If any one serves me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my servant be; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him. (Jn. 12: 26)

I would like to begin my talk on The Diaconate in the Church by giving you some examples of deacons, so that you can better understand what a deacon is, what he does, and also something of the flavour and spirit of the diaconate in actual circumstances.

In the account of The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas,* we learn that these women were among five catechumens who were the first victims of the persecution in 203 A.D. at Carthage by Septimus Severus. Saint Perpetua was a high-born, well-educated, young woman of pagan parents who was married with a suckling child.  Felicitas was a slave who was eight months pregnant and they were both baptized between the time of their arrest and their imprisonment.  Here are a few excerpts from Saint Perpetua who left a written record of the events of her imprisonment:

Tertius and Pomponius, those blessed deacons who were ministering to us, paid for us to be removed for a few hours to a better part of the prison and refresh ourselves. My baby was brought to me, and I suckled him,... And later we learn: ...I sent at once the deacon Pomponius to my father to ask for my baby. But my father refused to give him.

Finally, just before they were to be taken into the arena to be killed, we read: on the day before we were to fight, I saw in a vision Pomponius the deacon, come hither to the door of the prison and knock loudly. And I went out to him, and opened to him. Now he was clad in a white robe without a girdle, wearing shoes curiously wrought. And he said to me: ‘Perpetua, we are waiting for you; come.’ And he took hold of my hand, and we began to pass through rough and broken country. Painfully and panting did we arrive at last at an amphitheater, and he led me into the middle of the arena. And he said to me: `Fear not; I am here

1

with you, and I suffer with you.’ And he departed. And I saw a huge crowd watching eagerly...By attending carefully to this dramatic narrative, we learn a great deal about the diaconate in the Early Church, and what the deacons did. We learn from Saint Perpetua’s account that two deacons ministered to them regularly, interceding with the authorities and guards to improve the condition of the catechumens, arranging for their baptism, acting as intermediaries between the prisoners and their families, and encouraging them to remain strong in their witness to Christ. After their baptism the deacons also carried Holy Communion to them as was customary for deacons to do for those unable to attend the eucharistic gathering.

The next example is that of the blessed Archdeacon of Rome, Saint Laurence, whose function included caring for the sacred vessels of the church and distributing money to the needy. About the year 257A.D., a harsh persecution was raised up against the Christians by Valerian, and the Archdeacon was arrested and brought before the Prefect.  When questioned concerning the treasures of the church, he asked for three days’ time to prepare them. He then proceeded to gather all the poor and the needy, and presented them to the Prefect and said,  Behold the treasures of the Church.  The Prefect became enraged at this and commanded that Laurence be racked, scourged, then stretched out on a red-hot iron grill. Finally, enduring all without groaning, his face like that of an angel, he prayed for his slayers in imitation of Christ, and gave up his spirit on August 10, 258 A.D.

Within fifty years we see how the deacons had already become known as the “money bags” of the Christians, and as such became primary targets during the persecutions. If we read the documents of this period carefully, we come to understand that the deacon’s activities in tending to the needs of the faithful—the widows, orphans, the sick, the imprisoned, those absent from the Liturgy, etc.—made them highly visible to the authorities and easily recongizable.  From an organizational point of view,

2

the Roman authorities felt that eliminating the leaders of the Christians (the bishops and presbyters) was the most effective means of stamping out the hated sect; but from a practical point of view it was highly lucrative to seize the treasuries of the Christian communities, held by the deacons.  In fact, these financial resources were not insignificant. For example, in the life of Saint Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, written around 410 A.D. by his attendant, Deacon Mark, we learn that the deacon went from Jerusalem to Thessalonica to sell the Church’s possessions as he was instructed by the Bishop, and received some 4,500 pieces of gold to be used for the charitable work among the faithful. This was a considerable amount of money in those days.

Anecdotally, we know that this same Deacon Mark was sent twice to Constantinople by his bishop to ask the Patriarch, Saint John Chrysostom, to intercede in behalf of the Christians who were being persecuted by the idolaters in Gaza. When after his first visit to Saint John he didn’t receive a prompt response, like any good deacon, he went every day persistently to visit the Patriarch, and reminding him of the importance of the mission until a decision was reached. On his second visit, the Deacon was also received by Empress Eudoxia and no doubt comported himself with perfect acumen.

We turn now to the third example of the diaconal ministry which deals more with the liturgical aspects of the diaconate.  In the Primary Chronicle, compiled around 1037 A.D., we have a description of how Prince Vladimir sent his emissaries West to  . . . learn about their faith.  After returning from their visits to the Latins, Jews, and the Moslems, they were sent to Byzantium with the same mission.

The Chronicle records the following about that visit:

...hearing this, the partriarch ordered that the clergy be assembled; and according to custom they held a festival service, and they lit the censers and appointed the choirs to sing hymns.

3

And the Emperor went with them into the church and placed them in an open place; and he showed them the beauty of the church, and the singing, and the serving of the arch-priest, and the serving of the deacons, and he told them about the service of his God, and they were in amazement and wondered greatly and praised the service.

Overwhelmed by what they had experienced in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, they reported the following to Prince Vladimir: We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss to describe it.We can deduce that what impressed the Russian delegation so forcefully was what they saw and perceived when the saw the procession of deacons entering on the North side of the nave with the prosphoral offerings that were prepared for the Anaphora. Records indicate that at any one time there were from 80 to 120 deacons attached to the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, and it is indeed mind-boggling to try to recreate what this procession must have looked like: an army of deacons, with censers, accompanied by subdeacons, candle bearers and others entered the church to present the “prosphora,” the offering of the whole Church to the celebrants as the choir raised its hymn to praise the Risen Lord. With these three historical examples of the deacon’s ministry, we can turn now to a further explanation of the diaconate as a function within the Church.

The Ministry of the Deacon

The ministry of the deacon is based in the ministry which Christ performed for us. This ministry is one of service and is expressed by Christ with these words:

I am among you as one who serves.

With these words Christ reversed the order of things, for He

4

who is higher than the heavens became a servant for our salvation. The master becomes a servant and makes service to others the path of salvation.

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whosoever would be great among you must be your seruant, and whosoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the son of man came not to be served but to serve,  and to give His life as a ransom for many.

Because, therefore, service to others is the content of Christ’s life it must be the same for all Christians. Service is basic to Christian spirituality for it is by our unselfish and obedient service to others—with all the suffering and humiliation that this implies—that we participate in the divine life of God.

