norms into first century history and scripture, however.

You cannot deny that there were female Apostles in the NT, Rom 16:7. From somewhat later times, there is evidence from female presbyteroi (yes, even there often the male form was used to describe the office of a female holder). And the most natural reading of 1.Tim 3:11 says that there were female deacons (same office as 1.Tim 3:8-10).

This is evidence, I don't have to read anything into the sources. You interpret 1.Tim 3:11 in an special way, and you read the (often polemical) meaning of church fathers into NT times.

There is also an article from a catholic background:
Early women leaders: from heads of house churches to presbyters

Let me quote:

There is abundant literary and inscriptional evidence of female deacons. Their title is "deacon" or "deaconess," seemingly interchangeably. The early third-century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum compares the bishop to God, the male deacon to Christ, and the female deacon to the Holy Spirit. The presbyters are likened only to the apostles; their role is still not clear

From these years come several conciliar and episcopal condemnations of women presbyters (for example, Council of Nîmes, In ministerium leviticum, canon 2; the Council of Laodicea, presbytides, canon 11; Letter 14 of Pope Gelasius, ministrare sacris altaribus; Fulgentius of Carthage, presbyterae). It is highly unlikely that so many condemnations would appear about a nonexistent practice.

This is clearly not the picture you draw from early times.

 

[Albion]

Phoebe carried a "letter of recommendation", which Paul expanded to a lengthy letter since there were quite a lot issues he wanted to tell the Romans.

Sure. Carried a letter.

It is certainly true that women played important roles in the new church. If being in positions of "leadership" is the issue, women should be there. In most churches today in which the clergy are males, women still serve on boards of control, act as readers or communion servers...just about anything BUT as ordained ministers.

The way she is introduced suggests she was ordained.

No, it doesn't . It suggests that she was a respected messenger doing an important task, having been appointed to it by someone in authority.

If she wasn't, what evidence do we have to call other deacons in NT as "ordained"?

First, "ordained" is our word; called or something else like that would be more in keeping with the Scriptural language. But the NT gives us the qualifications for being made a deacon...and/or a bishop. A number of men (but no women) are identified as holding positions and doing the work of what we call clergy. The history as well as the scripture answers the question.

There were female apostles in NT times, and you say there were no female deacons? Hard to believe.

As "deacon" is derived from the word "servant" which is not gender specific, so also with "apostle," meaning a representative. But when we use it, we customarily are using it to refer to The Twelve whom Christ called to be the leaders of his church. In their case, the word is normally capitalized (Apostle). If we find it uncapitalized, as in the case you refer to, it is being used in the non-specific way to indicate a messenger or perhaps a convenor of a church group, neither of which necessarily refers to a pastor, etc.

What is an apostle? | GotQuestions.org

 

[helmut]

It is certainly true that women played important roles in the new church. If being in positions of "leadership" is the issue, women should be there. In most churches today in which the clergy are males, women still serve on boards of control, act as readers or communion servers...just about anything BUT as ordained ministers.

You lost me. How on earth a person can be set up as leading in a church without being ordained?

First, "ordained" is our word; called or something else like that would be more in keeping with the Scriptural language.

No, "called" refers to God who calls a person to a service, while "ordained" refers to an act of men: Appoint someone to a service (which should, of course, be done in accordance to the will of God), see Acts 14:23, where leaders, i.e. presbuteroi, were appointed. And from other verses in the Bible we know that such an appointment was accompanied with prayers and laying hands on them.

And now you want to tell me, that a person that leads the church can be chosen at random, and not appointed according to God's will? Or that such a person has no need of prayers (Satan specially attacks leaders, spiritually and physically, they need more prayer than ordinary Christians!) an can be set into office without prayer and blessing them?

I get the impression that not only the word, bit also your notion of "ordination" is alien to the NT. Every important service (leading. preaching, teaching children etc.) should be appointed with ordination, only minor tasks (e.g. distributing the song books in a mess, or the helper who does the actual act of baptizing, if this is not done by the pastor himself) may be given without ordination.

But the NT gives us the qualifications for being made a deacon...and/or a bishop. A number of men (but no women) are identified as holding positions and doing the work of what we call clergy. The history as well as the scripture answers the question.

No women?

What about Junia (Rom 16:7)? What about Ammion, Epikto, and Artemidora, who were presbyter according to their tombstones? Or Kale, Leta, and Vitalia, also presbyter or "priests" in the Latin church?

And can you name a single male deacon from the NT? There is only a female one, or did I miss anything?

It was in later times that women were driven out, e.g. in the canons of the Laodicea synod. Women priests or the churches that had them, were accused of links to Montanism, and this was parallel to the establishment of a clergy that rested on titles rather than services held by those called by God.

As "deacon" is derived from the word "servant" which is not gender specific, so also with "apostle," meaning a representative. But when we use it, we customarily are using it to refer to The Twelve whom Christ called to be the leaders of his church.

We also use it for Paul, and Junia & her husband are Apostles like him. The have the service Paul speaks about in his lists of services: apostles, prophets, teachers etc.

In their case, the word is normally capitalized (Apostle). If we find it uncapitalized

Since ancient Greek had no difference of capital vs. minuscule (these were just the old and the later style of letters, the change between them was in the 8th century), so your capitalization is an interpretation of editors, nothing you can use as argument.

 

[Albion]

Either that, or they say "well it's o.k if Priscilla taught because her husband was with her and she was under his authority". Yet when I say, "oh, does that mean that women can preach or be ordained if they preach, or are ordained, alongside their husbands?" they are strangely quiet on the subject.

You are dealing only with a fairly narrow set of Christians who think women should be submissive, silent, or something of the sort. But if we reject that thinking, it STILL doesn't mean that Scripture or the history of the first Christian churches allows for women pastors, what we call today "women's ordination."

A much larger group of Christian churches rejects the "women in submission" line of thought, and does have women in various positions of leadership in the church, but does not ordain women to pastoral positions.

 

[Albion]

You lost me. How on earth a person can be set up as leading in a church without being ordained?

head of or member of the church's governing board, Sunday School superintendent, lay minister, and so on. These are examples of positions in the church which clearly count as leadership but not as the pastor, etc.

No, "called" refers to God who calls a person to a service, while "ordained" refers to an act of men

Ordained is just the act. But when we say "called" we do not mean that the person wanting to be a pastor simply has to show up and claim that they felt a call from God. The church has to issue the call. That is evident in Scripture. It's a function of the "priesthood of all believers" that people refer to often. It doesn't mean that every one of us is a pastor/minister/priest, but that the authority resides in the congregation or classis, etc. which then delegates it to the individual.

 

[Strong in Him]

You are dealing only with a fairly narrow set of Christians who think women should be submissive, silent, or something of the sort. But if we reject that thinking, it STILL doesn't mean that Scripture or the history of the first Christian churches allows for women pastors, what we call today "women's ordination."

Even if women were NOT deacons, or overseers, in the early church, because they were used to a male society, that doesn't mean that God can't, and won't, call them to ordination today.

We do, use and practice many things that were not done, or used, by the early church - like computers, av systems, electric organs, Sunday School and so on. If you're going to use the argument of "we can only do what the early church did", you'd have to drop all these things for a start; where do you see any of these in Scripture, or in use by the early church?
Then there is ordination itself which is not mentioned. Also the wearing of dog collars and, something that I find almost all churches practice; only allowing an ordained Minister to preside at communion.
Where is it written that Jesus said, "do this in memory of me - after you've spent 3 years at Bible college, 1 year as a deacon and then been ordained"? The early church broke bread daily, Acts of the Apostles 2:42; that's all that we are told. Not that Peter, or one of the 12, presided each time because Jesus had slipped them a supply of dog collars. When Paul criticised the Corinthian church over their practice of the Lord's supper, he did NOT say "for this I do not commend you; you do not wait for one of the 12 to be present before you celebrate." In fact, there, and at the Last Supper, they took bread and wine within the context of a meal. No one did what churches today do - call people to queue up at a rail where they are given a wafer/small bit of bread and a sip from a chalice/thimbleful of wine.
So if you are going to condemn women's ordination because you do not see it practised in Scripture or early church history; they, to be consistent, you also have to condemn the use of computers/technology, having Sunday school classes for the kids, the way Holy Communion is practised - and probably a umber of other things too.

A much larger group of Christian churches rejects the "women in submission" line of thought, and does have women in various positions of leadership in the church, but does not ordain women to pastoral positions.

And many churches ordain women on the grounds that a) it is not forbidden in Scripture, (unless you believe they are being wilfully disobedient) and b) there's no reason why the Lord can''t call whoever he wants to do his work in his church.

This is an issue where you can go to wherever your conscience/reading of Scripture leads you to go; it is not a matter that affects salvation, and we'll see people on both "sides" in heaven.