This whole second part is question begging. If one believes, on the basis of the received tradition of the Church, that all priests are called first to be ordained deacons, then the cognitive dissonance never arises when one takes the vow. One answers truthfully and sets about trying to fulfill one's vows. Indeed, these vows, which are never taken back continue to frame one's ministry as a priest and/or bishop.

One cannot assume that priests are not so called, when that is the very point at issue. Like it or not, at present every priest is called to the ministry of a deacon. Asserting the contrary and offering a reductive account of why others don't yield to one's superior wisdom does nothing to change people's minds.

Again, I say this as someone who is completely persuadable that the Church should change its practice here. I really don't have a dog in this race. There may be good, sound reasons why this proposed change would strengthen the ministry of the order of deacons and diakonia throughout the Body. I've not seen any offered the last couple of days.

Bill,

I'm in the same boat with you on this one. It seems to me trying to solve a pedagogical problem (how we teach the wider church and clergy to think, act, and speak more clearly about the diaconate) is not necessarily solved by simply doing away with the transitional diaconate.

I think Paula does point to the reality that some called to priesthood appear to act as though the transitional diaconate is something to be "gotten through" rather than embraced with all the seriousness they are ultimately to take the priestly vows.

That there may be other sound theological or ecclesiological reasons to eliminate the requirement that our priests be deacons first I'm willing to grant. But I haven't seen those reasons here yet.

I find the whole issue bizarre. It is deacons who are ordained priests, and priests are still deacons and priests (who are still bishops) who are ordained bishops, who still remain deacons and priests. Ordination to other grades of Holy Orders within the Christian hierarchy do not magically obliterate the previous ordination.

I still consider myself a deacon and have on occasion worn my stole deacon-wise since ordination to the presbyterate.

Personally, I have never met anyone who thought they were lying or had to do the psychological gymnastics of "mental reservation" to be ordained deacon. I think of Saint Ambrose, chosen to be bishop of Milan as a lay person, and undergoing seven ordinations.

I still feel called to the diaconate and to the priesthood. If--God forbid--there is a call to the episcopacy, I don't think my years as a priest would have been a lie.

I see each ordination as a gift and a calling. One should not try to force an age old ceremony into a mold of "cognitive dissonance" which never was there in the first place.

If they say “No, I’m not called to be a deacon, I’m called to be a priest” they will not be allowed to become a priest.

Only a foolish bishop would stop the ordination because of this answer. Rites are not rendered invalid because of minor errors in the text or action, and this would be exceedingly minor, a mere blip in the liturgy. I do suggest, however, that conscientious ordinands answer: "I believe I am called to the life and work of a priest, after a time as deacon." Then the bishop may at least smile at the ordinand's ingenuity.

The question is are you truly called to the life and work of the deacon, that life and work described prior to the question. Unless and until that life and work description is changed, I could at my ordination, and still can now, say I am so called. That life and work informs my understanding of my priesthood. There is no congnitive dissonance. In my diocese we ask those who are seeking ordination to the priesthood to wrestle with the question of why in fact the period of transitional diacontate is considered formative for priesthood. Saying either that it is not, or that we have always considered it to be so, are not adequate answers.

Dylan Breuer has an excellent essay on this subject here

Ann, thanks for the link! Dylan's post is perfect--especially (for me) the last sentence.

The author's argument for cognitive dissonance is based upon a simple concept--a person called to be a priest is called to that order and not necessarily another order at that time. The author in no way suggests that calls do not change, but that those hearing a priestly call don't inherently hear a sequential one. Arguments suggesting she argues otherwise are disingenuous.

A second piece of the author's argument is that much of the defense of the transitional diaconate is based on arguments generated to defend it, not inspire it. My grandfather dealt with cognitive dissonance in WWII to reconcile the killing of Japanese with his Christian faith. Just because he was able to successfully do so, and live a productive life afterward, does not make his manufactured prejudice proper.

Lastly, I beg to differ with Bill. I do not believe that "at present every priest is called to the ministry of a deacon". This is the crux of the author's argument: canonical requirements and self-defensive justifications do not constitute a definition of call. My sponsoring parish, sponsoring priest, discernment committee, COM, Standing Committee, Field Ed supervisor, Seminary Dean, CPE supervisor, seminary professors, classmates, etc. did not participate in my process and consent to my ordination because they saw me as deacon or as a hypothetical priest/deacon hybrid, but because the call tested and affirmed was to the priesthood.