This minstry of service was left as a legacy to the Church and is bestowed creatively by the Holy Spirit not only as the sign and function of the Church, but also as the basis of our unity in the Church as the Body of Christ. This legacy carries with it the power to sustain sonship in the Kingdom of God now and was given as a gift for the salvation of man. But even though service is our inheritance as Christians, and our birthright as members of His Body, Christ also set aside individuals in whom this service is made personal as a function performed for the Church, and in whom this service is a specific ministry given by God. In these individuals, who are the official ministry (bishop, priest, and deacon), the ministry of the Church is extended among its mem-bers in organized worship and mutual assistance, as well as the mission of the Church and Her service of witness in the world.

The Apostles were the first to receive this function of service from Christ and they in turn set up an official priesthood to insure its continuation in the Church. They appointed the first bishops and deacons so that Christ’s ministry might be extended and maintained for the salvation of all.

5

The Diaconate

In the above, the words service, servant, and ministry can be substituted by the words deacon, deaconing, or diaconate. Holy Scripture uses these words in this way. Literally, deacon means servant or waiter. Very early in the Church, as recorded in the Book of Acts, the words deacon and diaconate came to be used as the designation of a specific office, part of the official ministry of the Church. The Book of Acts tells us that, with the expansion of the Church, the Apostles were unable to perform all that them as travelling ministers of the word. They appointed bishops to preside over the Christian communities so that they might continue their preaching. Deacons were also chosen from among the faithful to assist in the work of the Church and as co-workers with the bishops.

Originally, seven deacons were chosen and their durties were twofold. First they had the responsibility of gathering the food and other goods which were brought to the Church as offerings, and of distributing these donations as the philanthropy of the entire community to the needy whom the Church supported. It was also their duty to prepare for the Eucharistic gatherings and the common meals in which the whole Church participated. Consequently, the deacon’s role was both to extend the Church’s charity to those who required it and to lead the people in the liturgical gatherings.

This idea of serving at tables very early influenced their comparison to angels, for just as the angels serve God, deacons serve the heavenly banquet of the holy Church. Consequently the form and design of diaconal vestments reflect not only their comparison to angels, but also the practicality of their service at the altar and their relationship to the bishop.  Because of this, the deacon’s stole (orarion), with which he binds himself before approaching the Holy Table at the Anaphora, is often compared to the wings of the angels. So too both the deacon’s stole and cuffs are often stamped with the words: Holy, Holy, Holy, the hymn which the angels sing as they surround the throne of God.

6

Seraphic representations are used on all the diaconal vestments to signify the Seraphic ministry at the heavenly Throne. The deacon’s sticharion originated from the Dalmatic, a form of tunic with large sleeves that came into use in the second century.

Although it became the informal uniform for high officials and in the West by the fourth century was worn by important bishops, it was adopted as a normal dress by the seven regionary deacons of Rome.  Significantly, deacons by that time, because of their role as ministers of charity for the Church, had already become superintendents of the whole poor relief system of the city and the estates which formed its endowment; and their duties were becoming administrative and financial rather than religious. The deacon’s sticharion (robe), moreover, is a longer version of the bishop’s sakkos, signifying his relationship to the bishop. The primary function of the deacon as server at the altar is manifest architecturally as well in that the  North and South doors leading to the sanctuary are called Deacon’s Doors.  They are traditionally adorned by icons of the Archdeacons Stephen and Laurence and/or the Archangels Michael and Gabriel dressed in diaconal vestments.

In his ministry of charity, the deacon moved among the people so as to learn their needs and bring these needs to the bishop’s attention for solution; and as such is equivalent to a social worker in modern terms. In the third century the Church in Rome supported 1,500 widows and needy, while in fourth-century Alexandria 3,000 needy were fed daily by the Church. Central to the deacon’s duties was visiting the sick and the imprisoned, caring for the demoniacs, responsibility for the widows and orphans, instructing the catechumens and preparing them for Holy Baptism, and taking Communion to those who are absent from the Eucharistic gatherings. Eventually the deacons also taught and preached the Holy Gospel. In all these actions he acted on behalf of the bishop (or priest) and the whole Church and was directly responsible to the bishop in all things. Categori-cally, the deacon is not an independent agent. Because

7

of his dependence upon and close co-operation with the bishop, the deacon is often described as the eyes and ears of the bishop.

The works of charity which the deacon performs are integrally tied to this service as co-celebrant at the altar and emanate therefrom. Having collected the offerings of the faithful, the deacon chose what was necessary for the Liturgy, and prepared those elements necessary for the Holy Communion. All of the offerings were originally collected in the Diaconicon (also called Diaconry), a serparate room outside the church where vestments, holy vessels and food were kept, and where the bread and wine were prepared for the Holy Liturgy. Having completed the preparation of bread and wine for communion, the deacons left the diaconicon at the proper time and, entering the Church, proceeded to the altar where they presented these gifts to the celebrant as an offering of the people. This is the origin of our Great Entrance and the reason why even today the deacon carries the holy paten at the Entrance and announces:

All of us, and all pious and Orthodox Christians, May the Lord God remember in His Kingdom, now and ever and unto ages of ages.

Just as the breads used for the divine service are called prosphora (which means to offer to), so too the deacon’s function is one of prospherein, that is of offering to the celebrant the gifts of the people, which will be returned to them as the Body and Blood of Christ after they have been offered up (anapherein) at the altar.

Liturgically, it is the deacon’s function to bring the people together and unite them in corporate prayer and in their function of fulfilling their role as members of the Body of Christ, the Church. He may not give a blessing, however, since this right belongs solely to the priests and bishops. Rather he leads them in their offerings to the altar––through their material offerings (prosphora) and in their prayers—so that the celebrant may offer up (anaphora) their sacrifice unto God.  Indeed, the diaconal function consists primarily of enabling the corporate action of

8

the Eucharist to be fulfilled through the participation of all the members of the Body of Christ in their several functions at their proper time and in their proper order. In the words of a noted scholar on function and the eucharist:1

The corporate eucharistic action as a whole (which includes communion) is regarded as the very essence of the life of the Church, and through that of the individual Christian soul. In this corporate action alone each Christian can fulfil the ‘appointed liturgy’ of his order–his function–and so fulfil his redeemed being as a member of Christ.... Whereas in the pagan rites men attend ‘not to learn something but to experience something,’ the Christian eucharist is the reverse of all this. The Christian comes to the eucharist not ‘to learn something’, for faith is presupposed, nor to seek a psychological thrill. He comes simply to do something, which he understands as an overwhelming personal duty. It is in the doing of the eucharistic service (his prayers and prosphoral offerings), that he expresses his intense belief that in the eucharistic action of the Body of Christ, as in no other way, he himself takes a part in that act of sacrificial obedience to the will of God which was consummated on Calvary and which had redeemed the world, including himself. What brings him is the conviction that there rests on each of the redeemed an absolute necessity to take his own part in the self-offering of Christ, a necessity more binding even than the instinct of self-preservation. Simply as members of Christ’s Body, the Church, all Christians must do this, and they can do it in no other way than that which was the last command of Jesus to His own. That rule of the absolute obligation to be present at Sunday liturgy was burned into the corporate mind of historic Christendom. It expresses as nothing else can the whole New Testament doctrine of redemption; of Jesus, God and Man, as the only Saviour of mankind, Who intends to draw all men unto Him by His sacrificial and atoning death; and of the Church as the communion of redeemed sinners, the Body of Christ, corporately invested with His own mission of salvation to the world.

9

From the bishop to the newly confirmed, each communicant gives himself under the forms of bread and wine to God, as God gives Himself to them under the same forms. In the united oblations of all her members the Body of Christ, the Church, gives herself to become the Body of Christ, the sacrament, in order that receiving again the symbol of herself now transformed and hallowed, she might be truly that which by nature she is, the Body of Christ, and each of her members members of Christ.  In this self-giving, the order of laity–no less than that of the deacons or the high-priestly celebrant–has its own indispensable function in the vital act of the Body. The layman brings the sacrifice of himself, of which he is the priest.  The deacon, the ‘servant’ of the whole body, ‘presented’ all together in the Person of Christ, as Ignatius reminds us. The high-priest, the bishop, ‘offered’ all together, for he alone can speak for the whole Body. In Christ, as His Body, the Church is ‘accepted’ by God ‘in the Beloved’. Its sacrifice of itself is taken up into His sacrifice of Himself.2 On this way of regarding the matter, the bishop can no more fulfil the layman’s function for him than the layman can fulfil that of the bishop. When, in early church practice, the deacon collected the prosphora from the people and placed them upon the altar, the bishop and other celebrants each added prosphora to the people’s offerings on the altar. Thus the whole rite was a true corporate offering by the church in its hierarchic cormpleteness of the church in its organic unity. The primitive layman’s communion, no less than that of the bishop, is the consummation of his ‘liturgy’ in the offering of the Christian sacrifice.

At the appropriate time, the deacon also returns these very gifts to the people after they have been consecrated to God and blessed by the Holy Spirit in the form of Communion. Receiving the holy Chalice from the celebrant, the deacon turns to the people and announces: With the fear of God, faith and love, draw near.At the altar, all the deacon’s actions are performed in behalf of the faithful and it is precisely his role as servant to the celebrant and people that makes him the bond of unity between the two.

10

In this way there is not a single act of the Divine Liturgy where the faithful and clergy are not united in a common action and prayer, for the faithful are present at all times at the holy Altar through their offerings and the deacon’s presence as their servant.

During the liturgy, the deacon stands in the midst of the faithful as master of ceremonies, directing them in the proper posture and movements of the service. Let us bow our head unto the Lord and (Lock) the doors, the doors are examples of this. It was part of the deacon’s service to see that each of the assembled faithful—penitents, kneelers, children, chanters, hearers, servers, widows, virgins and catechumens - performed their proper function and participated in the Liturgy according to that function. The deacons also led the people in prayer, standing in their midst, asking for the peace of the world, for the union of all and for whatever other petitions or needs the faithful requested.  In our liturgy today, the litanies (ektenias) have become standardized but are still called the deacon’s litany/ektenia. Originally, in addition to the standard petitions, the deacon also “composed” other petitions to express what the immediate, changing needs of the people were thereby bringing these needs to the Church for their help and prayers. Because he worked so closely with the faithful and dispensed the chairty of the church, he knew who was sick, who had died, who was travelling, who was out of work or whose crops had failed, and included these needs in his litany. In this way, by announcing the “daily news and needs” of the faithful during the litanies, the deacon informed the faithful who needed help and for whom prayers were needed.

One author describes the ministry of the deacon with these words:

The deacon leads the people in their responses to God which is as the precious oil which causes the lamps of the sanctuary to burn brightly in the House of the Lord. The deacon is as the hand of the people stretched out to receive the blessing, as their

11

ear attentive to hear what God the Lord will say, and as ther mouth to answer with them, Amen.

The deacon is entirely responsible during the liturgy for the people’s actions and his function is to lead them by word and gesture, by prayer and petition to the altar in oneness of mind.  His usual place, therefore, is in the midst of the faithful, to lead out those who are not to receive Holy Communion and then bar the doors so none else could enter who was not eligible to receive Holy Communion. The deacon also reads the Holy Gospel and, being responsible for instructing the catechumens in their perparation for baptism, he conducts them in and out of the church at the proper time.

Because of the deacon’s eucharistic service, his work among the people and his close realationship with the bishop (or priest)–from whom he derives his authority to act–he stands as a vital link between the clergy and laity. In the diaconate, the charismatic and institutional ministry of the Church is integrally allied to manifest the fullness of the Church.

Through this ministry, the idea of function is clearly expreseed as is the principle of hierarchy and the unity of clergy and laity as the royal priesthood of the Kingdom of God. It is the diaconate, moveover, which as ministry for the people of God expresses the incarnate charity and love of the Church; and by this charity reminds the Church of her eschatological dimension. The deacon’s function also brings together the social and economic activities of man in the Church so as to transform them and offer them to the glory of God. Finally, the diaconate expresses both the spontaneity and fluidity of the Church’s forms as She reaches into the world, drawing from the never-ending riches of Her storehouse of tradition, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit provides the constantly renewing and personal forms necessary to fulfill Her ministry as the Body of Christ.

The entire scope of the deacon’s ministry, however, exists only because of his relationship to the bishop and as a servant to the community of believers. He is not a free agent. Rather his

12

authority comes from the bishop and he may act only in the name of the head of the community, i.e. the bishop (or the priest). It is for this reason that the ordination of the deacon follows the Consecration of the Bread and Wine: to show that he does not have the full power of the priesthood and cannot therefore consecrate, bless, or act as an independent authority.

Since the time of the Apostles, it has been the tradition of the Church to have seven deacons in each church. It later became the practice to ordain as many deacons as were necessary to meet the needs of the people. At one time 120 deacons and 80 deaconesses were needed in the Church of the Holy Wisdom (St. Sophia) in Constantinople to fulfill the philanthropy, social work, teaching, and administratiive needs of that community. The function of the deaconesses included most of the philanthropic and educational responsibilities of the deacon, but none of the liturgical functions.

History provides many examples that illustrate the full scope of diaconal service. In the Byzantine Empire deacons held some of the highest and most powerful positions. The magnificent mosaic of Justinian in St. Vitale’s Church in Ravenna shows two deacons in the imperial entourage. In the patriarchal court, deacons were invested with the authority of exarch, protosyngellos, emissaries, ambassadors, and administrators of the episcopal household. Deacons often held important chairs and were professors at the patriarchal academy; they administered church-run and privately funded homes for the poor and widows, orphanages, hospitals, and what is equivalent to the half-way houses of today. Deacons attended the great councils of Church as in the case of St. Athanasios who as a deacon participated in the First Ecumenical Council, and represented the patriarch at councils as their exarchs. In the case of Archdeacon Nicephoros, a martyr saint, the Council of Constantinople in 1592 bestowed on him the chairmanship for all consecutive councils with responsibility to make all decisions regarding the faith. He directed the affairs of the Patriarchate for many years, and it was in his ministry as a deacon that he went

13

to the Ukraine in 1595 as the patriarchal exarch to defend the rights of the Orthodox against the ruling Polish authorities, and was imprisoned, tortured, and martyred by the uniates when he spoke out in defense of the faith.

In the West, the function of the deacon went into decline by the 5th century and eventually disintegated almost totally;  consequently when Vatican II called for the reinstitution of the  diaconate, there was no continuous memory or practice of that function as there is in the East; and even though there has been a substantial increase in the number of “permanent” deacons, they function as mini-priests.  Their ministry does not reflect what the diaconate was created for.  Although the title of archdeacon was retained in the West, the function was distorted to the point that there continued to be cardinal deacons who were, in fact, not deacons. Similarly, in the Anglican Communion the archdeacon wields enormous power, even though that function is not held by a deacon.

Today, in many Orthodox lands the diaconate has been decimated by the Atheist governments which enslaved those lands while elsewhere most deacons are quickly ordained to the priesthood because of the shortage of priests.  Nonetheless, the diaconate is still a vibrant, highly-visible ministry in the Church with deacons leading the faithful as the master of ceremonies and serving the celebrant at every stage of the Eucharist.  The ministry of the deacon is a vital sign of the well-being of the Church. Indeed because of the lack of deacons in each parish, there is a growing lack of understanding of what the diaconate is as a specific function.  This lack can be directly tied to many problems which have arisen in the communities. The lack of unity among clergy and laity, the loss of spontaneity in liturgical worship, and the breakdown of the hierarchical structure are but a few of the problems which can be traced directly or indirectly to the disappearance of the deacon’s ministry. But perhaps the most serious consequence of the decay of the diaconate as a vital function of the Church is that the priest cannot fulfill his most important function of praying to our Saviour at the Holy

14

Altar in behalf of his flock. Most often the priests have to rush through or omit their prayers so that they can say the deacon’s parts of the holy services.

In very practical terms, the restoration of the diaconate should be a vital concern and objective of all the faithful. Given the heavy demands on our priests, the ordination to the diaconate of four to seven pious laity in each parish would vivify not only our parishes and the faithful but would fill a vital missionary need. These deacons would have specific responsibilities within the broad spectrum of services that are integral to the diaconate so as to fulfill—on behalf of all the members of the Body of Christ - the Saviour’s command that we continue His diaconia on earth until the Second Coming.  In addition to the liturgical function which is basic to their ministry, these deacons could, so to speak, specialize in education, music, philanthropic ministry to the sick and poor, and in the myriad other duties which devolve to the deacon, the absence of which diaconal responsibilities no single pastor can possibly fulfill. Since the administrative responsibility of the community has always been an essential part of the diaconal ministry–under the direction of the head of the community–those deacons with particular talent and experience in this area would be of immeasurable benefit to the heavey burden of the priest. With the assistance of several deacons in our parishes—who are also employed in the secular world for their income but want to offer more of their time to the Lord in specific obligations—the need of these men is served simultaneously with that of the community and of the priest.

Finally, that seven deacons were originally chosen by the Apostles is significant: in the Old Testament the number seven often represents the limited perfection of created reality, that reality which exists in a beauty and completness so profound that it reflects the divine order, despite the limitatons.  While eight signifies completeness, perfection, seven has come to signify the highest level possible in this life,  but is not in and of itself, the ultimate reality, the eighth day, the perfection of life

15

eternal in the bosom of the Godhead. The diaconal function, therefore, is also limited, and in that sense it is distinct from and not synonymous with the holy priesthood, even if there may be some deacons eventually deemed worthy of that awesome and exalted office.  Although all priests and bishops must be ordained to the diaconate first, the function of diaconia is a complete and vital function in and of itself; and even though it is integrally dependent upon the function of the priesthood, it is not a temporary resting stop to the priesthood. Functions in the Church are hierarchical, clearly set forth, and all are necessary for the well being of the Body of Christ. This is seen most clearly in the diaconate.

 The diaconate is, to be sure, ideally suited to those pious laity who are sustained and elevated by the beauty of the services, who love the “order of the Lord’s house;”  to those who want to give selflessly of themselves in philanthropy on behalf of the entire community.  It is suited to those who, because of these things, understand how profoundly this service is necessary to their well-being; and which service, culminating at the Lord’s Table, makes the Saviour present in their lives as a means wherein one continuously  transforms his life and raises it above the ignoble pursuits of this temporal existence. This is the reality of diaconal service, even if one has to attend to the other mundane, albeit necessary duties of life in the world.  And in continuing Christ’s diaconia in the world through their service at the Holy Altar, to the members of the Body of Christ, and to the world, they have the Seraphic Orders who serve at their side, aiding, guiding and interceding for them.

1 Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, Dacre Press, London, 1960 (excerpted) 2  2 Eph. i. 6.

The preceding is from a lecture on the diaconate delivered during the    Toronto Orthodox Conference .

THE PROBLEM OF

16

DIACONATE INTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH

 

 

 

The scope of this chapter is limited. It is not our task here to discuss in detail the history of the diaconate in the Eastern Orthodox Church. We shall address ourselves to the contemporary situation, and the problems implied in it. On the other hand, this situation can be properly understood and appraised only in historic perspective. The diaconate has obviously changed its shape and function more than once in the course of history; hence, the Orthodox theologian is guided in his inquiry by tradition, especially in controversial matters. From early times the diaconate was acknowledged as an integral part of the threefold structure of apostolic ministry, if only in the third place. Strangely enough, the actual origin of the diaconate as an institution is still an open, and rather obscure, issue. It is generally assumed that the diaconate can be traced back to the appointment of the Seven by the apostles, described in the sixth chapter of the Book of Acts, although the name “deacons” does not appear in the text. This was the usual interpretation in the West, as early as the time of St. Irenaeus.

