The Case for Women Deacons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- In this video, I lay out a case for why women ought to be ordained to the diaconate *as a holy order*. I reiterate some of the points I've made on my blog. Here are some relevant links below!:
My blog: thinkinghistho...
And the journal article I reference: drive.google.c...
My patreon: / anglicanaesthetics
Excellent video! You touched a little bit toward the end about women as prophets; I wonder what bearing passages like acts chapter 2, and first Corinthians chapter 11 may have upon the question of women speaking or teaching to a mixed congregation. I was surprised when I first discovered reading through the canons of the council of Nicea that there were deaconesses in the early church, who were commissioned or ordained by the laying on of hands of the bishop, just like male deacons. That was enough to push me toward reading romans and first Timothy with female deacons in mind. What book were you using as a source on deacons in the byzantine church? There were some technical issues with the video, and I think some things may have been cut out…
This was a good video. Thank you! I am left with a question though. It seems that women being ordained to the sacramental diaconate (I agree with that) in church history found its impetus in the practicality of avoiding impropriety. For instance, if women and men were still baptized naked today, it would be appropriate for women deacons to baptize women. If it was thought to be a scandal today for a man to visit a woman at her home, then there would be good reason to have a woman deacon take the Eucharist or catechize women in their homes. In other words, the function of the legitimate and equal ordination of women to the diaconate seemed to be for genuine, sacramentalized ministry of women to women. One result would be that women in the early church would not have to wonder if they were getting "the real thing" as bishops truly did lay hands on women for sacramental ministry. In some parts of the world today this could certainly obtain and be appropriate. But in western culture today where men and women can gather together (with caveats) and when people are no longer baptized naked, is a female diaconate necessary? Have you considered this? I think it could be a worthy topic. As a priest in the ACNA, I have taken the Eucharist to shut-in women. I have baptized both girls and women. I have catechized women. All of this without any sense of impropriety because of changes in culture (i.e., men and women can mingle together, again, with caveats) and baptismal custom. If we both affirm that women even today cannot be ordained to the presbytery or the bishopric or (at least in my view) teach or have authority over men in the public worship, where is the necessity today, at least, again, in western culture for women deacons? Thanks again for your insightful discussion.
Father, this seems to assume that a deacon’s primary role is in performing baptisms and bringing the Eucharist to shut-ins. But, if that were the case, it would seem that the diaconate as whole, not just with regard to women, has become obsolete, since it is typically priests who do both. It seems to me that the Scripture (Acts 6) presents deacons as primarily those who minister to the physical needs of Christians; their sacramental roles flow from this. There are still many contexts, even today, where caring for the physical needs of a parishioner might be more appropriately done by a woman than a man (when dealing with abused women, for instance), so I think that women deacons are still needed, and perhaps even more so today, with so many scandals surrounding male clergy coming to light.
What you say is true. The Church needs to retrieve a robust understanding and practice of the diaconate. One of my concerns is that a deacon's role is limited to the liturgy and liturgical acts. I do not take issue with such roles, but St. Stephen seems to have done more than that (as well as deacons - men and women - throughout the early Church). It is precisely in the liturgical functions that the caveat and distinction is needed. Though receiving the charism with the laying on of hands, there are still some things that a woman deacon cannot do in the liturgy based on Scripture and tradition: e.g., celebrate the Eucharist at the altar, teach or have authority over men.@@landonhaire3903
@@anglicanwayTbf, a male deacon can't preside at the Eucharist either. In as much as they are not occupying the office of authoritative teaching in the church (presbter-bishops), I fail to see an issue with a woman serving in an assisting office (reading gospel, baptizing, maternally guiding/teaching the laity in one way or another -- being the minister of mercy and advocating for the community), either? But perhaps we need to go more in depth into what exactly is forbidden in women "having authority over a man", I personally see it as quite a narrow rather than a broad prohibition.
But that takes us beyond this topic.
In some parts of the Anglican Communion, there are the order of deaconesses, in others, there are deacons who don't become priests, meaning they aren't transitional. These include men and women. They are to help the poor, the sick, and the needy, just like the deaconesses would, but they can also fulfill a liturgical role--proclaiming the gospel, setting the table, and leading the dismissal.
It seems like this would challenge Lutheran and similar views of the ministry. If deacon, presbyter, and bishop are all within the same single ordained office, then we couldn't limit women to just one of them.
Crucially, my argument is not that they are all part of one ordained office. There's a threefold ministry, and male and female deacons are within the single office of the diaconate. But I think the evidence from Scripture and tradition for a male only presbytery is clear and decisive
Bravo! This is excellent. I was trying to work out whether deaconesses were clerical.
Though thinking about it, even today, women in, for example, women shelters could be greatly assisted by women deacons.
And to avoid the appearance of impropriety in pastoral counseling or visitation, especially in this day of accusations, litigations, and real sin in that area by pastors.
Im just here to tell you that you’re wrong on this issue, and i am right, and im not gonna watch the video. Haha just kidding, looking forward to this, all your stuff is great.
The transitional diaconate vs the permanent diaconate, as well as liturgical versus non-liturgical diaconate, makes all of this so very complicated. I agree with you, however, that it isn't an obviously settled matter by either scripture or tradition.
Great presentation. Could women deacons preach to mixed congregations in the early church ?
Not to my knowledge, no. Preaching to mixed congregations was an activity of priests
^^or male deacons who may be ordained
"A deaconess does not bless, *nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons*, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency" (Apostolic Constitutions, 8.28).
But in the Hagia Sophia and Didascalia they even instructed women.
So I'm certainly not claiming that the evidence is uniform. However, im also pushing back on the idea that women deacons were unilaterally understood as a lay order by the orthodox. It was not. Thus, we need Scripture to adjudicate which parts of the tradition to sanction--and in Scripture we find contexts where women are teaching men (like Priscilla or Deborah) and no claim is made that they did so because there were no men around. The tradition shows that my reading isn't some brand new novelty that has zero precedent.
@@anglicanaesthetics You rely on the Apostolic Constitutions for your conclusion (as stated in your blog) that "there is no justification for excluding women from the diaconate as a sacred order." You argue that deaconesses (or female deacons, as you say, implying that there was no significant ministerial distinction between them) were ordained by the laying on of hands for the ministry of word and sacrament. But this is a poor representation of the data from the AC, for the above quotation alone (deaconesses do not "perform anything belonging to the office of ... deacons"). If you were to read the text in its entirety, you'd see that all over the place bishops, presbyters, and deacons are listed as an integral unit, distinct from the other offices (including deaconesses). See, for instance, the canons on this. Also, consider the fact that there are different prayers of ordination for the distinct offices of deacon and deaconess. They are not one and same office, inflected in a masculine or feminine mode. Or consider that in 8.28 deaconesses are called "ministers to the deacons," which obviously indicates that they are not possessors of the same office (in that same section, deacons are said to minister "to the priests").
All this to say, it is clear to me that you have not read the text closely. It seems likely, in fact, that you got your quotations from a pro-WO book or website, because you're too smart to have missed this stuff if you had actually read the AC for yourself.
unfortunately female deacons as a "holy order" always leads to the slippery slope of liberalism. now it may take 200 years, but it always happens. in every denom. i don't know of a denom where this has not happened. its always a matter of time. it occurs faster in some denominations than others. in anglicanism broadly it took about 70 years from ordaining deacons to female priests, and now there are calls and have already been ordinations of female bishops, many such cases in Methodism, reformed, and presbyterian churches. the outlier being baptist churches, but baptist churches don't have holy orders, and are not consistent within themselves theologically so this is not surprising.
