IMO, attributing the movement to feminism does a disservice to those who are not convinced that the office is exclusively for men but aren’t modernists. This is more so because, as you point out in the show, there’s little OT precedent for the office since the duties were incumbent upon all of Israel, and even in the NT the ordination of deacons was a reaction to what wasn’t happening organically in the early church, and the office isn’t necessary today (as are elders) if the duties can be filled by the congregation as a whole, including women.

In this episode you only address whether there’s an exegetical argument for women and conclude there is none, but I could probably argue that the exegetical argument for men only is similarly weak (gune can mean women and not simply wives, and arguing that deacons’ wives must be qualified but aren’t entitled to the office doesn’t actually make sense). But more importantly, what’s the hermeneutical case for male-only deacons? How does ordaining men only in any way communicate the covenant of grace that would be harmed by ordaining women, especially if this office is under the authority of the (male) elders?

I’d appreciate your response.