The primary argument for direct ordination is the most simple one: God calls, and the church affirms individuals to the sacred order of presbyters (and bishops and deacons). It is the canons and fear of change that make it otherwise.

Drew+

Drew,

One is called to the priesthood as the Church defines it. At present, the Church defines it as a ministry that encompasses a period of service as a deacon and taking diaconal vows (which are in fact never renounced, no more than one renounces one's baptismal vows). This is not to reinstitute the idea that each ordination is a promotion. I think that the example of bishops is instructive. It is not a promotion, and a bishop continues to exercise every ministry of the sacred priesthood. He or she remains a presbyter, and the ordinal is even explicit that he or she is to "sustain your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them." (BCP, p. 518)

Might we structure the orders differently? Of course. Until we do, however, it is a simple fact that every presbyter is called to serve for a time as a deacon (and to really, ontologically be a deacon). Does the indelible character imposed at a diaconal ordination ever pass away? No. Are the vows ever renounced? No.

All charisms for ministry are given with the Holy Spirit at baptism. Ordination is entering into an institutional expression of these charisms, framed by certain vows. The grace and power of the Holy Spirit is invoked, and the setting apart does convey grace. But any good sacramental theologian would tell you that the sacraments do this by opening us up to the reality of the Spirit, who is always already present, always forming us into the full stature of Christ. Through ritual action, graced by the Holy Spirit, certain sacred signs cause what they signify. This includes setting someone apart for any specific order.

One enters into an order as it is defined by the Church, not as one wishes it were. Too many who favor direct ordination to the priesthood have been acting like this is an obvious conclusion or as if the case has already been made on theological grounds. This is what is profoundly disturbing about Pamela's two articles. She attempts to reduce theological convictions to psychological resistance.

Again, I'm not necessarily opposed. I would happily embrace the change if the Church changed the canons. Until it does, every priest is in fact called to be a deacon. If I didn't see a better theological case than has so far been presented, I would probably vote against the change were I a Deputy. I don't for a minute pretend such a case can't be made. I just haven't seen it.

Asserting that "it is the canons and fear of change that makes it otherwise" begs all the significant questions. As a priest of the Church, I accept the canons as an expression of our present discipline. For centuries, the transitional diaconate was the only form of diaconate there was. We all agree that the order of deacons should be a full and equal order. How specifically does the continued existence of transitional deacons prevent the order of deacons from performing the task for which God created it?

From Paula Jackson - shared with permission:

With or without ¨transitional¨ deacons, perhaps the diaconal role that makes the institutional church most uncomfortable --and which we most need-- is that of bringing the needs and concerns of the world into the church, and carrying the Gospel out into the world. (Represented liturgically in specific roles with prayers of the people, at the offering of gifts, and
with the proclamation of the Gospel, and the Dismissal.)

I wonder if the other orders have an innate tendency to conspire to protect the institution as institution. The baptized can be swayed by this expectation (as per the recent quote that we die when we think our business is ¨church¨ rather than God´s mission in the world).

The diaconate is charged with breaking down our doors and smashing our stained glass windows, if that´s what it takes, to get us out of our box and to bring in the unnoticed and uninvited. Ah, evangelism. If we really do that, we´ll be changed by all those people whose needs --and gifts-- are different from the ones we expect in our community.

This is the threatening edge of the diaconate which is not quite grasped in the term ¨servant ministry.¨ Perhaps the reason some folks resist the order altogether. Of course there is the diaconate of all believers; and the presbyterate and episcopate must share this ministry too. But I pray for a strong corps of fearless deacons to lead the way and show us how to do this, in the name of Christ, for the transformation of the Church.

I have to agree with my former professor on this. Well put (in both posts) Bill.
Jody Howard

From Dn. Susanne Watson Epting - shared with permission:

Our friend, Jim Kelsey, would often say to deacons that we should make a button to wear saying, "I am not your underwear!"

What's interesting in this discussion is that we have no deacons weighing in here. It would take way too long to address the realities and dynamics here about what that is so. And, also interestingly, I think we've finally reached a point in the church where the diaconate has been redefined in through something other than a presbyteral lens.

