This is rather an important point and I believe we ought to recognise that to have a "knee-jerk theology" is rather worrying. Look at St. Paul's explanation for why women cannot be presbyters and bishops, the argument is creational. Look at why St. Paul decrys the sin of Corinth, it is moral.

It is important that St. Paul does not argue that only men are to be deacons at all, further if you are correct that Acts 6 specifies the role of a deacon then there is nothing there that would prevent a woman from carrying out that function.

I support women deacons, however I oppose women being deacons in the Church of England. Why? Because in the CofE to be a deacon is to do what a presbyter does minus presiding over the sacraments.

The verse allows for unmarried men to be suitable does it not? Why? Because it is saying that for someone to hold an office within the church they must be moral, one proof of that is not having more than one wife.

My point regarding the words used is simply to point out the flaw in your arguing:

Quote:

First, verse 2 uses the Gk. verb diakoneo to state what was not right for the apostles to be distracted by. Clearly this word is related to the Gk. noun diakonos used on 1 Tim 3 to refer to the office of deacon. So although the English word deacon is absent, a Gk. word related to deacon is quite present.

If you conceed that the termsdiakonos and diakoneo have more than one meaning then your argument that because a similar word is used in both therefore they are refering to the same thing is as valid as the argument that because similar words are used regarding Phoebe then Phoebe was a deacon.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK