¶ 328 – From among the baptized, deacons are called by God to a lifetime of servant leadership, authorized by the Church, and ordained by a bishop. Deacons fulfill servant ministry in the world and lead the Church in relating the gathered life of Christians to their ministries in the world, interrelating worship in the gathered community with service to God in the world. The Book of Discipline, 2004.If you could change anything about the ministry of the Order of Deacons in the United Methodist Church, what would it be?
16 comments:
As they are ordained, I would permit Deacons to perform the Sacrament of Communion in the course of the work for the church.
For example, if a Deacon is working in Camps Ministry they could give Communion to the campers, or a Deacon serving as a hospital chaplain could administer Communion to patients.
If licensed local pastors can give communion in their own charge, then Deacons should be able to give communion where they work.
I agree with wabi-sabi, though I would phrase it quite generally: Give Deacons sacramental privileges.
I would agree 100% with wabi-sabi and chris - at the least, deacons should have sacramental authority within their appointments.
I would elimate the Order of Deacons. In the UMC we keep coming up with more and more special roles or positions which in my mind tend to imply that the average lay person is not a ministry or in ministry. If we are baptized, then we are all ordained for ministry, aren't we? We special orders? Couldn't deacon do the same thing without them?
If administering the sacraments is the duty of Elders then Deacons shouldn't be able to do so.
Personally, I've always had a problem with restricting who could perform the sacraments. Why do we say we believe in the priesthood of all believers and not practice it?
Absolutely "administer the sacraments." I also have a problem with the restriction of sacraments to elders.
To me the current form of the deacon order says "even though you're ordained, you're not as ordained as an elder." To paraphrase Animal Farm, some ordinations are more equal than others.
I don't see the reason for not allowing deacons to administer the sacraments, especially since so many deacons work in areas where the ability to do so seems like part of the work itself.
The reason deacons can't administer the sacraments is that it isn't the duty of the deacon. Elders are the ones ordained by the church to a ministry of word, sacrament, and order. This isn't a justice issue. Its like saying, "I think the ppr committee should be able to make the decisions about the insurance carrier for the church van." Its not the PPR committee's job to do that and each church elects people to do that job. If you want control of the church a/c thermostat don't sign up to be on the PPR committee.
Its not a privilege to administer sacraments. It is a responsibility given to a person by the church to do that kind of ministry. We aren't Baptists people! We have a narrower view of ordination. When I was Baptist we ordained you to do just about anything you wanted to do. But in the UMC, you have two separate but equal clergy tracks. Elders (word, sacrament, and order) and Deacons (word and service). Don't conflate the issue and act as if it were a justice issue.
Tim,
Our current definition of the roles of Deacons & Elders has the latter assuming a sacramental role and not the former. But I think it's fair to ask whether that definition needs tweaking.
We currently have unordained persons with limited sacramental authority in specific ministry contexts. I am not altogether comfortable with the idea that sacramental authority is given to some who are not ordained and withheld from some who are.
But Chris, you are forgetting that while local pastors aren't ordained that they are still functioning in the role of the elder and they are licensed to do that ministry in that particular local church. (I.e. they are in the "elder" track). There is also considerable oversight given to them. If you wanted to "tweak" the system a bit, do you think deacons in full connection would appreciate that same level of oversight?
And I think the example I gave about laity positions is a pretty good example of the different roles of service in the church. Trustees and the PPR play different and separate roles in the church. One is not better than the other. These people have been drafted by the church to do different tasks in the church. The same thing is true for deacons and elders. Why would it need to be tweaked. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the theology of ordination by trying to conflating the office of deacon and elder simply because they are both "ordained". Ordination is the act of the church to "set apart" persons for particular service in the church.
I think the mistake you are making is assuming because both deacons and elder are clergy that their ordinations are the same. Ordination is how one becomes clergy but being clergy doesn't confer the same responsibilities (and this is not just true in our denomination, but in every other denomination that ordains has this understanding as well, at least the ones I'm familiar with).
And I haven't even really addressed a further problem, that is the sacramental nature of the sacrament. I don't mean to hijack the comments here, butit is true that our neglect of liturgy, worship, and sacrament (particularly pronounced by the emphasis upon contemporary worship and "breaking the forms of worship") where part of administering the sacrament is that it is down in the right way and in the right setting. Its not that you can't, for example, give communion to youth in a gym after pizza and volleyball. Its that it has more power (not literally), more beauty, when it is served in the right way, by the right persons, in a worship setting. Of course when it is only done once a month (like at my church and every other church I served, a practice that dates back to the elder coming by once a month on the circuit to adminsiter the sacraments) and not the central part of our service (as John Wesley observed) then its no wonder people think, ahh, its just an extra option that we ought to be able to do anytime, anywhere, whatever the setting.
Our elders aren't too scarce and busy that they can't serve communion to patients in a hospital. But most churches I know take already consecrated elements to the patient and shut-ins (and this is usually delivered by laity). Why can't chaplains do that?
