Anyway, what you said--that a lack of clergy who could anoint women resulted in the creation of deaconesses--is not what that Wiki page says.
Actually, it very much does. Read and ponder carefully:
"It being improper for males to be physically handling women, deaconesses were commissioned to assist especially in baptism and chrismation."
"In the early Church it is highly likely that deaconesses performed the same liturgical role as deacons, and quite likely more, because of the taboo on (male) priests touching female neophytes, or touching females requiring the sacrament of holy oil for the sick. It is likely that the actual application of the holy oil onto the body of the women being chrismated was done by the deaconess, and not the priest."
Those are direct quotes from the article. It clearly says that the roles of the Deaconesses were performed because Priest touching females and anointing them with Holy Oil was not allowed and considered taboo. So, what are you talking about? That is very much what it is saying!
What you said was that a "lack of clergy" is what brought on the creation of the role of deaconess. What OrthodoxWiki says is that the "impropriety" of male clerics having that type of contact with female believers is what brought on the creation of the role of deaconess. "Lack of clergy" means "not enough clergy". "Impropriety" doesn't mean there was a shortage of clergy, it indicates an entirely different problem. I agree with OrthodoxWiki, I just didn't agree with you.
Moreover, OrthodoxWiki makes a claim that, IIRC, both you and I would not make: that "it is highly likely that deaconesses performed the same liturgical role as deacons, and quite likely more".
And OrthodoxWiki may not be the most reliable source of information in your opinion, but the facts are all there. I have spoken with my Priest, Deacon, and even a couple of Readers at my Parish on this subjects matter and I can assure you that your stance on this subject matter is far from correct. You may this degree in theology which I do not have (which I can easily say in an uninitiated and unashamed manner). But as an Orthodox Christian, I will definitely trust and adhere to the words of my Church Father before I bend to the words of some proclaimed theologian.
I never proclaimed myself to be a theologian. I provided the information I did because it means I've done at least as much research in this area as you have, so we should be able to work with better sources than Wiki and your interpretation of what your clergy are teaching you (and since you've misinterpreted Wiki, I can't take for granted the accuracy of your interpretation of the oral teaching delivered to you).
1. With this whole "lack of the clergy" business, that was incorrect wording. It would have been better if I had said "there were no clergy members at all who could anoint women" (Male clergy to be even more exact).
3. Yes, you are correct on the Wiki claim that we both disagree on
2. I very much understood and interpret what Wiki has said, as well as I very much
understood my priest and the others I have talked to. I am not dumb, this is not rocket science, and I can speak, understand, hear, and read clear English. I know what my priest has said and it is exactly what I'm telling you.
3. "we should be able to work with better sources than Wiki and your interpretation of what your clergy are teaching you"
And sir, if you cannot trust the words of the clergy, then I don't know you you can trust my friend.
4. This is definitely an endless agreement and this is just beyond the point of immaturity to continue to bicker about it.
At the end of the day, the point is the Deaconess was never and will never play the same role of the Deacon. I'm pretty sure the Church Fathers excluded women from playing such a role in the Clergy for this reason alone: It's a controversial topic and it causes causes confusion, disagreements, and pointless arguments, as proved here!