Clarifying Some Terms
What should we make of the persistent use of the terms transitional deacon or transitional diaconate? I know what these words mean, and I understand the distinction between deacons who are preparing for ordination to the priesthood and deacons who are not. In the end, however, we ordain deacons; and from among deacons, we ordain priests. The language we use should reflect our practice.
To begin, it is vital to understand that being a priest includes being a deacon. The diaconate is not merely a stepping stone or, perhaps better, a revolving door one flips through. Rather being a priest means continuing to be a deacon. Some refer to this understanding as “cumulative orders.” Other than appearing without a deacon’s stole, however, there is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) that would remotely suggest something else. The same is true for the relationship between the presbyterate and the episcopate in our ordination liturgies.
Speaking canonically, liturgically, and theologically, this distinction between transitional and vocational deacons does not really exist. Canon III.7 (“Of the Life and Work of Deacons”) applies to all deacons, regardless of whether one will later be ordained to the priesthood. In fact, the only canonical difference has to do with the nature of that process (Canon III.8.6 vs. III.6). And theologically, there is no distinction whatsoever.
To put the matter plainly, a deacon is a deacon. And those ordained to the diaconate (regardless of what comes next) must embrace it fully.
What I find troubling about this common distinction is the way that ordinands (or sometimes their relatives) seem to take the term transitional as a necessary qualifier. It is not enough for a seminarian to say, “I’m going to be ordained a deacon.” Instead, one says, “I’m going to be ordained a transitional deacon.”
Whether intentional or not, this seems to carry certain implications, i.e., “not one of those lame vocational deacons,” or even, “but I’ll only be a deacon for six months, and then I’ll be a priest.” This emerges from and perpetuates a certain careerist mentality that is all too common among the clergy. The diaconate becomes, effectively, a stepping stone (albeit an early and necessary one) in one’s career advancement.
Something important gets lost here. While it is true that presbyteral and diaconal ministries are not the same, there is a real sense in which the ministry of the priest presumes the ministry of the deacon. The actual practice of ministry proves this, and I don’t mean merely reading the Gospel and setting the altar. My parish is not blessed with the service of a deacon, and as a result, I find myself taking on any function that might otherwise be given to the deacon. But even if I did have a deacon, a healthy priest begins ministry every day from a place of servanthood, diakonia, not merely adopting that posture and attitude when absolutely necessary.
In sum, priests (and bishops) should value their diaconal ordination for its own sake, regardless of how many years have elapsed since they entered the priesthood. The diaconate is a privilege of humble service, acting as a bridge between the clergy and laity, and the church and the world. A subsequent ordination to the priesthood brings on additional privileges, yes, but also responsibilities. What priestly ordination does not do, however, is remove the diaconal ministry or the vows taken for it.
A Proposal
Some might suggest that the Episcopal Church would more fully value the ministry of the diaconate by separating it from ordination to the priesthood, and should adopt ordination directly to the presbyterate, much like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or the United Methodist Church. But are we really interested in priests who aren’t also servants?
A better way to address the problem is to lean in to the idea that the diaconate, while having its own integrity as a Holy Order, is also an unquestionably necessary and continuing foundation for the priesthood.
Perhaps it is time for the Episcopal Church to overhaul how it approaches priestly ordination, specifically in how we go about discernment. Instead of having the option to discern a call specifically to the priesthood, all potential ordinands would be considered only for the diaconate. If a vocation to that Holy Order is discerned, the ordinand would be made a deacon and assigned by the bishop to a parish or other appropriate ministry, as is the case for vocational deacons now. Then, after a period of time (maybe a year or two), if the deacon wished to discern a vocation to the priesthood, there would be steps to do so, but no one could begin that discernment without having first been ordained and serving for a time as a deacon.
There are several advantages to this over our current arrangement. For one thing, it would increase our appreciation of the diaconate. If all deacons were simply ordained as deacons, with no expectation of “advancing” to the priesthood, even those who did discern a call to the priesthood would emerge from the same place as the other deacons, one of servanthood. Vocational deacons would not be seen as second-class clergy to priests.
Secondly, this would make greater sense of the fact that priests are first ordained deacons. Instead of two-track ordination, in which one track reduces the diaconate to a “transitional” step, there would be one path to ordination. Laypersons could discern a call to the diaconate, and those already serving as deacons could discern a call to the priesthood. This is, after all, how we already handle the transition from priest to bishop. Bishops are usually elected from among a pool of candidates that have already served as priests for a time.
To put the matter bluntly, there is no “transitional presbyterate” for someone to discern a call directly to the episcopate. Despite unique, extraordinary stories (like St. Ambrose), I doubt anyone believes we should have direct ordination to the episcopate.
A vocation to ordained ministry begins as a vocation to service (diakonia), not to eldership (presbyteros). Ordinands would go into it with no guarantee of becoming priests, and would have to be content with that possibility. They would be following our Lord’s example of humility and self-sacrifice, which is an essential foundation even for those who will go on to serve, additionally, in the priesthood, or even additionally in the episcopate. All begin in baptism, take on servanthood, perhaps take on the burden of eldership, and perhaps the burden of oversight.
Such a structure would thus work against the temptation to ambition and careerism and allow a healthy understanding of Holy Order both in theory and practice.
Of course, this sort of change in the logistics would come with challenges. It may require us to rethink clerical formation, deployment, and compensation. But more fundamentally, it would require us to take seriously what we already claim to believe about the nature of ministry in general and ordained ministry in particular. In the long run, the benefits of this proposed renewal would justify the challenges.
The Rev. Matthew Kemp, Ph.D. is vicar of St. John’s Episcopal Church and Redeemer Lutheran Church in Centralia, Illinois. He has taught theology at universities in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Kansas. He and his wife, Alethea, have five children.
