Since I am both a deacon and a professional theologian, I get asked to give my opinion on the prospect and possibility of women deacons. I tend to think uninformed opinions asymptotically approach zero in their value, so I thought I’d read up on the question a bit, starting with the recent translation of Cipriano Vagaggini’s lengthy essay “The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Traditions” (in Ordination of Women to the Diaconate in the Eastern Churches, Phyllis Zagano, ed., Liturgical Press 2013). Vagaggini is somewhat cautiously in favor of ordaining women to the diaconate. But he is also a careful historian who does not want to overstate the historical evidence for doing so. His essay prompted me to reflect on the difficulties posed in mounting historical arguments of either side in the debate, and what counts as sufficient historical precedent in changing Church practice.

One thing that Vagaggini’s essay shows is that both those who say “In Romans Paul identifies Phoebe as a deacon, therefore it is clear that the early Church had women deacons” and those who say, “It is clear that deaconesses were not admitted to the sacrament of orders, but were a non-ordained ministry oriented solely to assisting women at baptism” have not really reckoned with what a messy place the past is. Trying to take account of the messiness of the past, I offer the following remarks: