Debrief on the Deaconess Discussion

My thoughts from last night:

Initially, I was appalled at the nasty popcorn (and insult!)-throwing that was going as we waited for the start of the session on Women Deacons/Deaconesses, by those who were sure that AF had the agenda of advocating for the role. The nasty ad-hominem and inaccurate remarks were at times intolerable. I was glad that as we got to the end of the evening some of the trolls seemed to leave, and we began to have more light than heat.

I was also delighted that Fr. John Whiteford, whose opinion is valued by most traditional Orthodox, expressed his thanks for the production, and made a valuable comment regarding the difference between “recovery” and “innovation”–the very remark that I also had made. I was very sorry that most of the ad hominem and hateful comments were made by “conservatives”– there is a difference between speaking the truth and being insulting. It is embarrassing to me when revisionists act in a more generous manner than those who are concerned to retain Holy Tradition. Truth will not be heard when it is divorced from Love.

By the end of the evening, we seem to have largely discerned two camps, but were asked by Metropolitan Saba to be generous to each other in this discussion and debate. To this I would like to add that a documentary like this cannot easily offer any subtleties, though certainly there was a serious attempt to do that. There are some of us who can see the possible good in principle for a cautious restoration of deaconesses (mainly not in a liturgical role, and blessed rather than ordained), but who think that, given the confusion over gender in our day, it might do more harm than good. I recommend that those who have time listen to the full interviews to see the real contrasts, complementarities, and specific distinctions of those who were interviewed. In particular, I would call attention to:

1. The clear historical evidence for women deacons/deaconesses, in key parts of the Church, and ratified by the likes of St. John Chrysostom, even if the order became suspect in the West, and even if it was not universal. This includes the interpretation of quite a few ancient theologians (including St. John) that Romans and Timoth refer to the order of deaconess (women deacons) and not to mere helpers or women in general. Noting this should not bring fear–for there could be good reason for the Church to have dropped this order–but it is honest historical work!

2. The difficulty that we have in discerning what women deacons did in their various venues, whether they were ordained or merely appointed/blessed, and how prominent they were–silence does not imply that they did not exist, but perhaps that there was no controversy at some points in the Church’s history concerning them. But who and what WERE they?

3. The difference between recovery and EXTENSION of the role in our day, and what that might entail, according to the clear proponents of the position, especially those connected with the Phoebe center.

4. The important work that bishops and others have before them to discern the mind of the Church on the way that male and female specifically and together show forth the image of Christ. As in the Arian debate, when Christology and Trinity had to be made explicit, so now we face the challenge from both society at large and those who call themselves Christian (even Orthodox) to clarify what it is to be human. It seems to me that these insights, once clarified, would make the discussion of women deacons/deaconesses far more fruitful.

Click here to investigate all the interviews at length.