In modern times, however, this interpretation has been challenged. The Orthodox theologian is bound at this point to take into account that venerable exegetical

17

tradition of which St. John Chrysostom was an authoritative exponent and witness. Speaking of the election of the Seven, in his homilies on the Book of Acts, Chrysostom emphatically and formally denies that Seven were “ordained” as deacons, for the simple reason that at that time no distinct ecclesiastical orders existed: no bishops, no presbyters, and no deacons. According to Chrysostom, the Seven were appointed for an occasional and specific task, that is, for the “service of tables” (Acta Apostolorum, hom. XIV, MG LX, c. 116). It may be argued that this interpretation simply reflected the situation in Chrysostom’s own time, when the diaconate had become, especially in the East, a liturgical institution. Yet, Chrysostom in no way was inclined to minimize the importance of charitable diakonia in the Church; indeed, the social responsibility of the Church was one of his crucial concerns. He simply insisted that the diaconate was instituted in the Church for a different task and purpose.

Whatever may be said of Chrysostom’s exegesis, it was authoritatively endorsed by the Council of Trullo (692), with direct reference to Chrysostom’s witness. The question was raised whether it was permissible to have more than seven deacons in a given local Church. The local Council or Neocaesarea (c. 315) ruled that the pattern of the Seven had to be adhered to, with the reference to Acts (canon 15). The Council of Trullo, after having pondered the whole matter and, with direct reference to Chrysostom’s witness, reversed the ruling, since there was no valid reason for limitation in number. Indeed, there was no identity or connection between the “liturgical diaconate,” ton tois mysteriois diakonoumenon andron, and the diaconia of the Seven, which was

18

restricted solely to the “service of tables.” This “service,” special and occasional, must remain, however, a “pattern of philanthropy and charitable care,” typos philanthropias kai spoudes (canon 16). This sharp distinction between the hierourgias diakonia and the oikonomia ton trofon became a commonplace of Byzantine canonical thinking.1 It has been maintained by many competent scholars in the Russian Church in modern times, both by exegetes and by canonists.2

 

The order of deacons has always been regarded in Catholic tradition as a subordinate and subsidiary office in the total structure of ecclesiastical ministry. In the documents of the early Church deacons are usually described as “servants” or “attendants” of the bishop: ton men episkopou hyperetai eisin, in the phrase of the first Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I, A.D. 325, canon 18). They constituted at that time the working retinue, as it were, of the bishop, and in this capacity were assigned various tasks, primarily in the field of pastoral administration and service to the needy. The very term diakonia seems to have denoted at that time precisely this special kind of service. Deacons had a wide area of duties in the early Church, but a limited and subordinate competence. They acted by the bishop’s authority and under his orders, and had to report all matters to him for decision. They were not supposed to do anything without his knowledge and approval, “in a clandestine way.” As the bishop’s agents and representatives, acting on his behalf and in his stead, they held an influential and distinguished position in the life of Christian communities. Accordingly, they were described

19

sometimes not only as the bishop’s “servants,” but also as his “apostles and prophets,” as his “ear and eye, mouth, heart, and soul” (Apostolic Constitutions, bk. II, ch. 30, 31, 32, 43).

In conjunction with that hyperesia, deacons had from early times their own distinctive role in the liturgical worship of the Church and were described also as “servants of Christ’s mysteries” (St. Ignatius, Trallians 2). According to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, deacons were ordained by the imposition of hands by the bishop, not in sacerdotio, sed in ministerio episcopi, and for that reason presbyters, or priests, were not supposed to participate in the rite of ordination, since deacons were not their symbouloi and had no share of that spirit of counsel which was the common possession of “the clergy”: non est enim [diaconus] particeps consilii in clero (id. 9). This sharp distinction between sacerdotium (common to bishops and priests) and ministerium, or hyperesia, is highly significant. Strictly speaking, according to the Apostolic Tradition, deacons did not belong to “clergy,” kleros, at all.3 On the other hand, their actual prominence in the practical field could but breed and encourage ambition and pride. As early as the Council of Nicaea, they had to be recalled to “their proper limits,” tois idiois metrois, and to be reminded that their order was lower than that of the presbyters, ton presbyteron elattous, since they were no more than “bishop’s servants” (canon 18, quoted above). The tension continued, however, and the Council of Trullo was compelled to wrestle with the same problem once more. Deacons were still, even at that time, appointed occasionally to certain administrative positions (offikia ekklesiastika exontes), and granted thereby “dignity” or

20

“honor” (axioma). They tended therefore to assume precedence over presbyters. The Council dismissed all such claims as license and presumption (canon 7).

What is crucial and essential in this ruling is obviously the strict distinction between “order” and “office.” The ruling implies that administrative appointments or commissions do not change the hierarchical status of the appointees, in spite of the axioma which such appointments may confer. Now, the question immediately arises: was the “service to the bishop,” the hyperesia, just an “office”; that is, a “commission,” and assigned task? And what exactly was the relation of such “commission” or task to the “order”? The early rites of ordination are rather vague at this point. They do not specify the charisma conferred by ordination to the diaconate, nor do they define those functions to which deacons are ordained. Yet, the subordinate and auxiliary character of the diaconate is clearly stated. The only clue here is, perhaps, the reference to St. Stephen, which occurs in the rite described in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions “And replenish him with thy Holy Spirit, and with power, as thou didst replenish Stephen, thy martyr and the follower of the sufferings of thy Christ” (ch. 18). This clause is retained in the later Byzantine rite that is still in use. It is significant, however, that St. Stephen alone is mentioned here, and is mentioned as martyr and sufferer and not as “deacon.” It is rather an analogy, with an emphasis on the charismatic character of service. In the course of time most of the tasks that originally constituted the hyperesia of deacons were transferred or reassigned to other agents. Indeed, the pastoral care, in general, and especially the care of the

21

poor and needy, could be exercised by bishops in manifold ways and through diverse channels. Moreover, charity and mutual service was the obvious duty of all believers and of the whole community.

Of the various duties which characterized the service of deacons in the early Church, only their liturgical function, with special reference to the celebration of the holy Eucharist, has been retained as their distinctive and proper task. In a sense, it was a conspicuous change, but it would be inaccurate to describe it as an atrophy or decline of the diaconate. Indeed, it meant a reorganization of the Church’s diakonia at large. It implied also a new interpretation of the nature of the diaconate, still in line with the old tradition, but with sharper distinction between “order” and various “offices” or commissioned tasks. In fact, the liturgical role of deacons was becoming increasingly conspicuous precisely in the fourth century, in the period of stabilization and unification of rites. It was for the role and function of “liturgical assistants” (of bishops and priests) that deacons were ordained. This was their basic and primary function, and it constituted their ecclesiastical and ministerial status.

In the contemporary rite of ordination to the diaconate its auxiliary character is clearly indicated. The ordination takes place at the liturgy after the anaphora, that is, after the consecration of the elements; and this is meant to signify that deacons do not take any acting part in the consecration, except insofar as the whole worshipping congregation also is supposed and invited to join in prayer and to share in this way in the celebration. On the contrary, ordination to priesthood takes place

22

before the consecration, at the very beginning of the sacramental service, so that a newly ordained priest is able immediately to join the bishop and his fellow-presbyters in the priestly action of consecration. This twofold ordination is a new way to express the traditional distinction: deacons are ordained in ministerio, whereas priests are ordained in sacerdotio. After the rite of ordination has been completed, the new deacon receives from the bishop a ripidion, or flabellum, a kind of fan, with which he is supposed “to guard” the Sacrament (originally from flies and insects). Now it is no more than a symbolic gesture, but it expresses clearly the serving role of deacons in the liturgy of the Church. In modern times the ripidia are made in the shape of cherubs (and are accordingly called hexapteryga), in order to suggest an analogy between angels and deacons, since angels also are but “serving spirits.” According to the contemporary rule, ordination to the diaconate may also be performed at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, which is not a sacramental service in the strict sense, but simply a special variant of Vespers with the additional rite of administering holy Communion from the presanctified, or reserved, Sacrament. In brief, deacons are not supposed or permitted to function as such, except as assistants of the officiating priest or bishop. They are no more than assistants.

 

The liturgical function of the deacon is conspicuous and impressive in the Eastern rite. Western liturgiologists usually regard it as a distinctive and most characteristic feature of this rite.4 On the whole, this observation is correct; however, if the assistance or participation of

23

deacons in the divine service is normal, regular, and desirable, it is not indispensable or obligatory, since it is an auxiliary and subsidiary function. This assistance belongs, as it were, to the plene esse of the liturgical rite, to its ceremonial completeness and perfection, rather than to its very esse. As a matter of fact, there are no deacons at all in the majority of Orthodox communities today. This may be a sign of crisis or decline, but it must be considered seriously and understood properly. It is significant that as early as the fourteenth century, the great Byzantine interpreter of the liturgical rites, Nicholas Cabasilas, was rather reticent about the function of deacons.

Let us turn now to the analysis of the rite itself. First of all, the deacon is a keryx, a kind of liturgical herald or crier. The term itself has been used by St. John Chrysostom and by Theodore of Mopsuestia.5 The deacon announces the beginning of the service and invites the officiating priest to give the initial blessing or invocation (kairos tou poiesai to kyrio), while he himself receives the permission to start. The deacon exhorts the congregation to join in prayer, and at certain particular points he stirs its attention: orfoi-proschomen – “stand aright,” “let us attend.” It is his duty and privilege to call the congregation, before the anaphora, to recognize each other, “to love one another,” and to introduce the recitation of the Creed. It is his privilege also to invite the celebrant to proceed to the consecration of gifts. It is his task to invite communicants to approach and to receive holy Communion from the hands of the officiating priest or bishop. It seems that in the ancient church deacons were permitted, or even commissioned, to administer communion themselves, if only to the lay

24

people, and this is still occasionally done, mainly in the Greek Church, although it is now commonly regarded rather as an abuse. In all these instances the deacon appears to be the keeper of the liturgical order. The role of a herald is, by its very nature and purpose, conspicuous, but obviously it is auxiliary and subordinate. Lessons at the liturgy are normally read by deacons, although the epistle is usually read by an anagnostes, or even by a layman, and probably, in older times, it was the privilege of the anagnostes to read all lessons. Before the reading of the Gospel, the deacon asks for the blessing of the officiating priest in a rather solemn form.

The most significant function of the deacon in the divine rite is, no doubt, the recitation of the litanies, of which, in a sense, he is the regular minister. The litanies, however, may be said only in the context of the regular public service presided over by a priest (or bishop); outside of this context they cannot be said at all. The ministry of the deacon is in this case a subordinate ministry. It is hardly accurate to describe the litany as a dialogue for there are no replies, or answers. Nor is it accurate to describe the deacon as a leader of the congregation, or as a mediator between the priest and the congregation, as it is often done, especially by Western scholars.6 As a matter of fact, the deacon does not recite prayers – that is, the litanies – on the behalf of the congregation; he only invites it to pray. “Let us pray” is simply an invitation, not yet the prayer itself. In the phrase of such a competent student of the Eastern rite as Jean Michel Hanssens, “both the celebrant and the people pray together in litanies, though in many different forms,” and the clauses of the litany pronounced by the

25

deacon “are exhortations directed to the people rather than prayers addressed to God.”7 Indeed, “to invite” is not the same as “to lead.”

Each litany must be concluded with a doxology by the priest, who is actually the true and only leader of the congregation. It is proper at this point to quote the comments of Cabasilas: “At the beginning the priest exhorts the people to prayer, for he is appointed to this office and is for that reason placed in front of the people. He is also their ambassador and mediator (os presbeutes auton kai mesites). . . . After he has prayed for all his intentions, the priest calls upon the faithful to commend themselves to God.”8 Now, the litanies are recited by the deacon, and the priest has his own prayers to be said at the same time, submissa voce, within the sanctuary. There is an apparent duplication, or parallelism, of prayers; yet, the litany is incomplete without the doxology which can be given only by the priest. It is much more than just an audible exclamation (ekfonesis). In the phrase of Cabasilas, it is an explanatory verse (akroteleutios), which gives the reason for which prayers may be offered at all (prostithesi ten aitian). The reason is the glory of God. “The priest wants to bring all the faithful to share in his hymn of praise . . . and the congregation do indeed unite themselves to his prayer, for when he has recited the doxology, all the faithful say ‘Amen,’ and by this acclamation they take to themselves as their own the prayers of the priest.”9

It is hardly correct, therefore, to describe the deacon as an intermediary between the congregation and the officiating priest. Indeed, the priest, who has direct contact with the congregation, is himself their mediator.

26

The prayers of the priest and of the congregation are not only coordinated, they are truly integrated into one action of praise and intercession. The role of the deacon is conspicuous, especially in the first part of the divine liturgy, the enarxis, but it would be a gross exaggeration to consider him as a minister in his own right. There is no reason to assume, as it has been sometimes suggested, that the duplication of prayers in the enarxis was motivated by the Semitic conception of the Holy as totally inaccessible to ordinary people.10 Nor is it probable that this duplication had been introduced deliberately to secure the closer participation of the people in the worship, when language difficulties arose.11

In any case, this does not apply to the Byzantine liturgy, in which the language of the people has been always used. It is important to underline that this duplication of prayers in the enarxis has nothing to do with the habit of reciting the anaphora in secret (mystikos). In this case, there is actually no duplication at all: the part of the prayer which is recited now by the priest “insecret,” the parts of it audibly intoned by the priest, and the responses of the people, constitute in fact one single and continuous prayer, which is offered by the celebrating priest in the name and on behalf of the whole Church as gathered at that time for celebration, and in which both the celebrant and the congregation participate jointly, if diversis modis. The anaphora is indeed the common prayer of the Church, publica et communis oratio.12

Characteristically, at this point the deacon has no distinctive role of his own (precantur celebrans et populus).

It would be out of place to engage now in further discussion of this matter, important as it undoubtedly is.

27

The secret recitation of the anaphora was an unfortunate device to emphasize the august mystery of the Eucharist, but, in fact, it only obscures the common and corporate nature of the eucharistic celebration, especially in the situation when the people are not aware of the content of the prayer offered by the celebrant on their behalf. Strangely enough, it is often contended today that the congregation should not know the text of the anaphora, and special editions of the Euchologion are sometimes produced for the use of the worshippers, in which all secret prayers, including the anaphora, are simply omitted, under the pretext that they do not concern the congregation, being, as it were, a kind of private prayer of the officiating clergy. That, of course, is poor and confused theology, in flat contradiction of the open purpose and intention of the eucharistic rite itself.13

At present, however, we are concerned only with the liturgical function of the deacon, and are interested in the rite only insofar as it helps to clarify the nature of the diaconal assistance. There is nothing in the divine liturgy that might authorize us to regard the deacon as being more than a subordinate liturgical assistant of the officiating or celebrating priest. Certain parts of the rite are normally performed by deacons, always under the authority of the priest and in conjunction with his function, and they can be properly denoted as ta diakonika; but only the priest is the acting minister of all public rites in the Church.

 

We have noted, in the earlier part of this chapter, that, while the assistance of the deacon in the celebration

28

of the divine liturgy was regular, traditional, and normal, it could not, and should not, be regarded as mandatory or necessary. In other words, it does not belong to the essential structure of the eucharistic rite. Nothing essential is missing in the rite when the priest celebrates alone, and this situation is formally anticipated in the rubrics of the Euchologion. Indeed, in our time Divine Liturgy is more often celebrated without the participation of the deacon than with it. Of course, in this case, the priest himself has to perform certain functions of the deacon, as, for instance, the recitation of the litanies. This may create some practical inconveniences: the priest will have to say both the litanies and his own secret prayers, which are supposed to be said simultaneously. These inconveniences, however, can be easily obviated, and moreover, the rite itself will be enriched if the priest reads aloud his own prayers before the concluding doxology. It seems that the whole rite may assume more unity and cohesion if celebrated without the deacon’s assistance, so that its basic purpose and ultimate aim are better focused and enhanced. On the whole, the participation of the deacon is a matter of convenience, not of substance.

A further question now arises: does the participation of the deacon, in its contemporary form and shape, really serve that ultimate purpose for which the eucharistic rite is intended and instituted, or may it, in certain cases, obscure and even impede that purpose? It is a grave and crucial question, and a delicate one, so that often it is cautiously avoided. It is significant, however, that in the Russian Church, in the early years of this century, the usefulness of the diaconate, in its contemporary form, and even its necessity, were vigorously challenged by

29

certain prominent bishops, of the conservative wing of the Russian episcopate of that time. It has been contended that it was simply useless and to no purpose to have deacons in the parish churches; that it was, rather, a meaningless custom, or just a fashion; and the hope has been expressed that the parish diaconate might go out of fashion altogether and rather soon.14 The reasons for such radical intervention were mixed and obviously “situation conditioned.” The problem was neither deeply probed, nor traced to its basic theological presuppositions. Nevertheless, this challenge, coming from competent and authoritative quarters, cannot be easily dismissed or ignored.

As a matter of fact, in the Russian Church, for various and manifold historical reasons, the diaconate has lost, in modern times, its spiritual significance and has degenerated into a kind of ceremonial or artistic office. The deacon has become practically a musical officer in the Church. His participation in the rite was sought mainly because it was expected to add to the external impressiveness of the rite, to its emotional and esthetic appeal. The main requirement of a deacon, accordingly, was to have a good and powerful voice and artistic skill; his function was divorced from the true purpose of the rite. Here it seems proper to mention one characteristic abuse which, unfortunately, has become almost a custom in many communities: deacons are often permitted to serve without preparation, that is, without the required fasting and without the intention to receive communion at the celebration in which they are taking part. It is true that, in this case, they are not supposed or allowed to function at all in the sacramental part of the divine liturgy, and their role is limited to the enarxis, that

30

is, to the recitation of litanies and the reading of lessons, although the discipline on this point is often rather lax. In fact, this restriction itself only underlined the abnormality and ambiguity of the usage.15 The deacon came to be regarded as an accidental participant in the rite, in which he was invited to perform certain functions of artistic and decorative character, without being spiritually engaged in the celebration of the mystery. Indeed, this is not only an abuse, but a characteristic abuse, reflecting the current misconception of the diaconal office. The deacon has lost his proper position in the liturgical office.

This misconception of the diaconal office is rooted to a great extent in the general overemphasis on the esthetical aspect of the divine rite which has been growing in modern times, especially in the Russian Church. The choir has assumed a disproportionate role in the rite, and the rite itself has become a sort of artistic performance. The esthetic aspect is indeed essential to the sacred rite, in which there is ample room for art. Art and esthetics, however, must be subordinate to the spiritual purpose of the rite, but they tend to run an independent and autonomous course. The modern history of music in the Russian Church is a conspicuous example of such distortion, but it would be out of place to discuss this complex subject at length at this point.16 Only against this general background is it possible to understand properly the current shift in the character of the diaconate.

