Every Christian a Priest?: Exploring the Common Priesthood Doctrine

As some of my readers already know, over the last two years I have been studying the seventeenth and eighteenth century renewal movement known as “Pietism.” The Pietists took the doctrine of the “Priesthood of every believer” very seriously and believed that a widespread revival of lay-driven ministry would be necessary if the Church was to be renewed. (If you would like to learn more about this story I recently published an article on this very subject in a scholarly journal. You can find that article at this link The Pietist Revival’s Implications for Church Ministry in the Post-Pandemic Church | Pace IV | Jurnal Jaffray (sttjaffray.ac.id) The Pietists’ emphasis on this doctrine inspired me to study what Scripture says about it more thoroughly and this article is the result of my studies. I hope you enjoy reading it. God Bless! – Julian Pace.

I have long been fascinated by the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer so championed by the Protestant Reformers and their Pietist descendants. Both the Reformers (particularly Luther) and the Pietists thought that by placing more emphasis on this doctrine a widespread revival of lay-driven ministry might be unleashed. What New Testament references undergird this doctrine the Reformers and Pietists so cherished?  For starters, there are roughly 150 references to the terms priest(s) and priesthood in Acts and the Gospel narratives. During Jesus of Nazareth’s day, a large priestly class continued to play a vital role in the administration of the old covenant sacrificial system. They were also important religious leaders and had an often-tempestuous relationship with Jesus of Nazareth. (Matt 21:23, Luke 20:1-8)

The priesthood image was clearly an important concept to some New Testament authors. 1 Peter 2:5-9 addresses the new covenant concept of the priesthood most explicitly. In this passage, the author of 1 Peter notes that believers form “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession.” who are empowered to make “spiritual sacrifices” and proclaim the person of Jesus of Nazareth to the world. The author of Hebrews (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Priscilla?) envisions Jesus as the unmatchable and glorious “Great, High Priest” flanked by a priestly corps composed of the faithful. Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both refer to believers a “kingdom of priests” and Revelation 20:6 notes that those who share in the first resurrection (namely believers) will be “priests of God and of Christ.” Tying in closely with the thought of 1 Peter 2:5-9 the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans notes that he has the “priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God.”

The Old Testament is also replete with mentions of the terms priest(s), priestly, and priesthood warranting more than 500 mentions. Featured most frequently in the Old Testament record is the “Levitical” or “Aaronic” Priesthood. This priestly corps played a central role in Jewish religion serving as intermediaries between the Jewish people and Jehovah. Probably the most central task of this priestly corps was to perform offerings and sacrifices on behalf of the people so that their infractions against God’s law might be forgiven (Leviticus chapters 1-9). Priests also had the responsibility of declaring people and material things ritually/ceremonially clean and unclean (Leviticus chapters 13-15).

Occasionally, members of the Levitical priesthood functioned as prophets and all were expected to be “stewards of the knowledge of God.”[1] The biblical evidence suggests that Aaron (Exodus 7:1-7) and Samuel (1 Samuel 3:1, 7:9, 13:1-15) performed both priestly and prophetic roles. Recent scholarship demonstrates that the Levitical Priesthood contributed to the corpus of the Old Testament, preserved the text of the Old Testament, and contributed substantially to the religious ideology and identity of the Jewish people.[2]

The Old Testament does not only mention the Levitical Priesthood. Moses’s father-in-law Jethro is notable for being the “priest of Midian” (Exodus 2:16). Jethro and his people were likely monotheists, and the Biblical narrative portrays him as a wise man (Exodus 18:14). However, the Old Testament is silent on the precise contours of his role as a priest. Genesis chapter 14 tells us of the fascinating figure of Melchizedek who was both a king, priest, and perhaps even a prophet (likely typologically foreshadowing Jesus who is “prophet, priest and king.”) In Hebrews, Jesus Christ is explicitly called a priest in the order of Melchizedek. Finally, Job appears to have performed a priestly role for his family (Job 1:5).

Interpreting the New Testament concept of the priesthood without reference to the Old Testament concept of the image is surely unwise. The authors of the New Testament would have been familiar with the Levitical Priesthood as well as other priestly figures (namely Melchizedek) of the Old Testament era. Furthermore, they lived in a historical period where their culture and religious life was dominated by a powerful priestly class centered around the Temple at Jerusalem. As such, the New Testament authors built on Old Testament concepts and tropes about the priesthood to form a new concept of priesthood better suited for the body of Christ.[3]

Biblical scholar Ben Witherington has argued in his work that the New Testament authors entirely “spiritualize” the priesthood image.[4] Whereas Levitical Priests once sacrificed flesh and blood bulls, goats, and doves as acts of worship to God, New Testament priests worship God by performing “spiritual sacrifices.” Christians from some traditions will almost certainly bristle at Witherington’s assertion that the New Testament authors entirely spiritualize (as well as democratize) the priesthood concept as Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and others have ostensibly and quite self-consciously sought to apply tropes and concepts from the Levitical Priesthood more concretely in their respective ministerial contexts.

But if the priesthood concept has indeed been entirely spiritualized, and if every believer is a member of the new covenant priesthood, then this truth has radical and important implications for the Church’s self-understanding as well as the role it must play in the world. Throughout history, priests have been viewed as intermediary figures connecting people to the divine. Likewise, believers today have the priestly privilege and task of “proclaiming the gospel of God” to those who have not heard (Matthew 28, Romans 15:16, 1 Peter 2:5-9). Thus, the Church must consciously seek to live up to its’ identity as a priesthood set apart for the purpose of proclaiming the Gospel to a world that desperately needs it. Believers must view themselves as priests who have been powerfully equipped for ministry by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12).

The priesthood image also has radical implications for the internal functioning of the body of Christ. As already noted, Levitical Priests performed sacrifices on behalf of the Jewish people so their sins might be absolved. They also had the power to certify people and items as either ritually/ceremonially clean or unclean. Christians now have the priestly role of performing “spiritual sacrifices” on behalf of their fellow believers by “incarnating” the spiritual reality that God’s forgiveness rests on their lives even declaring them “clean” and “right” in the sight of God.

When Jesus gives instructions about Church discipline in Matthew 18:15-20 and declares in John 20:21-23 to his disciples that they have the power to forgive sins, he is quite likely giving concrete examples as to how believers might exercise their ministries as priests. Applied practically, this means that all Christians enjoy the priestly privilege of “pronouncing forgiveness” over the truly repentant and such a privilege does not only belong to a small sacerdotal class within the larger Christian family. Ultimately, forgiveness of sins comes only from Jesus “the Great, High Priest” who takes away the sins of the world. However, God can use the faithful in a “sacramental” sense, as a “channel” for his grace, to impart forgiveness upon the truly repentant.

Does the priesthood idea say anything about the church’s mission and how its members should minister to and interact with the world? In Matthew 28 Jesus gave his followers the clear command to “go and make disciples.” Ironically, since that time, various Christian churches and traditions have sought after pithy and memorable mission statements when Jesus has already provided us one! An essential aspect of making disciples is declaring the Gospel of God to those who do not know Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus’s call to make disciples and the Christian’s priestly duty of proclaiming the Gospel go hand in hand. Furthermore, in a world wracked by sin, strife and broken relationships, our priestly mission of channeling reconciliation and forgiveness on behalf of God is surely the healing salve our hurting world needs.[5]

If all believers are honored priests worthy of reverence and respect, such a reality must surely be balanced by the fact that believers are likewise called to be “servants” in the scriptures (John 13:1-17). The reality of our honored place in God’s economy must not lead the believer to a place of arrogant pride. Rather, the believer should see their priestly office as a calling to serve the Church and the world in a truly “sacrificial” manner (Galatians 6:10).

Recognizing that all believers are a part of a new priesthood, set apart and equipped for Spirit-empowered ministry also provides a helpful balance to the reality that the Church requires a ministerial class within its midst composed of elders and deacons for its good functioning (1 Timothy 3:1-13). Unfortunately, an unhelpful dynamic has arisen in some Christian traditions (particularly in many mega-churches that operate more like businesses than churches) where ministry is almost entirely performed and directed by the officers of the Church and the lay faithful are merely expected to “pray, pay, and obey.” Such a dynamic surely cannot be a Biblically faithful model.

But if we are to move away from such an unhealthy ministry paradigm, and if a widespread revival of lay-driven ministry is to be accomplished, then the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer must be recovered in all its’ richness and depth. Returning to the Pietists, Phillip Jacob Spener (1605-1635) was confronted with a spiritually moribund Lutheran Church where the clergy were out of touch and the laity were increasingly disengaged. However, he reemphasized the priesthood doctrine in his writings and ministry to impressive effect. In his books Pia Desideria and The Spiritual Priesthood Spener emphasizes the spiritual equality of all Christians as well as their concomitant privilege and ability to minister on behalf of the Church and God himself.

In Spener’s very own Lutheran Church, lay believers inspired by the priesthood doctrine created small groups for the purpose of Bible study and dedicated themselves more thoroughly to the pursuit of holiness. Some even taught themselves Hebrew and Greek so they might better understand the scriptures and teach them more effectively to their fellow believers. I believe that a renewal of lay-driven ministry is needed within the American Evangelical Church as our effectiveness has waned considerably in recent years. Perhaps we should follow the example of the Pietists and remind believers of their privileges and responsibilities as priests.

On a personal level, I feel that my church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, needs to revive the priesthood image desperately, especially as we debate the place of women within the ministry of the Church. We need to be reminded that God has equipped all Christians (irrespective of gender) to perform Spirit-empowered ministry (1 Corinthians 12). Furthermore, whether God has called women to be elders, pastors, or otherwise within his Church, he has certainly called all women to be priests and powerfully “proclaim the gospel of God.” Other Churches may benefit from reviving this doctrine as well.

Mega-churches that increasingly function like businesses where professional pastors dispense spiritual services may need to revisit the priesthood image in their context. Too many believers in this context see the extent of their Christian commitment as believing the right things and attending services occasionally. Such a truncated faith simply will not do (James 2:14-26).

Smaller churches will also benefit from reviving the priesthood image in their local context. Many smaller churches (particularly those in rural areas) are served by part-time pastors who may only be able to dedicate 10 hours a week to ministry there. Pastors in these contexts will need to reemphasize the priesthood doctrine and remind the laity that their ministries are desperately needed and incredibly consequential.

Para-church ministries may benefit by intentionally envisioning themselves as playing a priestly role within and towards the larger church and the world it inhabits. Many para-church organizations like the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and CRU (formerly Campus Crusade For Christ) exist to perform the priestly role of “proclaiming the Gospel of God (Romans 15:16).” By intentionally reviving the language and category of priesthood, these organizations may come to enjoy a richer understanding of their evangelistic calling.  

In conclusion, I believe the priesthood image is one of the most fascinating and rich images of the Church in scripture. It reminds every believer of their honored place within God’s family. It reminds us that all of our ministries, no matter how humble, have consequence and worth. Throughout history, Christians have revived the priesthood image in their contemporary context and seen God do wondrous things. Could it be that by reviving the priesthood image in our local ministry contexts God might use us in ways we never thought possible?

Footnotes

[1] Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 124.

[2] Mark Leuchter and Jeremy Michael Hutton, Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition(Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 1-2.

[3] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 689-690.

[4] Ben Witherington, “Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical,” The Bible and Culture, Patheos, last modified June 2, 2015, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/.

[5] John R.W. Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World: What the Church should be doing now! (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 20-34.

Bibliography

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Leuchter, Mark and Jeremy Michael Hutton, Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. 

Minear, Paul S. Images of the Church in the New Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Spener, Phillip Jacob. Pia Desideria, translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1964.

Stott, John R.W. Christian Mission in the Modern World: What the Church should be doing now! Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975.

Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

John Wesley: Pietist Theologian

John Wesley has been quoted as saying that doctrine is but a “slender part” of true religion. judging by this statement, especially in isolation, one might assume that Wesley was a doctrinal indifferentist. However, upon further investigation we find that this could not be further from the truth. Wesley was hardly indifferent when it came to the task of articulating Christian doctrine.  We see this in his numerous tracts and sermons that deal with lofty concepts of Christian theology such as the Trinity, the person of Christ, the means of grace, original sin, prevenient grace and so forth.

To understand this statement of Wesley’s, we must understand him as in many ways a “Pietist theologian.” John Wesley was strongly influenced by Pietist thought through the writings of Johan Arndt as well as by the Moravians whom he met on his voyage to Savannah and with whom he spent much time with in England and Germany. The Pietists communicated to Wesley, through both personal correspondence and in their writings, that the Christian life did not consist solely of affirming certain theological propositions, heartfelt relationship with Jesus of Nazareth was necessary for a robust Christian life as well. Christianity consisted of both illumination and transformation. That is, transformation of the individual who though once isolated and alienated from God could now enjoy deep fellowship with God, who could grow into real, scriptural holiness and truly be more like Jesus!

