KENNETH SCOTT LATOURETTE

THE DIACONATE: SACRED

OR OUTMODED?

As every historian knows, prophecy is hazardous. Too often the historian has seen forecasts disproved by the event. In speculating on the future of the diaconate two approaches are possible; both are legitimate and do not necessarily conflict. One arises out of history. In view of the record across the centuries and contemporary trends, what developments seem fairly well assured? The other is basically theological. In light of the convictions out of which the diaconate arose, what guiding principles should govern that development?

Out of the history so competently sketched in the preceding chapters, some generalizations emerge. The first is that in one or another form, from the very beginning, the diaconate has been a feature of the Church. In a few of the many organizations in which those who profess and call themselves Christians have been enrolled, the diaconate as a distinct office has not existed. However, in the Churches which have embraced the overwhelming majority of those who bear the name Christian, the diaconate had invariably been present.

Out of the past comes another generalization. The functions and the relative importance of the diaconate have varied widely. That is true not only as between churches – as, for example, within the many bodies which constitute Protestantism, and those in what is usually called Catholic tradition, including the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Anglican – but the variations have also been characteristic of most of the Churches, whether Protestant or Catholic, especially the latter, for each of them embodies a longer continuing tradition than the former, even when that tradition has been punctured by crises and momentous transitions.

In all the Churches in which it exists the diaconate had become institutionalized, and the functions have repeatedly been altered. Sometimes, in both the Orthodox and Roman Churches and formerly in New England Congregationalism, they have been chiefly liturgical. Occasionally they have been mainly administrative, as for centuries in Rome, where the city was divided into seven ecclesiastical districts, each under a deacon, as against the fourteen civil districts of imperial Rome with civil officials. In early centuries the deacons were often closer to the bishops than were the presbyters. At other times, as in Anglicanism in recent centuries, the diaconate has chiefly been a preliminary step to the priesthood. That tradition had been preserved in American Methodism, where the future elder (presbyter) is first ordained deacon. Today, notably in the status and the functions of the deacon are being reconsidered. The issue is made peculiarly urgent by the state of that Church in Latin America. There, where the overwhelming majority of the population is at least nominally Catholic and where a dearth of priests, both in numbers and quality, is chronic, can deacons, possibly married, assist in ministering to the rank and file of the Catholics through functions such as catechetical instruction, which canonically are permissible to deacons?

Another variety of the diaconate has been the office of deaconess. We hear of them in the early Church, and they figured prominently in the eastern wing of the Catholic Church. As a specific office, that of deaconess was not outstanding in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. In the nineteenth century they were revived in the Anglican communion and in Lutheranism and some other Protestant churches.

From this brief summary of what has been presented in the preceding chapters, it must be obvious that, in its many variations from the earliest days, the diaconate has been a feature of the Church. Again and again it has been formalized. Often it has seemed to have become vestigial, preserved because it was one of the historical offices of the Church, but it has survived and has been revived repeatedly. Today it is vigorous. Never before has it displayed so many forms. Here is vitality.

Two questions are inescapable. Is the diaconate essential or is it simply useful? Is it of the esse or the bene esse of the Church as conceived by Christ? If it is of the esse of the Church, what should be its purpose and its functions?

Again and again we have recorded sayings of our Lord which seem to indicate that the diaconate is of the esse of the Church. The preceding chapters have consistently reminded us that the English word “deacon” is an Anglicanized form of a Greek word which appears repeatedly in the New Testament. It is the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic term by which Jesus characterized his central purpose, and which he said should be reflected in his disciples. “Whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister (diakonos); and whoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant (doulos) of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto (diakonesthenai) but to minister (diakonesai) and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10,43-45, and its parallel, Mt 10,26-28).

So, too, in the early Church, in enumerating the gifts of Christ to “the saints in Ephesus,” the letter to them speaks (Eph 4,9-12) of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, and as all of them being “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work on ministry (diakonias),” seeming to imply that all members of the Church shared in diakonia or the diaconate. Therefore, diakonia is of the esse of the Church. Sometimes the New Testament speaks of diakonia as ministry to physical needs. Thus, after her healing by Christ, Peter’s wife’s mother “ministered” (diekonei) to those about her (Mk 1,21). The term was applied also to the women who accompanied Christ and the twelve and who ministered (diekonoun) of their substance (Lk 8,1-3). So Paul speaks of the gifts he was collecting from Gentile Churches for the distressed Christians in Jerusalem as ministering (diakonias) to the saints (2 Cor 8,4 9,1). The widows in the Jerusalem Church were ministered to (diakonia) daily, and it was to ensure that in this there was no discrimination that the seven were appointed (Acts 6,1-6). We must hasten to point out that the seven were not necessarily the first deacons, and that the New testament does not limit diakonia to ministering to physical needs. Nor does the New Testament use of the word in its several forms exclude the variety of functions which we have noted as characterizing the diaconate in the long history of the Church.

Since diakonia in one or another of its expressions is of the esse of the Church, what of the diaconate? Is it too of the esse or is it of the bene esse of the Church, useful but dispensable? If by the diaconate is meant an office bearing that name, clearly it is not indispensable. For example, the Society of Friends does not have an institution by that title, yet its record has been and continues to be one of distinguished diakonia – of that the American Friends Service Committee is ample evidence. By its name “service” and its history it is practicing diakonia, but none of its officers or staff has the official title “deacon.” So. Too the World Council of Churches, while stressing diakonia in its various forms of meeting physical needs, does not operate through representatives who are officially designated “deacons.”

Yet obviously the office or institution of the diaconate is characteristic of the Churches which embrace the overwhelming majority of those who are called Christians, and seems destined to persist indefinitely. That is not because of “social lag” – perpetuation through inertia, or out of respect for history. That may be true of some branches of the Church; but the diaconate continues to have useful functions, so vital to the life of the Church that, if it did not exist, they would have to be assigned to some office especially created for the purpose. That is seen in the majority of Protestant Churches. In many of them the deacons share in administering Holy Communion. Theoretically, and often actually, they assist the pastor in the “cure of souls” – ministering to the spiritual welfare of the members of the Church. In some Churches they are ordained. In one way or another, usually informally, they are often given specific training for the fulfillment of their functions. One of the preceding chapters had described the permanent diaconate in one diocese in the Episcopal Church. Presumably, it similarly exists in other branches of the Anglican communion. An informative chapter describes the manner in which Vatican II took significant action in modifying and strengthening the diaconate. Although the New Testament teaches that every Christian should share in diakonia, it also gives examples of assigning responsibility for some phases of the mission. Lately we have been hearing, and rightly so, that “the Church is mission,” but that mission, as the New Testament and the experience of all the subsequent centuries makes obvious, can best be effected through a variety of offices. Of these, the diaconate is one. So far as the historian can see, the diaconate will be continued and will assist the Church in fulfilling the purpose which the Lord of the Church has for it.