The Methotaku: I actually agree with you about elders staying out of the
beaurocratic system of the denomination. I noticed how many names we had on our list of elders serving outside the annual conference in non-pastoral ministries. Shouldn't an elder be primarily a pastor? I know of several (and few of them are my friends) elders who have spent most of their ministry in non-pastoral ministry.
Does our system give deacons the impression that they are inferior or less important than elders?
Deacons should only be allowed to consecrate the bread, not the wine. They should be able to bless the water of baptism, but not touch it, lest their hand melt in the font!
What everybody else said.
In defense of local pastors:
Many of them operate as "Part-Time" elders. Local Pastors are usually either Students on the Elder track or second career people. A very large number of smaller membership churches are pastored by local pastors.
Local Pastors sometimes are paid only enough to compensate them for their expenses incured in their pastoral ministry.
I don't know about other conferences, but it is not uncommon for a deacon to be appointed to a charge in Arkansas.
The path to being ordained a Deacon is extremely difficult. The educational requirements and inquiry process are now the same as becoming an Elder. You must have a graduate degree and professional licensure in your area of expertise, plus theological education. In addition to all of the candidacy process.
Becoming a licensed local pastor is not nearly as difficult, yet they are permitted to perform sacraments within their appointments.
Why should a Deacon who has been set apart through ordination not have the same responsibility within their appointment?
It doesn't make sense to me.
wabi-sabi: Because deacons weren't set apart for word, sacrament, and order, which is what elders are set apart for. This isn't an "equality" thing!
What you're saying is something akin to why can't a professor of biology/physiology practice medicine? He has his doctorate! He worked just as hard to get his credentials! He understands the body! He even teachers medical doctors at medical school! Why should nurses get to administer medicine when they haven't got as much eduction, understanding of the body, or credentials?
And the reason is: the person isn't a medical doctor. If he/she had wanted to practice medicine, then his/her vocational track should have been to become a medical doctor. It isn't that the professor of biology isn't as smart, as called to help others, isn't duly examined, doesn't understand the body, etc.
This analogy isn't the best one, but hopefully it will be important. I'm just trying to point out that in our polity, the people "set apart" to administer the sacraments are elders. It isn't that anybody can do it. (We aren't doing a magic show; And our theology doesn't rely on the "real presence" like Roman Catholics). Its just what ordination is for elders, so set apart for this act of service for the church. Deacons have their own role. And if deacons want to be elders then they should, not demand that their ordination be equated with elder ordination. They are two separate (alike but separate) vocational tracks.
Tim,
I guess I view the roles as more similar than you do. I appreciate your analogy, but I don't think it fits.
I would view both as Medical doctors - perhaps you would see an Elder as a surgeon versus a general practitioner? The problem with the analogy though is that Elders and Deacons have both completed "Med School" (metaphorically speaking), while unordained Local Pastors have not. However, the licensed local pastor can perform medical procedures (sacraments) that the Deacon is prohibited from performing (administering).
Anyway, I think if we're going to say that Deacons pursued the wrong ministry track, then those Elders who are working in more service oriented roles should be told they have pursued the wrong ministry track too.
Elders are ordained to word, sacrament and order. Deacons are ordained to word and service. Yet Elders are free to work in service roles, while Deacons don't have the same opportunities to go back and forth.
It seems odd that someone who has a solid theological education and background, psychiatric testing, fulfilled the inquiry and candidacy process, election by the Board of Ordained Ministry, Commissioning and Ordination by a Bishop would have to invite an Elder (or go to a church with a local pastor) to administer communion to a group of campers or someone with whom they work at a hospital or children's group home.
Yet a local pastor, who is not Ordained and has not gone through nearly as rigorous a process, can administer Communion. In our Annual Conference we have hundreds of Local Pastors who are not even pursuing Ordination; however, they have rights and responsibilities that ordained Deacons do not.
Also, I am not advocating that Deacons administer all sacraments - just Communion, which to me coincides with the ministry of service as God calls us to be in communion and service together and the two seem to go hand-in-hand.
Wabi-sabi: I agree about the elders and ministries of service. See my fourth comment.
Local pastors have not always been able to administer the sacraments. I'm not sure it was the right thing to allow them to do it but I suspect the change was made with the pressures of necessity as well as turning it into a "justice" issue. (When I say justice issue I mean, "Its not fair...")
I, for one, don't believe we should blur the lines between deacons and elders. One of the reasons we made the elder and deacon track separate was to affirm the work of the deacon as being equally valid and apreciated. (I'm one of the 92 Discipline ordinands who was ordained a deacon and then "stepped up" to become an elder.) If we blur these lines then what is the difference between the two? Itinerating. That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms if that is only difference in the work.
And why distinguish between communion and baptism? I actually believe a stronger case could be made that a deacon be allowed to administer baptism than communion (here I'm think of hospital chaplains).
If we blur the lines between the two ordinations then we weaken our theology in three ways: sacramentally, our understanding of ordination (we ordain two types not one type with two names), and practical theology (polity and praxis).
Again, I say, if a deacon wants to administer communion, they should seek ordination as an elder. If they want to do that then they are struggling with a call to elder ministry.
Post a Comment