Wesley understood this reality all too well. Prior to his “Aldersgate” experience, Wesley was more than ready to affirm the doctrines affirmed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Wesley had plenty of good theology and yet his spiritual life was empty, he had no real relationship with Jesus, he had not yet come to recognize Christ as his “personal” Savior. Wesley could affirm many truths about Christ but only when he had a vital relationship with Christ did he finally experience spiritual peace.

I think the experience of Wesley, and the other Pietists, provide us with valuable lessons for today. Good theology is important no doubt, and without good theology we will not have good spirituality. However, rational assent to scriptural truths (though extremely important) is not the whole of the Christian life, it is but a part. Our task as Christians today is to balance the rational and relational aspects of the Christian life. If we drop but one we will have a truncated and perhaps even counterfeit Christianity. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures I am convinced that we can balance these two aspects of the Christian faith quite well and present a robust version of the Christian faith that speaks well to both the head, and the heart.

Why Pietism?

Recently I published an article on my blog about the renewal movement called “Pietism” that grew out of German Lutheranism in the 1600s and 1700s. Lately I have been immersing myself in the writings of the great leaders of the Pietist movement such as Philipp Jakob Spener and August Herman Franke. Furthermore, I have been reading the work of modern scholars of the Pietist movement such as Roger Olson, Dale Brown, F. Ernest Stoeffler, and Christian Collins-Winn. With so much of my time being spent on this study, and with it being the subject of my doctoral dissertation, my wife understandably asked me “why are you so interested in studying Pietism?”

Pietism in not a well-known term amongst Evangelical Christians even though it might be the most influential renewal movement of the Protestant tradition. Pietism as a movement emphasized the necessity of conversion, the importance of individual as well as small group Bible Study, and that authentic, vibrant Christian faith was more than just mental assent to core Christian doctrines. The Pietists firmly believed that Christianity was a “heart” religion and not just a “head” religion. The Pietists were also people of great social concern. Something of a rallying cry of theirs was that they existed for “God’s glory and their neighbor’s good.”

Pietism as an ethos has influenced Lutheranism as well as the Anabaptist movement in Christianity. Indeed, the Church of the Brethren in the United States has been especially influenced by Pietism. The Evangelical Covenant Church (one of the fastest growing Protestant denominations in the United States) is a distinctly Pietistic denomination. John and Charles Wesley were profoundly influenced by the Moravians who were a Pietistic people. It is hard to find a Protestant tradition that has not been touched by the Pietist ethos. It is remarkable that it is so little known when it’s influence has been so wide.

“Why am I studying Pietism?” I study Pietism in part because it brought revival to German Lutheranism when it was desperately needed. Mainstream German Lutheranism in the 1600s and 1700s had become stale and arid. The Pietists did much to revive German Lutheranism. The Pietists cared for thousands of orphans, printed millions of Bibles, and sent out many effective missionaries all over the world. The idea that they lived for “God’s glory and their neighbor’s good” was more than just a slogan, it was a way of life.

I also study Pietism for greater self-understanding. Pietist emphases have deeply influenced Evangelicalism and I want to know more about this trans-denominational movement that has deeply shaped what I believe and how I live my life. Finally, I believe Pietism may contain valuable insights for renewal in Evangelicalism today. The Evangelical Church in the United States needs renewal. We need to mobilize for the 21st century and reach the one-third of the world that still has not heard the Gospel. Who better to draw inspiration from than the Pietists? Pietistic Lutherans were some of the first to send missionaries to the native peoples of Greenland and Canada. Pietists missionaries were the first people to translate the Bible into Tamil. A language spoken by many people in India.

In short, I believe that the Pietists can show Evangelicals what it truly means to live a life for “God’s glory and our neighbor’s good.” Is there a more authentically Christian way of life than this? Is any other kind of life even worth living?

On Pietists and Preaching

Recently I have been doing a tremendous amount of research on the Christian renewal movement known as Pietism. Pietism was a church renewal movement that grew out of German Lutheranism during the 1600s and 1700s. The German Pietists were convinced that the church would only experience broad renewal when both the clergy and the laity more deeply engrossed themselves in the Holy Scriptures and moved beyond a mere “head knowledge” of the Christian faith into a Christian faith of the “heart”

Pietism as an ethos deeply influenced the Anabaptist, Moravian, and Methodist movements. Indeed, even today, Pietism’s influence can be felt in modern Evangelicalism even if it is rarely acknowledged or recognized.

Perhaps the greatest manifesto of early Pietism was a book entitled Pia Desideria or “Pious Desires” by Philipp Jakob Spener. Spener was a Lutheran clergyman who, though devoted to the Lutheran Church, nevertheless found that his native church was severely lacking in many areas. Interestingly, a problem that Spener found especially troubling within his native church was the poor state of the clergy.

It was not that the clergy were poorly educated. Indeed, the average Lutheran clergyman had received rigorous training in Biblical languages, systematic theology, and logical reasoning, yet for all this training and knowledge, the preaching of many a Lutheran clergyman during Spener’s day was dull and ineffective.

Sermons had become highly academic affairs where pastors would wax eloquent over the most minor of theological matters. They would often lapse into long soliloquys in foreign languages the common people little hope of understanding. Sermons were often seen as opportunities for the pastor to show off their rhetorical prowess with little thought given to whether the sermon would be of any practical value to the laity. Sermons were primarily informational and rarely transformational.

Whenever I read church history, I read with an eye to discover wisdom for the modern church. There is “nothing new under the sun” and a careful reading of the church’s past can give us insight for how to deal with the problems of the present. As a preacher myself, I have often found Spener’s critique of poor quality preaching rather convicting. It has led me to ask questions such as “How does the preaching of the modern Evangelical church compare with that of the Lutheran church of Spener’s day ?” “Do I repeat many of the errors of Spener’s day when I get behind the pulpit?”

I must confess that I too have been guilty of simply wanting to show off what I know when I preach. I study hard and work diligently at being a competent speaker. I am proud of my work ethic and I am passionate about teaching theology. Sometimes pride creeps in. I’m convinced that when this happens, I am not as effective as I could be. It becomes about me rather than pointing people to Jesus Christ. This is never good.

Furthermore, I have personally experienced preaching that was seemingly just about dispensing information to the congregation. It was like listening to a seminary lecture only far less interesting. Worse still, I have experienced preachers that were warped with pride by their intelligence, education, and rhetorical prowess. I remember one in particular who would not cease reminding everyone that he had four degrees including one from a prestigious research university. Fellow preachers, if we are guilty of this sin of pride in our education and abilities then we need to repent. We have an important job to do. Jesus Christ must be proclaimed! We can’t get in the way.

Now, I do not want anyone to think that I am teaching against seminary education or intellectually engaging preaching. I believe very strongly in both of these things and frequently in Evangelicalism we have the very opposite problem. Preaching in many Evangelical churches is often an emotionally charged spectacle, yet simultaneously a doctrinal mess with little to no good content. Indeed, an anti-intellectual strain runs deeply within Evangelical preaching and it negatively affects our witness. This is not the kind of preaching I am advocating for.

Spener and the Pietists thought that preaching was vitally important. If revival and renewal were to take place in their time, better preaching was required. As preachers we must daily seek to preach more effectively by presenting sermons that while thoughtful and theologically sound, are also deeply practical. We need to preach sermons that provide for our people practical instruction in righteousness. We need sermons that point people to Jesus rather than our prowess and abilities. We need to be conscious of where our people are spiritually and intellectually so that we can gradually and carefully grow them into mature and theologically informed Christians.

I understand that this balancing act of the informational and the practical will not always be easy, but it is something we must strive for. I want my preaching to be effective and powerful, I want it to be transformational. When my eulogy is spoken, I want it to be said that my preaching pointed people to Jesus Christ rather than my abilities.

The Christian as Historian

According to many historians of a secular bent, a Christian’s religious convictions should play little to no role in their work as a historian. In his book The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, George Marsden notes that the academy sees the “Christian historian” in much the same way they see the historian who happens to be a bridge player. It is just fine to be a Christian or a bridge player, but these “extracurricular” activities ought to have no role in your work as a historian.[1] Furthermore, historian Jay Green notes that within the academy there is a profound bent towards thoroughgoing “methodological naturalism” which tends to view religious phenomena skeptically, even dismissively.[2] Within such a thoroughly secularized milieu is there any “room” for the Christian historian to bring their faith convictions and their work together in a positive way? It is my contention that there is a way to accomplish this and I will attempt to sketch out very briefly what this might look like.

If we are to have an intellectually robust understanding of what it means to be both a Christian and a historian, a logical place to begin would be discussing the concept of historical study as a “vocation.” In his book, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions Jay Green notes that the term “vocation” comes from the Latin verb “vocare” which means “to call.”[3] Green suggests that the Christian historian can view their work in a spiritually richer way by realizing their work is not simply a means of providing for oneself, but rather a genuine, holy, and vital calling from God. Green further develops this line of thinking and suggests that perhaps one of the greatest blessings of the Reformation was the expansion of the concept of “vocation.” In the Medieval Catholic tradition, the concept of “vocation” or “calling” was closely tied to pursuing church related work while ordinary labor was often seen as morally neutral. The Reformers and their descendants eschewed this strong bifurcation between “holy” and merely “secular” work. To them, all work had “eternal and divinely appointed worth.”[4]

So, if all work (including historical work) has “worth” as 1 Corinthians 7:20 would seem to teach, what does it look like for a Christian historian to “live out” their “calling” in a way that brings God glory. Historian Douglas A. Sweeney sees the historian’s calling as essentially one of service to both their academic peers as well as their students.[5] Seeing their work in this light, the Christian historian should strive to be the best historian they can be. They should seek to serve their respective guilds by making healthy contributions to the field. They should do careful, balanced research that strives for objectivity, even if this is ultimately only an unattainable ideal.[6] The Christian historian must actively look for ways to serve their students, the church, and even the voices of the past. Christian historians should apply the golden rule to the historical sources they survey by interpreting them in the way we would want our words to be interpreted: In context and on their own terms.

Armed with a robust theology of vocation, the Christian historian can view their work in a more enriching and motivating light. They realize they there is a call on their lives to work for the betterment of society and to the glory of God. The Christian historian is uniquely motivated to search for the beautiful and true.[7] Can the historian working out of purely naturalistic and secular motivations boast of such an enriching and rewarding view of their work?

Now that we have established how the Christian historian’s motivations may differ from that of his more secularly inclined counterpart, we must explore whether the methodologies they espouse will look any different. On many points the Christian historian and their secularly inclined counterpart will probably espouse very similar methodologies. Both will display an appreciation for objectivity, careful and rigorous analysis of primary and relevant secondary sources, and (hopefully) modesty about their conclusions.[8]

However, the conclusion cannot be avoided that large swathes of the academy remain enamored with reductionist views of history that tend to rest on a deeply flawed “empiricist” epistemology.[9] This methodology insists that only things proven by observation can be considered factual. Historians of a Marxist bent have embraced such a method and have tended to boil down all religious phenomena to underlying issues of economics, class, and race.[10] Religion’s role in history has often been trivialized in modern historiography.

Within such a milieu, the Christian historian can offer a perspective that seeks to correct this “flattening” of the human experience. Fortunately, historians working in the recent past such as Kenneth Scott Latourette, Timothy L. Smith, George Marsden, and Mark Noll have offered such correctives in the largely secularized academy. These scholars, and many more, have sought to show that religion should be seen as the defining and vital force in people’s lives that it truly is. Quoting Catholic historian Philip Gleason, Jay Green suggests that religion has shaped history just as much and perhaps even more than “ethnicity, race, class, gender, or power.”[11] Thus, it could be argued that the Christian historian can take a broader, fuller, richer view of history that truly does justice to the complexity of the human experience. To ignore the effect religion has had on humanity in the past is to write truncated history.

Now, taking religion seriously in historical investigation is one thing, but can the Christian historian expand their method even further? Can the Christian historian posit divine causation or influence behind the events of history? Perhaps before we can answer such a question it would be wise to mark off what is almost certainly “out of bounds” methodologically for the serious Christian historian.

In his book Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past, John Fea documents well the problems associated with writing so called “providential history.” This kind of history seeks to show definitively God’s “mind” and “will” behind history. This method has flourished amongst those who wish to prove that the United States was founded as a uniquely and explicitly Christian nation. Unfortunately, this methodology tends to distort the historical record in favor of its’ predetermined interpretive paradigm and presumes to know too much about the mind and will of God. Fea suggests that the Christian historian must practice restraint in their craft. When positing the divine will behind history they must season their conclusions with words such as “perhaps,” “maybe” or “might.”[12]

Nevertheless, many notable Christian academics believe that there is a responsible way to posit God’s “breaking into history” whilst avoiding the egregious errors of providential history. Historian Mark Noll has suggested enlisting the “missiologists” to help decipher God’s activity in the past.[13] Furthermore, C. Stephen Evans has convincingly argued that historical texts replete with miracle accounts should not a priori be dismissed as unreliable and without historical value.[14]

Christianity is fundamentally a historical religion. Thus, it is unsurprising that many Christian scholars have stepped up to defend its’ most central historical claims and the Resurrection of Jesus has received intense focus.[15] Can the Christian historian legitimately seek to demonstrate the historical veracity of miracles? I believe they can if they are willing to jump into discussions about metaphysics and show that belief in the possibility of miracles is more reasonable than the belief that miracles demonstrably cannot occur. To be sure, the Christian historian will need to be cautious when investigating the veracity of supernatural phenomena in history. Nevertheless, I believe that the Christian historian can investigate miracle claims responsibly. Furthermore, I believe we can affirm with Wolfhart Pannenberg that the Resurrection of Jesus, Christianity’s central miracle, has “good historical foundation.”[16]

In conclusion, the Christian historian can bring their faith convictions and their work together in a positive way. They may recognize that their work as historians is a “holy calling” imbued with eternal worth. Furthermore, they are uniquely positioned to take the phenomenon of religion in history seriously and thus achieve a broader and fuller understanding of the human experience. Finally, The Christian historian may be able to “glimpse” God’s working in history. However, exercising thoroughgoing caution in such investigations cannot be overstated.

Footnotes

[1] George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) 20.

[2] Jay D. Green, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2015), 12-13.

[3] Ibid, 150.

[4] Ibid, 151-154.

[5] Douglas A. Sweeney, “On The Vocation Of Historians To The Priesthood of Believers: A Plea to Christians in the Academy,” in Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, ed. John Fea, Jay Green, and Eric Miller (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 300.

[6] James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller, Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016) 46-50.

[7] D.H. Williams, “Protestantism and the Vocation of Higher Education,” in Revisiting the Idea of Vocation: Theological Explorations, ed. John C. Haughey, S.J. (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 162.

[8] Bradley and Muller, Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources, 146-148.

[9] Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, 29-31.

[10] Green, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions, 12-17.

[11] Ibid, 33.

[12] John Fea, Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 64-84.

[13] Mark A. Noll, “The Potential of Missiology for the Crises of History,” in History and the Christian Historian, ed. Ronald A. Wells (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 120-123.

[14] C. Stephen Evans, “Critical Historical Judgement and Biblical Faith,” in History and the Christian Historian, ed. Ronald A. Wells (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 41-68.

[15] See Michael R. Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

[16] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 91.

Bibliography

Bradley, James E., and Richard A. Muller. Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.

Fea, John., Jay Green, and Eric Miller. Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historians Vocation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010.

Fea, John. Why Study History?: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Green, Jay D. Christian Historiography – Five Rival Versions. Baylor University Press, 2015.

Haughey, John C. Revisiting the Idea of Vocation Theological Explorations. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2012.

Marsden, George M. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus – God and Man. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Wells, Ronald. History and the Christian Historian. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998.

Women in the Diaconate: A Tradition Across the Ages

More fruit from my doctoral research! I hope you enjoy. God Bless, Julian.

Introduction

This literature review will show, beginning in the Patristic era and moving into the Reformation and Modern eras, the important role that deaconesses have often played in the pastoral and liturgical work of the Christian Church. Careful attention will be given to the type of work these deaconesses performed as well as how they were viewed within the respective communions and traditions that utilized a female diaconate.

The Deaconess Tradition in the Patristic Era

Aided by helpful documentary surveys such as Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek’s Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History, as well as many other sources, we see that the practice of ordaining women as deaconesses was widespread in the Christian East[1] during the Patristic era, though probably not elsewhere in the Church.[2] Patristics scholars Madigan, Osiek[3], and Corrado Marucci[4] note that we must distinguish in the records of the Fathers (as they seem to have done themselves) between the “widows” of the Church who though supported by the Church and performing pastoral work on behalf of the Church, were not ordained in the same fashion as women belonging to the order of deaconesses. Madigan and Osiek are gently critical of older scholars that tended to conflate these two distinct categories of women in ministry.

Marucci notes that Clement of Alexandria and Origen both mention in their writings the existence of women in the diaconate,[5] even though the practice was probably never common in their locale.[6] Furthermore, Pietro Sorci notes that both the Didascalia Apostolorum (an anonymous work belonging to the genre of church orders probably written in the 230s) and the Apostolic Constitutions (a similar work written sometime in the 380s) mention in some detail the ordination rite for deaconesses.[7] Most of the literature on deaconesses in the Patristics era generally focuses on 1) the ordination rites for deaconesses, 2) the types of ministry they performed, and 3) what was their relationship to the other orders of ordained ministry (e.g. bishop, presbyter, and deacon.)

Drawing on evidence from the Apostolic Constitutions  and the disciplinary canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451) Marucci notes that deaconesses were indeed ordained and considered a part of the clergy.[8] Furthermore, the Byzantine Church in particular has preserved a rite of ordination for deaconesses.[9] Patristics scholar Cipriano Vagaggini draws on much of the same evidence and echoes the conclusions of Marucci and argues that women were clearly ordained to the diaconate in the Christian East and were considered clergy.[10]

Vagaggini also explains in some detail the Byzantine rite of ordination for deaconesses. Drawing on text from the Apostolic Constitutions, he notes that deaconesses were ordained in the Church building (as opposed to lectors and subdeacons who were ordained outside of the Church building) via the laying on of hands by the presiding bishop. This ceremony would be conducted in the presence of the presbyters, deacons, and other deaconesses. The presiding bishop would then recite a proscribed prayer of blessing over the deaconess inviting the Holy Spirit to empower her ministry.[11] Marucci[12] and Vagaggini[13] generally agree that the ordination rite for deacons and deaconesses was quite similar.