First of all, the diaconate, as it is defined in the BCP 1979 is about more than servanthood. That's the easy part. Just as there is a priesthood of all believers (which is one reason I think the word "presbyter" is much more appropriate than "priest) there is a diakonia of all believers. I find it puzzling that it seems so difficult, to so many, to grasp the difference between a call at baptism and one at ordination. But I also think this points to the fact that many of those ordained in our church relate more to an ordinational identity than a baptismal one.

I often think that we have much more of a "generational" formation issue here than anything else. I don't mean that in terms of age, so much as in terms of whether a great deal of our formation took place with the 1928 BCP or the 1979 BCP. The 1928 BCP really says little about the diaconate as serving anywhere but in the church, primarily sacramentally, and "under" someone else. Even the poor to whom the ordination service refers, are those inside the parish, and they are to be sought out in order to give them money. . . not so much friendship and affirmation and blessing.

The 1979 BCP has defined things very differently, but unfortunately, the only thing we "glom" onto is the idea that this is about servanthood. And in our ingrown cultural understandings this so often has to do with an idea of servanthood that reaches down, and not out.

While we talk about tradition, much of the rest of the communion still only has the transitional diaconate and only sees it through presbyteral lenses. With the most current revision of the BCP, we reclaimed a more ancient tradition. For those of us who have been living it, it is a very, very different way of being than what is primarily being described here.

For those of you who are truly interested in a deeper understanding and frame of reference, the Winter issue of the Anglican Theological Review has a lengthy article about diaconal leadership.

Susanne Watson Epting
Deacon and Executive Director
North American Association for the Diaconate
PO Box 160
Bettendorf, IA 52722-0003
563-359-0541
skwatsonepting@aol.com

Sort of thinking-out-loud here. For the sake of argument I'll grant the "transitional" diaconate to be necessary, for reasons of tradition, order, and making the priesthood thoroughly grounded in servanthood. We also have a situation in which an increasing number of our priests will need to be bi-vocational, and one in which many of our newly graduated seminarians have crippling debt loads. What if our Process looked like this:

a) Initial inquiry and discernment, etc. (what used to be called "aspirancy") looks pretty much as it does now, up through being named a Postulant;
b) upon being named a Postulant, you are ordained a Deacon and expected to serve as such, non-stipe, for a minimum of 3-5 years while also pursuing secular employment. While a deacon, you function in your parish as a deacon in all senses, looking for opportunities for empowering ministry "in the world", etc., just as a vocational deacon would. As part of this, you are also pursing some stages of formal formation. This would include theological education to the equivalent of graduation from EfM (whether or not acquired through that program or some other way), and basic training on the *content* of the canons and BCP. Training and licensure and experience as a LEM, LEV, and catechist. Regular meetings w/ a discernment group or reflection group to help you reflect critically on your practice of ministry.

You would build up a detailed written portfolio of such ministry experiences and reflections so that your discernment and formation process would be documented, and easily portable to another diocese if your secular employment required a move. And you'd be in ongoing spiritual direction. Meanwhile you'd be working full-time or at least > 20hrs/week in non-church employment.

This would allow you to a) earn money to pay down your undergrad debt and/or save for seminary; b) get practice balancing secular and church commitments and being a witness in the secular world as an ordained person; c) acquire a trade/career which you could continue after priestly ordination if you needed to be bi-voc (or during seminary, to help pay tuition); and also make your diaconate long enough to be an authentic diaconate, not merely a holding/training stage for priesthood.

If, at the end of the 3-5 year period, all still seemed well from the Church's side, and you still felt called to priestly ministry, you would then work out a plan for more formal theological education w/ your bishop and proceed onwards towards Candidacy for Priesthood.

This has the advantages of having all folks have some work-world experience, w/o simply telling young aspirants to "go away and come back in 5 years," as was often done in the '80s and '90s, only to have them feel 'rejected' and end up lost to vocational ministry forever. It prepares folks for bi-voc ministry, at least to some extent. It makes their transitional diaconate a genuine diaconate. It sends them to formal seminary coursework w/ a foundational knowledge in Bible, theology, BCP and canons, so the seminaries have less remedial work to do.

This is just an off-the-top-of-my-head proposal.

Gillian Barr