From the Pastoral Review: Deacons and the Servant Myth by Anthony Gooley

It is frequently argued that the distinctive character of deacons is that they are servants called to the charitable and social justice ministry of the Church. The belief that service is distinctive of deacons is the servant myth. It is based on a false reading of Acts 6 and it has consequences for the way in which the Church receives the ministry of deacons. Breaking down this myth is the first step in restoring an authentic diaconate in the life of the Church…

What happens in Acts 6.1-7? Is Acts 6 the starting point for the ministry of deacons and what is their ministry? Frequently readers assume that the Seven were called to meet the material needs of the Greek widows who were neglected at the daily distribution and that this form of charitable service establishes the authentic and distinctive character of deacons. This is the beginning of the deacon as ‘servant myth’. This myth is a belief that the distinctive and defining characteristic of a deacon and diaconal ministry is service, usually in the form of charity, especially to the poor and those on the margins of Church and society. It is a myth that continues to distort our understanding of the diaconate and hampers the full reception of the fruits of this restored ministry. Curiously it never seems to touch the transitional diaconate, which is accepted without question or indeed much reflection, at least in the Roman Catholic tradition. If service is the distinctive quality of the diaconate, what does this say about the service dimension of the other ordained ministries and the mission life of the Church? Diakonia is a word Roman Catholics use to describe the ministry of the bishop without any sense that the word is restricted to social justice or charity (Lumen gentium 24). Surely all ministers are called to imitate Christ the servant and a similar attitude should pervade the whole church. I do not argue that deacons cannot have or will not have a charitable or service role, only that it is not the distinctive character of their ministry. The myth does not have its genesis in Acts but is shaped by the revival of the diaconate in the nineteenth century German Lutheran church; reinforced by translators’ choices which shape our understanding of Acts and reflections of diaconate in post-war Germany in the 1940s and 50s. In this article I intend to explore the origins of the myth and suggest why it is not a sound basis for a theology and praxis of the diaconate. The most recent documents of the Roman Catholic tradition on diaconate contain layers of tradition, but it is possible to perceive an outline of diaconate that is balanced and avoids the servant myth as a foundation.

Making sense of Acts

In making sense of Acts 6.1-7 translators in English take some liberties with the Greek text. The choices translators make have influenced the way we hear and make meaning of this text. In verse one the cause for the complaint of the Greek speaking Christians is variously given as a neglect of the widows in the daily distribution of food (NRSV), of funds (GNB) and of food (JB). The RSV is happy to leave the neglect simply at an unspecified distribution. The Greek does not add the preposition of or the terms food and funds and in this the RSV reflects the original text. The text does not say what is being missed in the daily distribution and it has to be inferred from the whole context of Acts. It would hardly seem likely that either food or funds could be intended because Acts 5 deals with what happens to disciples who try to neglect others in the distribution of the material goods of the community. In verse 2 the apostles complain about not wanting to neglect the word and wait on tables (NRSV), neglect the preaching and manage finances (GNB) neglect the word to give out food (JB) and to give up preaching to serve tables (RSV). Again it is the RSV which resists the temptation to add anything to the text and it does not insert a preposition which is not found in the Greek between serve and tables or add references to finances or food. In verse 4 all translators are certain about prayer and with dealing with the word we are most interested in; diakonia, which is translated in the way it is most normally used in Acts and the letters of Paul. Diakonia is translated as ministry, and in the context of the whole sentence a ministry of the word (diakonia tou logou).

If we take the Greek text, as it is reproduced in RSV, we are able to construct a better picture of what is really happening in Acts 6.1-7. The Greek speaking Christians are complaining that their widows are being neglected in the daily diakonia. In Acts the diakonia is the proclamation of the Gospel. They are neglected for two reasons, the Aramaic speaking Apostles predominantly concentrate their proclamation in the Temple and the widows, who cannot comprehend the language and for social reasons are mostly restricted to the home, are overlooked in this daily diakonia. The solution proposed by the Apostles and agreed to by the whole Church is to appoint seven from among the Greek speaking community to do that daily diakonia in the homes of the Greek widows or as the expression in the Greek has it, to minister tables. Both the Apostles and the Seven had been entrusted with the same diakonia which is to minister or proclaim the word. To underscore this interpretation we see that Stephen immediately commences to proclaim the Gospel to the point of giving witness with his life (Acts 6-7.50) and Philip commences his diakonia of the word in proclaiming the Gospel, catechising the Ethiopian and baptising (Acts 8). The laying on of hands becomes the concrete sign that the ministry entrusted to the Apostles is to be entrusted to the Seven. The one thing we do not see the Seven do is charitable works or distributing food or funds to the widows, in fact we do not see anyone in the New Testament with the title of diakonos engaged in a specifically charitable service activity. This should give us some clues as we address the servant myth.

Whether or not the Seven were the first deacons, as Eusebius calls them, is debatable. The one word that Luke does not use of them is diakonos, the noun from which we get our word deacon. Proclaiming the word, leading communities, representing communities and taking messages between communities and other forms of ministry are associated with those who are called diakonos in the New Testament as well as the clear delegation and imposition of a mandate for such ministry by the leaders of the community through the laying on of hands. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the Seven may have been referred to as deacons in the early Church and that Eusebius is reflecting that understanding.

How did diakonia become service?