As to the types of ministry performed by deaconesses the literature is reasonably united. Pietro Sorci reports that although the duties of deaconesses varied by region somewhat, most deaconesses in the Christian East would have anointed women prior to and immediately after baptism, catechized women prior to and after baptism, and aided ill women in the Church. Sorci mentions other tasks deaconesses may have performed that some scholars do not mention such as serving the elements of the Eucharist to women and children in extreme circumstances and even being a spokesperson for the bishop from time to time.[14] Corrado Marucci mostly echoes the claims of Sorci only diverging from him somewhat by noting that most likely deaconesses would have only served the elements of the Eucharist to sick women during Easter time. With Sorci and Marucci, Vagagginni reports that deaconesses would have anointed female candidates for baptism, catechized females, and provided support to ill women. He is less certain about whether they carried the elements of the Eucharist to women and children.[15]

There is less scholarly consensus as to the relationship of deaconesses to the other orders of ordained ministry during the Patristic era. Corrado Marucci notes while older scholarship tended to see the Patristic Church placing, in terms of prestige and honor, the office of deaconess between the “major orders” (e.g. bishop, presbyter, and deacon) and the “minor orders” (e.g. subdeacon, lector, cantor and so forth,) most scholars now think that the office of the deaconess was basically equivalent to that of the deacon at least in the Byzantine Church. However, deaconesses could perform far fewer ministerial functions than deacons and fell under their authority.[16] They could not preach nor teach publicly, they did not assist at the altar when the Eucharist was celebrated, nor could they baptize.

Offering a somewhat contrasting perspective, Cipriano Vagaggini notes that there was little consensus in the Patristic era as to where deaconesses should be placed in the respective orders of ministry with some sources placing them between the “major” and “minor” orders (or even below the “minor” order of subdeacon in some cases) and other sources giving them more honor.[17]

Both Marucci and Vagaggini mention that in the Didascalia Apostolorum vivid Trinitarian language is used to describe the respective orders of ministry with the bishops in some sense representing God the Father, the presbyters God the Son, and the deacons and deaconesses God the Holy Spirit.[18] For the Church Fathers, just as the Holy Spirit always exercises it’s ministry in such a way as to point to and glorify the Son, so does the deacon or deaconess in regards to the presbyter.

Thus, if we know quite a great deal about the deaconess tradition in the Patristic era and its’ relative vibrancy in the Christian East, why does this tradition gradually disappear from the historical record? In answer to this question the literature is united. Sorci notes, with Marucci and Vagaggini concurring, that one of the most important duties of deaconesses was the anointing of adult female baptismal candidates and thus as infant baptism became more common, with adult baptismal candidates becoming simultaneously less common, the deaconess tradition gradually lost much of its’ necessity in the Christian East.[19]

The Deaconess tradition in the Reformation Era

It has already been noted that the deaconess tradition was never widespread in the Western Church. However, during the Reformation era (1517-1648) this tradition saw a small revival. Reformation scholar Kenneth J. Stewart notes that John Calvin, more so than any other magisterial reformer, voiced support for a female diaconate.[20] Furthermore, Calvin thought that the deaconess tradition was of Apostolic origin. Calvin conceived of a female diaconate working closely under the authority of male deacons and dispensing aid to needy families in the local church.[21] Stewart does note that the deaconess tradition was ultimately never revived in Calvin’s Geneva nor in the other Reformed Churches until much later. He also finds it curious that this aspect of Calvin’s thought on church order has not received very much scholarly attention, even in Reformed circles.[22]

Offering a somewhat contrasting perspective to Stewart, Baptist Scholar Charles W. Deweese notes that in Calvin’s ecclesiastical system he only recognized four offices in the Church, that is, pastors, doctors (teachers), elders, and deacons. In his schema, deaconesses are not mentioned. Furthermore, in a commentary on 1st Timothy, Calvin concludes that the term “deaconess” was a reference to the wives of clergymen. However, Deweese does note that Calvin did think that the wives of clergymen would be highly involved in their ministries and may even minister to the needy on behalf of their husbands.[23] Perhaps Stewart and Deweese’s respective views on Calvin and the deaconess tradition need not be pitted against one another. By synthesizing their respective views, we could surmise that Calvin conceived of women in the diaconate, most of them wives of clergymen, not ordained in the same fashion as a deacon, and working under the close supervision of a clergymen.

If we accept that the Reformation ended with the ratification of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (as most scholars do) then the Baptist tradition is to be accepted alongside the Reformed and Lutheran traditions as a genuine, if second generation, Reformation tradition. Charles W. Deweese notes that the deaconess tradition was revived in the Baptist tradition very early in the 1600s. Indeed, some of the earliest Baptist leaders such as John Smyth and Thomas Helwys voiced support for women in the diaconate. Deweese notes that several early Baptist confessional documents explicitly state that the Church has the power to “ordain” both male and female deacons. Somewhat confusingly, these early Baptist documents often use the terms widows, deacons, and deaconesses interchangeably.[24] Deweese is noncommittal as to whether early Baptist congregations appointed very many deaconesses, though support for the existence of deaconesses undoubtedly developed very early in the Baptist tradition.

Remarkably, relatively little scholarly attention has been given to the development of the deaconess tradition during the Reformation. Many scholars who study women’s issues and the Reformation have appraised the Reformation’s contribution to women’s empowerment as at best a mixed one because the most common outlet for female religious expression during the Medieval period, that is, the convent, declined during the Reformation era.[25] Other scholars such as Kirsi Stjerna[26] and Beth Allison Barr[27] have pointed out that the rediscovery of doctrines such as the “priesthood of the believer” and the “spiritual equality” of all persons during the Reformation probably did create some space for women to minister publicly, at least in later eras. However, most of the scholarship on women’s issues and the Reformation has ignored the (admittedly) small revival of the deaconess tradition that that did take place then. Only Barr alludes to how certain “Reformation doctrines” (e.g. the “priesthood of the believer” and the “spiritual equality” of all persons) may have created space for the latter mass revival of the deaconess tradition in the Protestant churches during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.[28]

The Deaconess Tradition in the Modern Era

During the modern era, the deaconess movement would be most noticeably revived in the Methodist tradition as well as in the various “Holiness” groups that broke from the Methodist tradition. However, the literature also reflects that some Pietist communities revived the deaconess tradition as well. Martin Marty has called “Halle Pietism” his “favorite” strain of Pietism due to its’ emphasis on social justice and it’s revival of a female diaconate.[29] The literature also reflects that the Moravian Pietists began appointing and ordaining deaconesses in the 1730s and 40s.[30] Moravian deaconesses probably performed a very wide range of duties including dispensing relief to the poor, assisting the priest at worship services including during communion, and maybe even preaching under extraordinary circumstances.[31] Despite the evidence of deaconesses playing at least some role in Hallensian and Moravian Pietism, the literature has given this aspect of the Pietist story rather scant attention. Certainly, more research needs to be conducted in this area to flesh out the story of Pietism.

