Freakin' Deacons...
[Sorry guys, I'm doing this the lazy way...copy-n-paste with slight modifications.]
So, as I was recently saying...
I wonder how and in what sense our confusion about ordained ministry (e.g. when is one a "rev.") relates to our failure to really understand the value of the diaconate as an ordained pastoral but not necessarily priestly role.
Granted, there is much variation even within the Christian tradition as to the role of deacon. For example, in Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican traditions, a deacon is a member of the clergy, whereas most protestants consider a deacon part of the laity, although 'ordained' to be a deacon as such. But even within the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican tradition there is some discrepancy here: Anglican deacons can preside over baptisms and weddings, but cannot consecrate the Eucharist, pronounce absolution, etc, whereas Catholic and Orthodox deacons would not baptize or officiate at a marriage.
Clearly the COTN has (on paper, anyway) a deaconate but we don't seem to know why or what to do with them once we've got them. As we've established elsewhere, pretty much anybody in the COTN can administer the sacraments, and although only pastors are "ordained"/comissioned to preach the gospel, really in practice, anyone can get up and preach a sermon, too, provided the pastor okays it (his authority extends at least this far, even if he's not yet an ordained elder!).
So what's the deal with deacons? On the one hand, perhaps we need to come up with a good, clarified understanding of what this valuable ecclesiastical office is and why we have it - bibically, historically, theologically, etc (which is not to say that investigating this question in each of those three 'modes' would yield the same answer). On the other hand: why even bother? One might say that if you want to be ordained in a church like the COTN, ya know, fish-or-cut-bait; either commit and become an ordained elder, or be content as a member of the priesthood of all believers...although whether our laity or even our clergy are a "priesthood" in any proper sense might be a matter of dispute in its own right.
(SPOILER: Just to tip my own hand...I'm a fan of the diaconate. I'd be a bigger fan, in practice, and perhaps even pursue becoming one, if, as I say, we knew what to do with it.)
[UPDATE:] A final point for discussion: how is our lack of clarity about deacons related back to our tendency to understanding one's "call to ministry" on purely personal-individual terms? What I mean is this: isn't this all at least unsurprising considering how little emphasis we place on the church in the process of calling leaders, and their personal response to that call? I mean, we rarely ever turn down anyone for ordination - believe me, I've asked my father, a pastor, who has served on district credentials boards for years. Even if some guy comes forward saying he's been called to preach, even though he has zero education and the most infuriatingly awkward social skills, we'll still probably ordain him because he's a good guy with a good heart and a genuine desire to serve the Lord. And I'm not saying we shouldn't affirm folks like this by ordaining and comissioning them to serve the church. What I am saying, though, is that we should not send them out of the room after their painful interview, and all kinda wink and nod at one another and check the box that says "yes" (or whatever they do) knowing that this ol' boy'll be sent to some tiny, dying church out in the boonies where he'll get on just fine for years and years and we won't really have to worry about him because, let's face it, he's never going to pastor a large, urban or suburban church (and they're the only ones that really "count," right...I mean, literally, count...numbers, dollars, etc?).
Okay, now I'm starting to sound cynical...and I'm not. I don't think we're way off base or anything as a church. I just think the church needs to take itself more seriously in the process of calling both priests and deacons. Different folks have different gifts, and the church should help in the process of discerning how (and why) one might best serve the local church, and by doing so, the Kingdom.
So, as I was recently saying...
I wonder how and in what sense our confusion about ordained ministry (e.g. when is one a "rev.") relates to our failure to really understand the value of the diaconate as an ordained pastoral but not necessarily priestly role.
Granted, there is much variation even within the Christian tradition as to the role of deacon. For example, in Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican traditions, a deacon is a member of the clergy, whereas most protestants consider a deacon part of the laity, although 'ordained' to be a deacon as such. But even within the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican tradition there is some discrepancy here: Anglican deacons can preside over baptisms and weddings, but cannot consecrate the Eucharist, pronounce absolution, etc, whereas Catholic and Orthodox deacons would not baptize or officiate at a marriage.
Clearly the COTN has (on paper, anyway) a deaconate but we don't seem to know why or what to do with them once we've got them. As we've established elsewhere, pretty much anybody in the COTN can administer the sacraments, and although only pastors are "ordained"/comissioned to preach the gospel, really in practice, anyone can get up and preach a sermon, too, provided the pastor okays it (his authority extends at least this far, even if he's not yet an ordained elder!).
So what's the deal with deacons? On the one hand, perhaps we need to come up with a good, clarified understanding of what this valuable ecclesiastical office is and why we have it - bibically, historically, theologically, etc (which is not to say that investigating this question in each of those three 'modes' would yield the same answer). On the other hand: why even bother? One might say that if you want to be ordained in a church like the COTN, ya know, fish-or-cut-bait; either commit and become an ordained elder, or be content as a member of the priesthood of all believers...although whether our laity or even our clergy are a "priesthood" in any proper sense might be a matter of dispute in its own right.
(SPOILER: Just to tip my own hand...I'm a fan of the diaconate. I'd be a bigger fan, in practice, and perhaps even pursue becoming one, if, as I say, we knew what to do with it.)
[UPDATE:] A final point for discussion: how is our lack of clarity about deacons related back to our tendency to understanding one's "call to ministry" on purely personal-individual terms? What I mean is this: isn't this all at least unsurprising considering how little emphasis we place on the church in the process of calling leaders, and their personal response to that call? I mean, we rarely ever turn down anyone for ordination - believe me, I've asked my father, a pastor, who has served on district credentials boards for years. Even if some guy comes forward saying he's been called to preach, even though he has zero education and the most infuriatingly awkward social skills, we'll still probably ordain him because he's a good guy with a good heart and a genuine desire to serve the Lord. And I'm not saying we shouldn't affirm folks like this by ordaining and comissioning them to serve the church. What I am saying, though, is that we should not send them out of the room after their painful interview, and all kinda wink and nod at one another and check the box that says "yes" (or whatever they do) knowing that this ol' boy'll be sent to some tiny, dying church out in the boonies where he'll get on just fine for years and years and we won't really have to worry about him because, let's face it, he's never going to pastor a large, urban or suburban church (and they're the only ones that really "count," right...I mean, literally, count...numbers, dollars, etc?).
Okay, now I'm starting to sound cynical...and I'm not. I don't think we're way off base or anything as a church. I just think the church needs to take itself more seriously in the process of calling both priests and deacons. Different folks have different gifts, and the church should help in the process of discerning how (and why) one might best serve the local church, and by doing so, the Kingdom.
posted by Brannon Hancock | 9:48 PM
2 Comments:
Catholic deacons can officiate weddings.
I like the deaconate as it gives a people a way to be ordained and serve in an official position without being an actualy head pastor. Most people within most churches only see a call to ministry as a call to preach. And demand for pastors from a limited supply usually makes it easier for just anyone to get a job as a pastor of a church.
E Pluribus Unum,
JH
thanks for correcting me, JH (and welcome). I was misinformed about the particulars of Catholic deacon-hood.
I agree that it is a great option (I don't know where everyone else is on this - at least Joseph should be chiming in, cheering us on at any minute) for those who feel called to ministry but not necessary to preaching - this is especially valuable in the COTN.
The problem is, what if you're feeling called to the sacramental ministry of the church (i.e. the priestly vocation) but not to the pastoral/shepherding/counselling or preaching parts? Then deaconal ministry does you no good. Well, actually, it would be precisely the right move, perhaps, in the COTN...but not for Anglicans, Catholics, etc.
Still scratching my head...and waiting for more views and ideas to be expressed.
Post a Comment
<< Home