See my video. That's just historically incorrect and is the entire point of the video. We had women deacons as a church for the first 1000 years of church history.
not quite. we have had deaconesses as in women who lit "served" in the church. which seems in some parts to have been necessitated by certain historical conditions e.g womens modesty in baptism etc. BUT that is not the same as a Female Deacon. ie a holy order. that is what I dispute. and that is what your video is arguing for is it not? not merely women who help baptise other women or senior nuns in an abbey but women who participate in the apostolic holy orders?? what are holy orders if not liked unto a sacrament as the xxxix articles mention if not wholly a sacrament as the catholic and orthodox teach. if you arent arguing for women to be included in holy orders, then your subtitle is misleading
you need to clarify the difference between "female deacon" and "deaconess" as they are understood differently and the matter is of course part of the debate in the church today hence your video. @@anglicanaesthetics
@@HenryLeslieGraham That shows me you haven't watched it. I specifically present historical evidence that women were actually in holy orders (as deacons). That isn't a minority position in scholarship either.
@@anglicanaesthetics no your response shows me that then you have not understood my complaint or question.
ok brother ive gone over all the sections of this video wherein you cite evidence for "female deacons" being a holy order - bearing in mind that I (and most in orthodoxy and catholicism - though this isn't an argument from authority but rather an argument saying that some interpret the issue different - believe there to be a difference between deaconess and female deacon) distinguish between deaconess and female deacon as it pertains to holy orders. given the evolving understanding of the role and purpose of deacon. IF you wish to argue to for a return to the ancient understanding of the role of deacon (for me) then I am content for there to be deaconesses in the church, however if the present understanding of deacons (as a part of the tripartite deacons priests and bishops (incl archbishops and archdeacons etc), is to be upheld than I can in no wise see how a woman can be ordained to THAT DIACONATE.
the issue is not one of DATA, for the data say clearly that deaconesses existed, the question is were these deaconesses the same as the evolving male deacon, and can there be a female equivalent to the modern deacon in churches which seek to uphold traditional views of sex and hierarchy. the issue of what is or isn't a deacon has not been teased out adequately hence the confusion between your comments to my previous posts, and my own scepticism of the views you have expressed here. I understand deacon today, to be a different sort from the deacon of the apostolic age, and therefore cannot accept the idea of a female occupying that kind of position.
we can play a backwards and forwards war of quote citations, to which I can offer the following amongst others:
Council of Nicaea I
“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
(Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).“It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess”
The Apostolic Constitutions
(Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400])“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women”
remembering that the role of bishop itself evolved from being a synonym for elder, to being a separate role from elder entirely. which is fine, since our understanding and view of church offices can evolve and change. the question is, can one in good faith cite examples from the apostolic age and early church fathers as examples of a female deacon in the modern sense.
let's therefore agree to work on figuring out what is meant by Deacon (early) vs Deacon (post patristic period). The role of a deacon in my Anglican denom is of a precursor to the priesthood, i.e. we do not have diaconates in our church, but deacons are those ministers (priests) in their trial period who are later appointed as priests a year or so later. my whole denom is one giant diocese, and deacons are in most respects junior priests, who can perform the sacraments. therefore, under this understanding of deacon which seems to be shared by some within catholicism and orthodoxy (though also in ways quite different from my own) a woman cannot become a deacon, since almost no men are permanently appointed to the diaconate and are quickly appointed priests.
in the catholic church and orthodox church deacons also seem to have a quasi priestly role, which would not be appropriate for a woman to hold, hence the opposition to "restoring" this lost office. this is the cause of the conflict in the modern church and evidently the same reason I find it difficult to accept your proposal, for we seem to hold to differing understandings of the role of deacon.
once the role of deacon is defined clearly - acknowledging that the role can change in its understanding - then female deacons can be discussed.
Thanks for interacting--so in response:
Were there two separate diaconates? And what was the function and role of deaconnesses?
Now it's true that Canon 19 says that deaconnesses are numbered among the laity. But why is this? "Because they have no imposition of hands." But as we've seen from the didascalia and apostolic tradition, that wasn't always the case. They frequently *did* have the imposition of hands, and did all the way under Justinian in the Hagia Sophia.
It is also true that we can find conflicting citations, because the evidence is certainly mixed (which, I think, I said in the video--that there were places where deaconnesses were not considered a holy order). But then we must let the wisdom of Scripture guide us here. First, Chrysostom and Origen simply speak of women being admitted to the diaconate itself, not as part of a separate diaconate that was not part of the clergy. But what do these women do? The Didascalia locates deaconnesses in the spiritual lineage of Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and Miriam. That seems, then, to license a form of leadership. However, listening to the other parts of Scripture (e.g. 1 Timothy 2), the authoritative teaching office belongs to men and thus, I think, women ought not preach (because preaching on the gathering is the service of the Word historically, and thus is the authoritative exposition of the apostolic teaching).