Emilie G. Briggs, writing in 1913, reports that the deaconess movement became more widespread in Europe largely through the work of Theodore Fliedner, a German Lutheran Clergyman, who in 1836 founded the “League of Kaiserswerth,” an order for deaconesses.[32] Briggs reports that the “League” expanded and chapters were founded in other parts of Europe. These deaconesses were largely ministers of mercy and provided relief to the poor. They were not ordained in the same sense as deacons, presbyters, or bishops, and they worked closely under the leadership of a male clergyman.[33]

Briggs notes that the “League” inspired a revival of the deaconess movement in the Anglican Church and the Church of Scotland in the mid-1800s with deaconesses in these traditions largely doing the same kind of work as their continental counterparts. However, she does note that in the Church of Scotland deaconesses were regularly “ordained” at the “kirk-session,” thus enjoying more honor than their counterparts in the rest of Europe. However, the ordination of the deaconess was not regarded as on par with that of a deacon.[34]

Fleshing out Brigg’s story, Benjamin L. Hartley notes that Methodist missionaries to Germany and India were inspired to create deaconess movements of their own. Hartley notes that the inspiration to revive a female diaconate within a Methodist context was largely due to their missionaries reportedly losing some of their female converts to the Lutherans of Germany and India due to the Lutheran Church already having an established female diaconate.[35]

Briggs also reports that the deaconess movement was transplanted to the United State in the mid-1800s with Lutherans, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Baptists and others all establishing deaconess orders. She notes that the Wesleyan/Methodist movement has perhaps embraced the deaconess movement most visibly and widely.[36] Furthermore, their deaconesses often performed the most varied work as they nursed the sick, taught, and even preached in some circumstances.[37]

Further Fleshing out Brigg’s story, Priscilla Pope-Levinson notes that while social work in largely urban environments was an important part of the work of Methodist deaconesses in late 1800s and early 1900s, many Methodist deaconesses were also very actively involved in evangelism.[38] Levinson emphasizes the evangelistic work that Methodist deaconesses performed far more than Briggs does. Levinson notes that the revival and later expansion of the Methodist deaconess movement is largely due to two women named Jane Bancroft Robinson (1847-1932) and Lucy Rider Meyer (1849-1922) who, though often at odds with one another, both helped carve out space for the Methodist deaconess movement to grow and flourish. These women founded schools to train deaconesses. Institutions such as the “Chicago Training School for City, Home, and Foreign Missions” as well as the “New England Deaconess Training School” produced many highly trained deaconesses and inspired the founding of many more deaconess schools and academies.[39]

Pope-Levinson notes that deaconesses in the Methodist Church engaged not only in private evangelism but public evangelism as well, frequently leading revivals and even pastoring small churches on occasion.[40] Laceye Warner concurs with the judgement of Pope-Levinson and notes that women “deaconess-evangelists” frequently led revival meetings and movements in the Methodist Church in both Britain and America[41] There was a conservative backlash within the Methodist Church in America against deaconesses moving outside of their traditional purview (e.g. providing relief to the poor) though they were largely unsuccessful in curbing the rapidly expanding duties of deaconesses in the Methodist Church in late 1800s and early 1900s.[42]

Echoing the claims of Emilie G. Briggs, though relying on far more archival data, Barbara B. Troxell notes that although most of the major Protestant denominations in America revived the deaconess tradition in the late 1800s, the Methodist movement embraced it the most wholeheartedly and allowed their deaconesses to perform the widest range of duties. She reports that out of 2000 deaconesses serving in America at the turn of the century, 1200 of them were Methodists.[43] She also notes that other Wesleyan groups such as the United Brethren in Christ and the Evangelical Association created deaconess orders in the early twentieth century.[44] With Pope-Levinson, Troxell emphasizes the important role of Lucy Rider Meyer in reviving the deaconess movement in the Methodist tradition.[45]

Many of the various “Holiness” offshoots of the more mainstream Wesleyan tradition also embraced a female diaconate. According to theologian and historian Paul L. King, my own tribe, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, licensed and ordained women as deaconesses in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Deaconesses in the early Christian and Missionary Alliance often served on church staffs and were occasionally leaders in inner city missions.[46] Deaconess in the Christian and Missionary Alliance engaged in youth ministry, evangelism to women and children, mercy ministries, and occasionally public “Gospel preaching.”[47] King does note that while deaconesses were typically not allowed to administer the ordinances of communion and baptism, they sometimes did so in the absence of a male clergyperson.[48]

Conclusion

When the literature on this subject is carefully consulted, we see quite clearly that deaconesses played a significant role in the pastoral ministry of the Eastern Christian Churches during the Patristic era (100-451.)We know in some detail as least one of the ordination rites (The Byzantine rite) that was used for deaconesses in the Christian East, as well as the kind of pastoral and liturgical work they typically performed. The deaconess tradition does not seem to have been widespread in the Western Church nor in Egypt. Only during the Reformation would voices like John Calvin, Thomas Helwys, and John Smyth give support to the appointment of deaconesses. However, it does not seem that their support for deaconesses immediately resulted in a widespread revival of the practice. Moving into the modern period, some Protestant groups such as the Pietists of Halle, the Moravians, and later the Methodist and Holiness Churches spawned vibrant deaconess movements of their own employing them to do a variety of pastoral work such as mercy ministries, women and children’s ministries, teaching, and in some cases public preaching.

Notes

[1] Pietro Sorci, “The Diaconate and other Liturgical Ministries of Women,” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, ed. Phyllis Zagano (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 59-86. Sorci’s article demonstrates well how widespread the deaconess tradition was in the Christian East by showing its’ presence in the Byzantine, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian Churches.

[2] Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.) 1-2

[3] Madigan and Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History, 2-4.

[4] Corrado Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, ed. Phyllis Zagano (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 42.

[5] Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” 42.

[6] See Ugo Zanetti, “Were there Deaconesses in Egypt?,” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, ed. Phyllis Zagano (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 136-140.

[7] Sorci, “The Diaconate and other Liturgical Ministries of Women,” 66.

[8] Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” 43-47.

[9] Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” 46.

[10] Cipriano Vagaggini, “The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Tradition,” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, ed. Phyllis Zagano (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 96-103.

[11] Vagaggini, “The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Tradition,” 103-107.

[12] Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” 48.

[13] Vagaggini, “The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Tradition,” 106.

