Featured Is Complementarianism a Test of Fellowship?

It comes from the word "complement": to supplement, add to or even complete. This is not to be confused with the word "compliment": a kind saying about someone (You look nice today).

 

Pauline doesn't use a definite article (thus the "a" over "the" in our translations.) Had he we might suspect he was speaking of Phoebe as a office holder in her church. However there is no article and the accusative seems to indicate a form of service over office.

I should add this: I did a search on the use of diakonos in the NT, and specifically epistolary literature and there is only one occurence where the term has the article. Another problem with the term is that it is gender transitive...however, that still doesn't invalidate the 1 Tim 3:12 text which seems to help formalize the office within that first generation of NT churches. My broader argument about Phoebe continues to be that she is simply a servant and not identified as an office holder in the early church. Paul seems, especially in Roms 16, to point out office holders in one form or fashion. Phoebe isn't in that system.

Well show me where Paul identifies individuals as office holders, unique to their local congregation and where females are included in those specific references to office holders. Listen, I'm as soft a complimentarian as it gets but I just can't get beyond the clear NT teaching that the two offices in the local church pastor/elder and deacon are left to be, ultimately, male.

Pastor/elder/overseer are all the same office. Deacon is a secondary office. There are two offices for the local NT presented for us and it is these two. Note here Philippians 1:1 where Paul identifies leaders in that early church and uses masculine words to describe them. Also see 1 Peter 5:5-9 where the office described therein (elder/pastor) is used in the masculine. The language is unique and specific.

Timothy is identified as a deacon in his church 1 Timothy 4:6. How about 1 Corinthians 3:5 and Paul and Apollos?

Also, I don't expect Acts 6 to show us a formal office of deacon. The space between the events in Acts 6 and the more formalized ecclesiology found in the Pastoral Epistles is likely about 40 years. That is a lot of time for things to settle. One of the realities of the early church during this period is that they didn't watch the Resurrection and "poof!" suddenly have an established ecclesiology. It took some time. (They seem to have borrowed a bit from Second Temple Judaism but that is for another time.) So we shouldn't be surprised if there is a lack of formalized office right off the bat.

I might be misunderstanding your point about 1 Timothy 3 and both male and female being mentioned there, however, specifically in 3:11 the obvious referent is qualifying the deacons. These are the wives of the deacons (and possibly overseers if it is an interpolation from Paul over his secretary's hand.) But you can't get away from 3:12...husband of one wife. That is the qualification for the office.

I'm okay with that.

No worries, didn't see it the first time.