I had not intended to pursue this here, but since you've offered "proof" of a certain position I will make some brief comment.
I have looked through Schwertley's work and am grateful for both the link and his hard work. It provides some weight to the idea that women shouldn't be deacons, but is inconclusive in its historical observation. It also admits that women have been deacons in various locations throughout the history of the church, though he does not admit that they were in the same capacity as men, nor to much extent prior to the latter 4th century. His statement, "Because there is not a shred of biblical or historical evidence to support the contention that women served in the same office as men deacons" is quite audacious. If true, then his argument carries even greater weight. But how "provable" is it? His idea that "women deacons," if they exist, were subordinate to male deacons, especially in light of 1 Tim 5:9ff, bears careful consideration. However, the classification of an "order of widows" has problems of its own, namely that Scripture does not clearly set such a position apart. His treatment of "taken into the number" is taken my many to simply refer to church membership. This fits both contextually and theologically. I cannot say much in regard to the exegesis though. Deacons, on the other hand, are clearly set apart.
Clark, in his quotation under 1 Tim 3, makes too many assumptions and presents personal bias as fact. He has a point to make, but botches it with his authoritative statement that fails to stand up on its own weight. The absence of the possessive pronoun is indeed problematic. He states that translating gunaikas as "their wives" is not mutilation at all, but that translating it as "women" is. Such a statement isn't even reasonable in light of the grammar. His further assertion that the conduct of wives must be in view here is unnecessary as one of the requirements is that the elders' and deacons' homes are in order. This is a pragmatic imposition rather than a valid interpretation, as his quote of Hendriksen clarifies. His assertion (and Hendriksen's) that the interpretation "women" in light of the placement of hosautos (likewise) really may have some validity and bears careful consideration for all who study this issue. There are other statements in this section that are problematic, but I won't belabor the issue here.
I also read most of the first link you provided. He has some good observations, but I find the exegesis to be flawed for many of the same reasons. I have done the the work myself on this and, though I admit that I probably do not have the same ability with Greek, came away convinced that women could be deacons. Obviously I'm in good company. For clarity, it's not a hill I'd die on, because the language can allow for either "women" or "wives." However, grammar in conjunction with context would favor "women" in 1 Timothy 3. Perhaps, if there is a desire to debate the validity we could move that discussion to a new thread. If so, I'd be happy to deal with some of the issues I perceive in how Acts 6:1-7 has been handled in this thread as well.
For now, as I stated earlier, I don't think it would be proper for me to continue to debate that here, as I am not affiliated with this denomination in any way. And, it is highly doubtful that any powers within it really are concerned with what I think - not that I blame them.
If you would like to start a thread on this particularly, the material and assertions in Mr. Schwertley's paper, that would be fine.
I do not believe your summary of what Mr. Schwertley's writes(20+ pages with much documentation) is accurate. For example
He does come to a clear historical conclusion, in this paper, based on evidence.It provides some weight to the idea that women shouldn't be deacons, but is inconclusive in its historical observation.
and your opinion here
would certainly be worth discussing, in light of both the historical church witness and scripture itself.However, the classification of an "order of widows" has problems of its own, namely that Scripture does not clearly set such a position apart
While I'm not able to translate Greek, your assertion
is certainly at odds with Mr. Mattes careful review of the Greek and since it was not translated the way you imply it would be at odds with the KJV, NIV or ESV in the mind of the main bible translations, as well.He states that translating gunaikas as "their wives" is not mutilation at all, but that translating it as "women" is.
But if you would like to discuss Mr. Schwertly's paper particularly in a thread here, please start that.
Let's not just dismiss all Mr. Schwertly's work with a few statements- and we'll invite some help with people familiar with the Greek translations.