[14] Sorci, “The Diaconate and other Liturgical Ministries of Women,” 77.

[15] Vagaggini, “The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Tradition,” 90-120.

[16] Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” 51-55.

[17] Vagaggini, “The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Tradition,” 112-114.

[18] Marucci, “History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church,” 42.

[19] Sorci, “The Diaconate and other Liturgical Ministries of Women,” 77.

[20] Kenneth J. Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.) 230.

[21] Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition, 231.

[22] Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition, 231.

[23] Charles W. Deweese, Women Deacons and Deaconesses: 400 Years of Baptist Service (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2005.) 21-22.

[24] Deweese, Women Deacons and Deaconesses: 400 Years of Baptist Service, 27-29.

[25] Fleur Houston, “Reformation: a Two-Edged Sword in the Cause of the Ministry of Women,” Feminist Theology 26, no.1 (2017): 19.

[26] Kirsi Stjerna, “Reformation Revisited: Women’s voices in the Reformation,” Ecumenical Review 69, no.2 (2017)

[27] Beth Allison Barr, “What did the Reformation mean for Women? A Medieval Perspective on Howards ‘Discriminating Sifter’,” Fides et Historia 48, no.2 (2016): 85.

[28] Barr, “What did the Reformation mean for Women? A Medieval Perspective on Howards ‘Discriminating Sifter’,” 88.

[29] Martin Marty, “God’s Glory, Neighbor’s Good: The Story of Pietism,” Produced and Directed by Tim Frakes, 2017, Documentary, 24:00-25:30.

[30] Elizabeth Gillan Muir, A Women’s History of the Christian Church: Two Thousand Years of Female Leadership (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2019.) 182.

[31] Muir, A Women’s History of the Christian Church: Two Thousand Years of Female Leadership, 183.

[32] Emilie G. Briggs, “The Restoration of the Order of Deaconess” The Biblical World 41 (1913): 382.

[33] Briggs, “The Restoration of the Order of Deaconess,” 383-384.

[34] Briggs, “The Restoration of the Order of Deaconesses,” 385.

[35] Benjamin L. Hartley, “Salvation and Sociology In The Methodist Episcopal Deaconess Movement” Methodist History 40, no. 2 (2002): 182.

[36] Briggs, “The Restoration of the Order of Deaconesses,” 386-390.

[37] Briggs, “The Restoration of the Order of Deaconesses,” 386.

[38] Priscilla Pope-Levinson, “A ‘Thirty Year War’ and More: Exposing Complexities In The Methodist Deaconess Movement” Methodist History 47, no. 2 (2009): 108-114.

[39] Hartley, “Salvation and Sociology In The Methodist Episcopal Deaconess Movement” Methodist History,196-197.

[40] Pope-Levinson, “A ‘Thirty Year War’ and More: Exposing Complexities In The Methodist Deaconess Movement,” 114-116.

[41] Laceye Warner, “Wesley Deaconess-Evangelists” Exploring Remnants of Revivalism in Late 19th Century British Methodism” Methodist History 38, no. 3(2000): 176.

[42] Pope-Levinson, “A ‘Thirty Year War’ and More: Exposing Complexities In The Methodist Deaconess Movement,” 115-116.

[43] Barbara B. Troxell, “Ordination of Women in the United Methodist Tradition” Methodist History 37, no. 2 (1999): 120.

[44] Troxell, “Ordination of Women in the United Methodist Tradition,” 120-121.

[45] Troxell, “Ordination of Women in the United Methodist Tradition,” 121.

[46] Paul L. King, Anointed Women: The Rich Heritage of Women in Ministry in The Christian and Missionary Alliance (Tulsa: Word and Spirit Press, 2009.) 74.

[47] King, Anointed Women: The Rich Heritage of Women in Ministry in The Christian and Missionary Alliance, 74.

[48] King, Anointed Women: The Rich Heritage of Women in Ministry in The Christian and Missionary Alliance, 232.

Bibliography

Barr, Beth Allison. “What did the Reformation mean for Women? A Medieval Perspective on Howard’s ‘Discriminating Sifter’” Fides et Historia 48, no. 2 (2016): 80-88.

Briggs, Emilie G. “The Restoration of the Order of Deaconesses” The Biblical World 41, (1913): 382-390.

Deweese, Charles W. Women Deacons and Deaconesses: 400 Years of Baptist Service. Macon: Mercer University, 2005.

Hartley, Benjamin L. “Salvation and Sociology In The Methodist Episcopal Deaconess Movement” Methodist History 40, no. 2 (2002): 182-197.

Houston, Fleur “Reformation: a Two-Edged Sword in the Cause of the Ministry of Women.” Feminist Theology 26, no. 1 (2017): 19-33.

King, Paul L. Anointed Women: The Rich Heritage of Women in Ministry in The Christian and Missionary Alliance. Tulsa: Word and Spirit Press, 2009.

Madigan, Kevin and Carolyn Osiek. Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.

Marty, Martin, “God’s Glory, Neighbor’s Good: The Story of Pietism,” Produced and Directed by Tim Frakes, 2017, Documentary, 24:00-25:30.

Marucci, Corrado.“History and Value of the Feminine Diaconate in the Ancient Church” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, edited by Phyllis Zagano, 40-58. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016.

Muir, Elizabeth Gillan. A Women’s History of the Christian Church: Two Thousand Years of Female Leadership. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2019.

Pope-Levinson, Priscilla. “A ‘Thirty Year War’ and More: Exposing Complexities In The Methodist Deaconess Movement” Methodist History 47, no. 2 (2009): 101-116.

Sorci, Pietro.“The Diaconate and other Liturgical Ministries of Women” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, edited by Phyllis Zagano, 59-86. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016.

Stewart, Kenneth J. Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.

Stjerna, Kirsi “Reformation Revisited: Women’s voices in the Reformation.” Ecumenical Review 69, no. 2 (2017): 201-2014.

Troxell, Barbara B. “Ordination of Women in the United Methodist Tradition” Methodist History 37, no. 2 (1999): 119-130.

Vagaggine, Cipriano.“The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Greek and Byzantine Tradition” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, edited by Phyllis Zagano, 90-120. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016.

Warner, Laceye.“Wesley Deaconess-Evangelists” Exploring Remnants of Revivalism in Late 19th Century British Methodism” Methodist History 38, no. 3(2000): 176-190.

Zanetti, Ugo.“Were there Deaconesses in Egypt?” in Women Deacons: Essays With Answers, edited by Phyllis Zagano, 136-139. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016.