The women’s ordination debate has led to some strange bed-fellows in the household of faith. The Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals have discovered how much they have in common, and have gotten together to defeat the Liberals. And just as we were becoming accustomed to this new alliance, everyone seems to have crossed the floor on permanent women deacons. Now it’s the Anglo-Evangelical camp that are all for ordination (to the diaconate) and the MOWists who are dead against it!
The root of all this confusion is that no-one really knows what to do with deacons. We Anglicans are said to believe in a threefold order of ministry—Bishops, Priests and Deacons— but somehow the deacon side of things has never really taken off. A deacon is less than a layman because he cannot serve on Synod, and less than a clergyman because he cannot serve as Rector of a parish.
Perhaps this lower form of existence explains why deacons never seem able to stay in the job for more than twelve months before applying for the priesthood. The diaconate has become little more than a probationary period for the aspiring priest.
This also explains the fun and games surrounding the ordination of women to the diaconate. Can we ordain them as deacons and then refuse them the priesthood? Will they ever be satisfied with being proto-priests? Given that it would remove their voting rights at Synod, one thinks not.
In the game of ecclesiastical chess, the ‘Anglo-Evangelicals’ latest move has been to propose the formation of a ‘permanent diaconate’ for women. The MOWists see this as a way of excluding them permanently from the priesthood and so vigorously oppose the motion. And on it goes…
Amid all this manoeuvring and debating, it could just be that the door is beginning to open in the Anglican Church in Australia. Waiting outside is Biblical Reformation. For those of us concerned to reshape our denomination into a form consistent with the Bible and with contemporary Australian culture, the women’s issue may be our greatest opportunity yet. Now, as a result of the women’s ordination debate, people are seriously considering the need for a diaconate that is more than a stepping stone to the priesthood. Now, more than ever before, people are willing to vote for changes that they have previously not even considered.
Now is the time to set up an order of deacons that actually serves a meaningful purpose. The possibilities are endless:
- We could ordain Christian social workers as deacons and have them committed to the spread of the gospel, as well as the provision of aid and relief. We could provide a framework in which they could practice ‘Christian’ social work, without the strictures of the pagan system.
- We could ordain administrators in our churches and in the diocesan organisation, whose desire to serve comes from a personal, theological commitment to the gospel.
- Chaplains in hospitals, prisons or schools could be recognised as conducting a different ministry from parish work, and be ordained to that specific task.
- Deacons could ordained to do any task that was appropriate to their specialised ministry. If a ‘hospital deacon’ thought it appropriate to conduct the Lord’s Supper, he should be free to do so, without having to call in a priest who has no connection with the patients.
- Men as well as women could be involved in this kind of scheme, thus resolving some of the anomalies of the present system.
- Retired men and women could be ordained as deacons to help with parish visiting, administration and so on.
- We could start blurring the distinction between clergy and laity by having part-time or temporary deacons. Someone could be a deacon for a few years while they served as youth worker for a church.
Given these possibilities, what purpose would a ‘permanent diaconate’ serve? It is a politically-motivated move, with little to offer in solving the problems of our denomination.
We need to break the nexus between deacons and priests. Priests should be ordained as priests without first having to become deacons. This would help clarify their role as pertaining to parish ministry. And deacons should be ordained as deacons without any expectation that they will later become priests.
Breaking the connection between priests and deacons leaves open the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood. It enables us to face that problem honestly and openly, rather than reducing it to an argument about the legality of permanency.
Most importantly, by driving some kind of wedge between the categories of ‘priest’ and ‘deacon’ a new and purposeful diaconate may result, opening up a whole field of gospel ministries that our system has hitherto not allowed.