We do not have space here to review the many references to deacons in the first nine centuries of the Church, and in particular the first four centuries when so much of the structure of ministries in the early Church was taking shape. A few brief references, taken from the Fathers and used again in the recent Roman Catholic documents, are testament to an earlier tradition, before diakonia was defined as service and deacons as a kind of ordained social worker/charity worker. Three references will suffice to indicate the flavour of this early tradition. Ignatius to the Magnesians, ‘deacons entrusted with the ministry/d of Christ’ and to the Trallians, ‘deacons are not waiters (diakonoi) providing food and drink but executives (hyperetai) of the Church of God’ and finally to the Philadelphians, ‘take care to use only one Eucharist…there is one bishop in union with the presbyters and the deacon.’ The earliest witnesses of the tradition reflect the common Greek usage. Deacons were not thought of as having a distinctive servant orientation but as part of the broader understanding of the apostolic ministry and leadership of local churches.

…

A type of diaconate was revived in the nineteenth century in the Lutheran Church in Germany and gradually this pattern of diaconate was adopted in the Nordic Lutheran and some of the Reformed churches. The Lutheran Pastor Theodore Fliedner and his wife Frederike established a ministry to care for the homeless and poor who were increasing in number in the industrialised cities. This ministry was not an ordained ministry and was modelled somewhat on the lines of a Roman Catholic religious order. The Fliedners took their inspiration from their understanding of Acts 6 as a ministry of charity to the widows who, in their reading of the text, were neglected in the daily distribution of charity and the goods of the community. They called the women in this ministry deaconess and the men deacons.

Brodd argues that the identification of diakonia with charity (caritas) and social service developed into a functionalist understanding of diaconate, where the deacon is defined not from an ecclesiological foundation based on the Church as koinonia and situating ordination within this context but inductively from the sum of the functions performed. The result is that in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions the deacon came to be seen as a kind of ordained social worker. In his study Brodd concurs with the work of Collins and indicates that caritas and diakonia essentially belong to two different conceptual circles.

It is the intersection of four elements that provide us with the final clues as to how diakonia became service. The first is the development of the functionalism in the eighteenth century as a way describing ministry. The second is the practice of diakonia that was revived in this charitable, social work form in northern Europe. The third is the influence of the authoritative work of Bauer, The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, which defined diakonia as service. He was perhaps influenced in this by his association with the Lutheran deacon movement. The fourth element is the development of role theory in psychology and sociology and the attempt to account for ministries in the church in terms of roles. What emerged was an understanding of diaconate not based on Scripture and the early tradition of the Church but one developed from the practice of the charitable diaconate movement.

Restoring the diaconate

‘The almost total disappearance of the permanent diaconate from the Church of the West for more than a millennium has certainly made it more difficult to understand the profound reality of this ministry. However, it cannot be said for that reason that the theology of the diaconate has no authoritative points of reference, completely at the mercy of theological opinion.’ …

The one essential reference point must be the recovery of the meaning of diakonia and diakonos from the Scriptures and the early documents of the Church. In order to do this through the Scriptural path churches, deacons and others interested in ministry must go through the work of John N Collins…

The International Theological Commission in its paper, From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles, suggests that the Second Vatican Council intended to implement the principle and not any particular historical form of the diaconate. That is Laurence of Rome or Francis of Assisi or a Nicholas Ferrar might give us some idea of how deacons have exercised their ministry in the past but we may not want to copy their ministry as the model diaconal ministry. What we are looking for is a diaconate for today. It should also be a ministry that includes women in all of the Churches since we know from the Scriptures and the early Church and its laws that women were deacons…

An interesting analysis that provides substance to the ministry of deacon as proclaimer of the Word. Much of what the great deacon saints (most being martyrs) did was exactly that. It may have been exhibited in stories highlighting the service role, for instance Lawrence, but that shouldn’t overshadow the proclamation that was made real as a result of the service. Stephen, as noted in the article, fully proclaimed the Word above his life.

I’ve often half-joked that the deacon’s role is to be the big mouth and troublemaker, the one who stirs up those who are against the Church, exactly by his witness. Whether it was a king, mayor, soldier, or pope, the deacon was there, again, to bear witness to the clear truth of the Word. The deacon himself could be ignored, but the deacon with the Word was a mighty force whop had to be put down.

Deacon Gooley is off-base on the women as deacon issue, and it is too bad he didn’t further develop his article before taking it political. I would have liked to see more on the threefold role of Bishop and the deacon’s share of that ministry. He might have better explored the deacon and his tie to Jesus Christ in Trinitarian formulation, thus supporting the deacon’s role in proclaiming the Word.

On the deaconess issue, credible research and scholarship indicate that the deaconess was non-ministerial, assisting at baptisms (full immersion in the early Church) for the purpose of modesty as well as other liturgical and charitable functions pertaining to the women of the Church, but never serving at the altar. Their role was indeed focused on servanthood. The rite for installing the deaconess was different from that of the deacon, a blessing rather than an ordination (but with some dispute on this issue). The Greek Orthodox make some allowance for women deacons, but only in cloistered communities of nuns where priests cannot frequently visit due to distance or for other reasons (the nuns would go without the Eucharist otherwise since they are not going to handle the mysteries like bread in a cafeteria line). [T]he Holy Synod decided that women could be promoted to the diaconate only in remote monasteries and at the discretion of individual bishops.From ‘Grant Her Your Spirit,’ America, February 7, 2005 – a generally liberal magazine whose reporting may be clouded by agenda. They are, in effect, glorified “eucharistic ministers.” Whatever the Protestant Churches have done on the issue is of no consequence because, as the Young Fogey frequently points-out, everything in those Churches, including the very bases of faith (Jesus is God, Trinitarian doctrine) is only one vote away from being tossed out with the trash.