So what are deacons? To my mind, there are two kinds--not deacons and deaconnesses as such, but vocational and transitional deacons. The latter can only be male, since only males are eligible to be ordained to the priesthood. The former, however, can be either male or female. I don't think authoritative teaching should be entrusted to any of the former, but can be to the latter as part of the road towards the priesthood. Deacons fundamentally assist and carry out the ministry of the presbyters.
So in restoring the lost office of the deaconnness (e.g. ordaining women to the diaconate), I certainly agree that we have to delineate between transitional deacons (male-only) and vocational ones. And I also think that vocational deacons need to stop doing priestly things. That seems like the best synthesis of the data of Scripture and church history.
@@anglicanaesthetics thank you, if that is what is meant by female deacon - ie women who are recognised as holding this particular office of service within the church who are often also widows/abesses etc, then I can accept the laying of hands upon these women and for a restoration of that kind of diaconate.
my issue is that historically churches that have sought to revive the office of deaconess, have either not maintained the distinction between the vocational deacon and transitional deacon as you refer to it. and therefore if women are to be admitted to that office (transitional deacon), then others have and do ask(ed) why NOT the others, as you mention (referring to liberalism) at the end of your video.
my earlier statement is that I have yet to see a church which has revived (as opposed to churches which have maintained it) the office, that has been careful to distinguish and maintain that distinction between the two kinds of deacons, and that the failure to do this has lead to a slippery slope. as in mainline western orthodox protestant (Anglican and methodist etc) churches.
if the distinction can be upheld then I see no reason to assume the slippery slope will occur. but recent history has made me weary. id like to be proven wrong. but my concern is how will the second and third generations receive this revival and what will they do with it?, those who revived the female deacon in the Anglican church at the beginning of the 20th century could not have imagined female bishops, yet we are on the cusp of such a development. only time will tell if the doom I foresee will actually come to pass. i do hope my misgivings will come to naught.
@@HenryLeslieGraham True, historically the transition between vocational and transitional deacons hasn't been kept and often has been blurred. Though in dioceses in the ACNA that do ordain women to the diaconate, you find this distinction--albeit, I'm in a dioceses where I'm okay with everything women do except for the fact that sometimes, they preach (at the behest of the bishop); I don't think that makes much sense. So yes, additional care would be needed. However, I've seen this done in the dioceses of the Living Word, the dioceses of Quincy, and the dioceses of Christ our Hope (from what I've seen of this dioceses anyway). So it's not impossible.
The benefit is that we now have the benefit of hindsight to know what happens if we're not clear on the distinction. But given that there are dioceses that seem to have done this successfully, I have hope. I'm just arguing that I think such dioceses are right.
@@anglicanaesthetics i agree, there is historical evidence for (though limited to some degree) deaconesses, and patristic support for it (as a vocational order).
I apologise if my tone was too tearse earlier or abrasive. i misunderstood what you were arguing for. my concern is that transitional deacons are often packaged in here. and I have seen perspectives by conservative priests in my own area shift quite quickly from not having female deacons at all, to having female deacons to having women lead services to having women preach and later coming to look down on those who don't hold to their new progressive stance.
that orthodoxy seems to shift so quickly in regions which are under a great deal of societal pressure, is not unusual, but should give the church pause. and I hope that conservative bishops and primates can maintain true orthodoxy (or as I term it alethodoxy: meaning true belief)
if the church ought to have a particular order or practice or belief, then that should not be discarded because of inconvenience or circumstance (use of wine in the eucharist for example, or blessing mixed race marriages in apartheid south Africa). vocational deaconesses are appropriate. so long as we do not take it further (transitional deacons) and compromise our own beliefs to appease the ever evolving cultural consciousness/concerns. that one is a beast which will never be appeased, but which will take the church with it (down a dark path)
Thanks for these quotes. They inform my own comment here concerning impropriety and the need for women deacons in the early church.
