Jim Rosenthal describes himself as an “ardent Anglican,” “a faithful catholic” and a “prayerful … but not too pious … bureaucrat.” In fact, this gregarious, cheerful, hail-fellow-well-met who left the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago 18 years ago to become director of communications for the Anglican Communion, is far more than that, and his friends — many of them in high places — will tell you so.
“He is an incarnation of the bonds of affection of the Anglican Communion,” says Bishop Peter Lee of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
“He interprets the church to the world and the world to the church,” says former Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold.
[blockquote][i]”He is an incarnation of the bonds of affection of the Anglican Communion,” says Bishop Peter Lee of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.[/blockquote][/i]
Wow, that explains a lot. So Bishop Lee and Jim Rosenthall are chummy? Very interesting. The quote tells us more about Bishop Lee then it does Jim Rosenthall. The incarnation of the bonds of affection of the Anglican Communion? I don’t suppose Bishop Lee was trying to be ironic?
bb
[blockquote]”He interprets the church to the world and the world to the church,” says former Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold.[/blockquote]
I can’t even tell you how much this sounds like the kind of garble I heard at Virginia Seminary in the early 90’s.
“Rosenthal, 56, will be a “distinctive deacon,” which is the British term for a permanent deacon.”
Why isn’t he being priested?
Gordian
The permanent Diaconate is a choice that some are called to.
The only permanent deacons I’ve heard of are married Catholic men in the US (who obviously can’t be priested) and Anglican women who don’t agree with women priests. Why would a male Anglican deacon not be priested? He can serve much more widely than a deacon. Is there an impediment to a man being priested? A male deacon is really no different from a lay reader in his ministry.
Gordian — That is how you understand things, however in tradition there is a difference big between deacon and a LEM (lay reader is a very poor example). It is a license to participate in areas of the service, official recognition to serve the congregation in all ways except in the actual sacraments, thus a priest in all way sans two.
If I’m called, I’d prefer to be a permanent deacon, there are elements I’m not sure about the full fledge deal in terms of piety but also responsibility. It’s an ordination but not the tricker parts (Anglo-Catholic understand so high view of the call and sacraments).
In one sense, that says something very positive about Jim Rosenthall, aside from my cynicism, who knows, maybe I’ve at times written off folks the Lord has not … we can hope and pray.
I know of several male, liberal, Episcopal deacons that felt called to the diaconate and have no intention of becoming priests. There are at least 10 in my diocese. I assume this is common across the country…
Gordian,
I am a “permanent” deacon (although I prefer the terms “Deacon” and “Transitional Deacon”) and am decidedly male. I do not believe that I am called to the priesthood and my ministry is definitaly more than a glorified LEM or Lay Reader. When I heard the call to ordained ministry, I asked about which order. God told me (in a very clear voice) to look at the ministries I was involved in and they would tell me the order – priest or deacon. I am/was invovled in prison ministry, teaching at church, training acolytes, visiting the sick, and other ministries. They all said “Deacon.” I’ve been ordained for slightly over three years.
As a deacon, I am actually more effective in my ministry than I would be as a priest (another reason that I believe I am not called to the priesthood). I have a full time job that enables me to interpret to the church the needs of the world without fear of losing my job because of what I say. That is actually rather freeing. The recovery of the diaconate as a distinct order is a good thing for the Church. We have lost our prophetic voice to society (as witnessed by the issues of the day where the Church is being co-opted by society). It is the Deacon’s ministry to speak prophetically (in terms of what is happening and what God is doing) to the Church and to the world.
YBIC,
Deacon Phil Snyder
# 8 – these are all good things – but a priest in secular employment (I know several) could do all these things AND preside at the eucharist – which can be very useful in summer time especially.
Gordian – a priest in secular employ is not fulfilling his/her vows as best he/she can. “Will you undertake to be a faithful pastor to all whom you are called to server, laboring together with them and with your fellow ministers to build up the family of Christ?” (BCP p. 532). A priest in secular employ is not being a faithful pastor and should be the exception rather than the rule. A deacon in secular employ should be the rule rather than the exception. There is a lot more to the priesthood than celebrating the Eucharist – just as there is a lot more to the diaconate than proclaiming the Gospel, setting the table and giving the dismissal – or are you advocating two orders (Bishop and Priest-deacon) rather than the traditional three?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#9 – and we’ve seen the disaster for the paristh when a priest’s “call” is divided from the parish and the “other” job. Hat’s off to Phil. We particually loved that he listened to God in his call. May others be so led.
#10 Philip Snyder –There I’ll differ from you. It like sneering at a street preacher. A priest in the secular work force may have farther reach than one in full time ministry. St. Paul talked theory as he supported himself. One should glorify God where ever they find themselves and seek to be where God has called them. A working pastor was one who really help give me a real Biblical foundation and he has something NO other priest in full time ministry seem to have for me *TIME*. I can respect your opinion & it’s common as in not that unusual, but the Lord can call us to secular employment for His reasons.
The rest of #10 and #8 I fully concur.
# 10: following Lightfoot on Philippians (and Beckwith in ‘Elders in Every City’) I don’t believe there is a real distinction between presbuteroi and episkopoi. I look upon the episcopacy as the senior presbyterate. Did Paul fulfill his apostleship despite having to work with his hands?
KAR and Gordian.
I should have been more specific. A priest should not go into the priesthood “double minded” where (s)he intends to work full time in secular employ and pastor a church. There is a difference if the priest is working to support his family while building a church, but with the goal of building the congregation such that they will need a full time priest. Likewise, after a time of congregational ministry, it may be necessary for a priest to move into secular employ for a season – that is best handled between the priest and the bishop. I still don’t think a priest should be ordained with the assumption that (s)he will be in secular employ on a regular basis.
Gordian, if the “two” orders are Bishop-Priest and Deacon, what do you do with the deacon or are you now advocating one order – Bishop-Priest without deacons or with only transitional deacons?
The development of distinction between the Presbyter-Bishop of the NT times and the distinct offices of Bishop, priest, and deacon that is in full flower by the middle of the third century is an interesting read. Perhaps you could check out Ignatius and Hippolytus on the subject?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
A priest should not go into the priesthood “double mindedâ€
AMEN!!! That I’d concur, nothing wrong being undecided for a time, but that’s exactly where lay ministry is helpful, but huge difference in tent making and money making (the general drive for business success).
[*Insert tongue in cheek for off-topic quib that should not draw this thread off track*] I’m anglo-Cath in my heart of hearts … so what’s this “(s)he” business ??? :bug: [*End tongue in cheek*] :coolsmile:
#14: I’m kinda familiar with those later developments, as well as offices that existed for a while in the Roman empire, like the chorepiskopoi and exorcists. No, Ephesians 4.11 has a much more expansive view of ministry for ‘works of diakonia’.
So, bivocational priests are lesser priests? Is that like a Lesser Feast or Fast? Paul was just such a secular priest as I recall- as were all the Apostles. Hmmmmmm. Have we come down that much into clericalism per se?
Perceiving a call to the bivocational priesthood…but not second classness!
Congrtulations to the ordinand. 3000 attendees. I might worry about the bona fides given his quoted vouchsafer, though. But only in the matter of doctrine and discipline, nothing important like canon stuff! (Griswold as a approver of the world and church tie-in is pretty world oriented based on his PBness. Lee’s employment of the idea of incarncy of the bonds of affection is a bit worrisome, too, what with civil courts trumping diocesan agreements.)
# 17: according to this account, more than 40 others were ordained on this occasion:
http://1x57a.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/02/813672-st-paul-and-the-new-deacons
so I doubt if all 3000 turned out for this new deacon.
(Reminds me of a humor book from England many years ago: ‘Adolf Hitler: my part in his downfall’)
…. oh no, I’ve mentioned Hitler. The argument is lost.
Do these deacons vote at councils? In Virginia, the Bishop wanted to start having deacons (which is not done in Virginia – the laity do the deacons “jobs” and the deacons are transitional to the priesthood). Instead of the deacons attached to the parish, however, they would be directly attached to the Bishop – giving the Bishop direct oversight of the deacons (and bypassing the rectors). Politically it is a disaster because those deacons are not independent – they rely on the Bishop for employment and endorsement. It weakens the rectors and parishes by giving the Bishop direct control over sections of the clergy.
I find it alarming and wonder if such a thing is going on in England to swell the liberal ranks. You don’t need permanent deacons if the laity are equipped – which is the point of the clergy, to equip the laity for ministry (not the other way around).
I cannot tell you how much I oppose permanent deacons attached directly to Bishops.
bb
Separate orders of deacons from Apostles is Scriptural, mentioned first in Acts. Stephen, the first martyr, was a deacon, not an apostle.
#19 BB – DioVA does not have such a thing as “permanent†deacon, it’s merely a step to full priesthood, that seems common in many diocese in TEC. As to their placement, that’s up to the cannons of each jurisdiction, I’d say generally “no” but unsure. CofE does has a much more centralized power in the episcopate than the US.
On your other points — very Evangelical American ecclesiology. An equipped laity is not the only logic – both Ango-Caths or Rwandans have their own reasons. This is certainly an area where our position in Anglican thought (which stream) and geographically effects our opinion.
There are very few permanent deacons in the CofE. In many parishes much of their liturgical role is carried out by Readers. There is no great demand from the HOB or laity for an enlarged permanent diaconate though a report seems to be written about it once a decade for discussion by General Synod and then shelved. I imagine, in those few places where there are permanent deacons they are responsible to the incumbent of the parish to which they are licensed.
BB – As a deacon, let me tell you how it’s done here in Dallas (to the best of my knowledge).
1. Deacons have voice and vote as clergy in the Diocesan Convention and can serve on all committees except the Standing Committee. I personally serve on the Commission on Ministry.
2. Deacons are assigned by the Bishop and under the Bishop’s authority, but the assignment is in conjunction with the Rector. The deacon is placed under the authority of the Rector when assigned to a congregation and does what the Rector decides. As I was told in my classes on the diaconate, “The Rector may be wrong in his/her liturgics and/or leadership, but he/she is still the Rector and you are bound to follow him/her. If it is important enough to you to make a stink, you need to move on from the congregation.”
Most of our deacons in Dallas are non-stipendary. A few are employed by larger congregations or the Cathedral or Diocesan Office. On the whole, if a deacon is employed by a congregation, (s)he will be assigned to that congregation. Deacons are not there to spy on the rector or to report to the bishop on what a bad/good job the rector or clergy is doing. They are there to build up the body of Christ, to help raise up lay ministers and ministries and to help the priests be priests. A proper understanding of the roles of priest, deacon, and layperson in the life of the congregation is a big help. This is a problem with both priests and deacons. Too many priests (and laypeople) think that only priests are clergy. I’ve had a verger in my congregation talk about “The clergy and Phil” when discussing serving at the altar. Too many deacons see themselves as “Jr. Priests” and are all too ready to act authoritatively and to put themselves up as higher that they ought. They forget that their model is Jesus Christ, who is among us as one who serves.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I’m enjoying the conversation. I appreciate the practical problems of the diaconate under discussion, but the witness of an ordained servant minister (maybe someone with a day-job in hospice, or who pushes the vestry hard for money for outreach) in the Liturgy is powerful.
I think there is only one priesthood, which belongs to Christ, and all the baptized (the laity, laos = people) have a share. Very early in the Church the apostles transferred their oversight (episcope) to other leaders, now recognized as the historic episcopate (or the order of bishop). The presbyterate (elder, local leader), was synonymous with ‘bishop’, and later developed as apostolic delegates of the Bishop. The diaconate (server, waiter) is an early order of ministry, which was incorporated as a transition from the lay order to the presbyterate, and then later was recovered in the 20th century as a separate and distinct order of ministry which could be maintained permanently.
I like to think of the orders of ministry in Christ’s Church operating under an inverted hierarchy (an arrangement quite subversive of the world’s order):
The One God – at the very top.
The Laity – all the people of God worshiping and serving God in Christ.
The Diaconate – serving the laity under God’s rule.
The Presbyterate – serving all the above in the ministerial priesthood.
The Episcopate – serving all the above as head presbyter.
The issue of ‘Jr. Priests’ is serious, but if the diaconate is reserved for those who demonstrate special gifts for servant ministry, it can be minimized.
Not to hijack the thread, but I see diaconal ministry as a three fold ministry itself. You can see the three aspects of the deacon’s ministry in his/her role in the liturgy.
First, the deacon is the servant. He emulates Christ as the servant as he “serves tables” in preparing the Altar and gifts for Holy Communion. Deacons are called to model Jesus Christ who is among us as one who serves.
Second, deacons are prophetic voices as they interpret the hopes, needs, and concerns of the world to the Church. We see this in the prayers of the People, which deacons are supposed to be connected with. While the prayers are often read by the laity, deacons are supposed to have a large role in preparing them.
Third, deacons are angelic messengers. We see this most pointedly in the Great Vigil as the deacon sings the Exsultet calling heaven, earth, and the Church to rejoice in Christ’s resurrection. We also see the angelic messenger in the deacon’s proclaimation of the Gospel.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, A triad does not the Trinity make. God’s Rule, Christ’s New Creation, The Holy Spirit’s Witness. Now, there is a threesome that represents the Trinity! I’m not sure the three orders of ordained ministry or your three aspects of the diaconate are that helpful in teaching the Trinity. Or maybe I’m missing something.
AC(#26) – I didn’t mention the Trinity at all. The tri-fold aspects of diaconal ministry are three functions in the same person, not three persons in one being. If I were to compare the three-fold aspects to the Trinity, I would be guilty of modalism. I wasn’t trying to teach the Trinity by using the aspects of diaconal ministry. It is interesting how often the number 3 comes up in theology, though.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, The point I was making is that your “tri-fold aspects of diaconal ministry” are contrived not actual, as are the three orders of ministry. The laity is an order too, which has just as much a share in Christ’s priesthood as the other orders. The reason three is important is because of the Trinity, otherwise its regular occurrence is not particularly interesting, but rather a superstition.
And if I (or you) were to describe how your ministry manifested or symbolized
1. the reign of God in your life,
2. your salvation by the blood of Jesus,
3. while in the power of the Holy Spirit,
it would not make you a modalist. It would show that you are a Christian.
Philip Snyder: Your comments here are splendid. Blessings on your ministry(ies)!
BabyBlue you (or your Diocese) (BTW, are you still a communicant in the DioVA?) have an incomplete understanding of the Diaconate. The ministry of Deacons has been sorely neglected, and to see a growth in understanding, support, and numbers is encouraging. The Church needs more like Philip Snyder — whether reasserter or reappraiser, it is the Deacon’s calling to take the Gospel into the world and bring the world to the Gospel. Blessings for those so called!
And before you ask, of [i]course[/i] it is the calling of every single Christian to proclaim the Gospel. The Deacon, however, like the Priest, has a specific and intentional order to do this. And yes, Deacons are traditionally under the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop. They may act in accord with the Rector of a parish, but ultimately, they answer to the Bishop.
PadreWayne,
Thank you for your kind words. We’ve disagreed with each other over several issues and you words of support mean more to me because they are from someone who has been critical of my positions other posts.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil: You’re welcome, my brother.
(Good grief, we might become the poster couple of getting-along, agreeing-to-disagree Anglicanism! Yikes! Big Audacious Grin!)
Blessings on your ministries.