I totally support woman ordination as they compliment the clergy team in enabling gender appropriate pastoral care in many circumstances. Women and men compliment each other, men should be men and women should be women, both think, read, interpret the scriptures from different viewpoints and this adds to the discussion and understanding. I’m low church Anglican yet receive so much criticism for this view, I can only imagine how much negativity you will receive for this video, very brave.
I don’t think I could follow you here, predominately because the Canons of Nicaea clearly state that deaconesses are part of the laity, so at least in several places of the early universal church they did not receive the laying on of hands nor were they considered ordained. I hear you on not wanting our practices to be dictated by the culture war, but often (even in the ACNA) the egalitarian rationale is being used even for WO to the diaconate. I honestly think perhaps there should be a moratorium until we stamp out the use of liberation theology as a whole, and then could we revisit this issue.
The canons of Nicea do, and certainly (as I think I said in the video--but I may have not) Chrysostom, Origen, the Euchlogia, and the Didascalia do not. Justinians legal codes seem to recognize the deaconnesses at Hagia Sophia as part of the clergy, and the euchologia mark a special place for them. The ordinations under the Euchlogia were carried out during the same time male ordinations to the diaconate were, and Chyrsostom and Origen and Clement speak only of women's ordination *to the diaconate* as such, not to a different diaconate. That said, then, we must let the weight of Scripture and tradition help us here. It would seem that the deaconness/women deacons can and could never have been transitional deacons, since transitional deacons are transitional to the priesthood. Thus, I don't think vocational deacons (male or female) should assist in priestly functions. Second, we should remember that the term "holy order" only comes later, and wasn't used early on. So what is a holy order? I've argued it's an order instituted by the apostles through the laying on of hands, conferring the Spirit to an apostolically ordained ministry (part of the apostolically instituted hierarchy) for the work of that ministry. That's what we have in the ordination rites for women deacons, and for Phoebe (as seemed to have been understood wherever Phoebe is mentioned by the Greek-speaking fathers).
Now, you're right that an egalitarian rationale is being used for WO to the diaconate. That does need to stop. But on the other hand, no--I don't think we should hold to one error to fight another (e.g. not ordaining women to the diaconate to fight liberation theology)--of course, assuming the success of my argument for WO to the diaconate here.
I find interesting that you would still acknowledge the distinction between female deacons and male deacons, in that the male (transitional, but technically also vocational) are able to participate in some level of priestly function, whereas the female deacons are not. I would see this priestly character as part of the definition of holy order, at least as we conceive of it today: one holy order in three different degrees, with the bishop as the perfection of the priesthood. You might not be as far from those who hold to the order of deaconess as distinct from the male deacons.
@@KellyOSullivan-ym4xh The problem with considering the priestly function as part of a holy order is the fact that life-time vocational deacons (to add that qualifier--so men who intend to remain deacons) are considered as part of holy orders. So unless we want to say that men who intend to remain in the diaconate are not part of holy orders, I don't see why women who are part of the diaconate would not have received a holy order.
The trouble with the term "holy order" is that it came into use much later. It seems to me, however, that there's a logic of *apostolicity* to the term--which is why being a deacon is a holy order, but being, say, a sub-deacon or a reader is not. Holy orders are those orders instituted by the apostles as part of the apostolically ordained hierarchy. Women can be ordained to the diaconate, which is part of the apostolically instituted hierarchy. Ergo, they can receive a holy order. But yes, the distinction between transitional and non-transitional deacons should be made clear; the latter should not participate in priestly functions, and the former is male-only.
I think that actually is where we would disagree. The vocation/transitional distinction is artificial, because a vocational male deacon can perform some limited priestly functions that a female deacon (or deaconess) cannot - I.e. preaching to mixed congregations.
@@anglicanaesthetics Nicaea is the stumbling block for me. I'm less concerned about the term 'holy order' and more about the term 'klerikos' or similar used at Nicaea. Your point about permanent deacons not assisting the priest is novel; I haven't heard that before and don't think I agree.