The other important factor in the process was the growing custom of infrequent communion. Whatever may be said, and is being said, in the defense of the habit

31

of non-communicating attendance which still prevails and is often even enforced in Orthodox communities; in spite of the vigorous challenge and appeal of such a great and saintly master as Father John of Cronstadt and many others before and after him, one cannot underestimate the obvious spiritual danger inherent and implicit in this habit. It encourages the faithful to regard the Eucharist as a kind of sacred spectacle which may be attended without any deeper engagement in the very purpose of the divine rite. By its very structure, and also by the purpose of its divine institution, the eucharistic rite is inwardly ordained toward Communion, and culminates precisely in the solemn call “to draw near,” addressed to the congregation. Only in this perspective can the participants in the service find their proper place. According to the authoritative interpretation of the Fathers, and of the later Byzantine commentators, the liturgy certainly is, in a sense, a “sacred panorama,” a comprehensive symbolic image of the whole oikonomia of salvation: it requires and implies vision and contemplation. But obviously this contemplation finds its fullness only in communion. In other words, attendance finds its justification precisely in participation, which is the only real focus of attendance. The current over-emphasis on the artistic side distorts the perspective and actually impedes contemplation. In contemporary practice, the congregation, “the Holy People,” in the phrase of Cabasilas, is reduced to silence, to the role of spectator; it loses its true part in the service which is, in principle and essence, precisely the corporate action of the whole Church, as gathered for celebration, in which it is at once the privilege and the bounden duty of all believers to participate. All functions in the divine rite

32

are coordinated precisely at this point; if they are not, the inner unity of the rite may be completely lost. This is what has actually happened with diaconal function in the contemporary situation.

It is for this reason that the question arises whether the diaconal assistance, in its contemporary form, is really desirable, even for the plene esse of the rite. At this point we are facing a dilemma. On the one hand, one may dispense altogether with the assistance of the deacon in the eucharistic rite, since this assistance in its contemporary form does not seem to serve the true and ultimate purpose of the rite. This has been done already on a large scale, if only for accidental reasons, and the venture seems to have been justified by its results. The priest is able to exercise more effectively his role as a minister of unity in his local congregation,17 and the congregation recovers its own and proper part in the divine service. It has been not infrequently suggested that common and congregational singing be restored in order to make the participation of the people real and effective. It has been done in many communities in the Russian Church and the purpose has been achieved.

On the other hand, the existing diaconate may be reorganized and restored to its proper role of liturgical assistants of the priests in the eucharistic service. A closer liturgical relationship must be restored between the priest and his deacon on the basis of their joint participation in the eucharistic celebration, as it is actually anticipated in the traditional rite, although the mode of their participation will be different. The concept of liturgical assistance must be clarified and properly defined; then the participation of the deacon in the

33

service may become an organic part of the divine rite. This prospective restoration of the true liturgical diaconate can be achieved, however, only in the context of a comprehensive liturgical renewal. Valid arguments may be adduced in favor of either alternative; they must be carefully scrutinized and pondered. This would require a theological reassessment of the whole problem of ministry. The nature of Christian ministry is always defined in the Orthodox tradition in close relation to the sacraments, especially to the holy Eucharist. The theological key to the problem of the diaconate lies in the doctrine of the Eucharist, and actually the whole problem of ministry is a eucharistic problem: the Eucharistic is the heart and the center – and indeed the foundation – of the Church, which is herself the Body of Christ. The diaconate, as a distinct ministerial order, can be understood adequately only in this eucharistic setting.18

 

As a matter of fact, the permanent diaconate has survived in the Eastern Church, if in a very peculiar form. At all times there has been, in the Church a large body of deacons, both in the cathedrals and in the parishes. The composition of this group was mixed. In the Russian church one can discern two main categories. First, there was a distinct group of those who were selected for this position on the basis of their musical ability, mainly in the cathedrals or in large city churches. They had to remain permanently in their office simply because they were selected for special reasons, as qualified precisely for the diaconal function. Many in this group had an adequate theological training and could therefore be assigned to additional duties, including

34

preaching and catechetical instruction, if required. Second, there was a much larger group of those who had to remain deacons because they were not qualified for promotion.

This peculiar situation can be understood only in historic perspective. The instance of the Russian Church is especially significant in this respect. For various historic reasons, which cannot be discussed at length in this paper, the clergy in the Russian Church gradually became a closed and hereditary social group, a kind of a special class, or even a caste. This situation was decreed by state law and was rigorously maintained; it could not fail to foster the development of a peculiar class-consciousness, for even the families of the clergy belonged by law to “the clergy.” The unity of the clergy was a social phenomenon in the total structure of a neatly stratified society. “Clergy” was a legal status, not an ecclesiastical institution. The school system, established in the eighteenth century, was the chief factor in securing the unity of the class. It was the duty of bishops to establish schools in their dioceses, and it was the legal obligation of all the clergy to send all their boys to these schools, under severe sanctions and threats of prosecution for desertion in the case they failed to do so. These were general schools, not specifically theological, and theology was taught only in two upper forms. The course was long, the curriculum dry and heavy, and discipline oppressive. Only a tiny minority of those who were compulsorily enrolled at an early age was able to graduate. Those who left the school before graduation were in constant danger of being conscripted as soldiers, or compelled to join the ranks of peasantry, unless they were given some position in the Church. This explains

35

the disproportionate inflation of the lower ranks of the clergy in the Russian Church, and it affected the social status of the diaconate. Most deacons, especially in the rural parishes, had a very inadequate education, and could not be promoted to any higher or responsible position. Moreover, their economic situation was often alarmingly poor. This created a sharp social split within the ranks of the clergy. It is true that this system was legally abrogated about a century ago, in the era of Great Reforms in the 1860s; but its consequences were still felt quite strongly, even in the early years of this century, and inveterate habits continued. The diaconate was, in fact, a professional group in the Church rather than a vocational one. The abnormality of this situation has been sharply exposed by many bishops of the Russian Church, especially in the period of Pre-Conciliar discussions in 1904-07, and then at the Great Council of 1917-18.19

These social conditions complicated the problem of the nature and function of the diaconate in the Russian Church. The existing permanent diaconate could not fulfill the purpose that would vindicate its existence. In other Orthodox Churches the situation was different, according to the historic and local conditions, but the basic problem was always the same. Many problems of the past are now obsolete and antiquated, especially in the Churches behind the Iron Curtain, but the memories of the past still weigh heavily on today’s canonical and theological thinking.

 

The contemporary problem of the diaconate, as it is conceived and discussed rather intensively in the West, is more the problem of diakonia in a wider sense than that

36

of the diaconate as a distinct hierarchical order. In the Eastern Churches the situation is different. In spite of the crisis and confusion outlined above, the Eastern Church is primarily concerned with the liturgical diaconate. This does not mean that the Orthodox Church is indifferent to the great and grave problem of diakonia, of the social responsibility and service of the Church; but it may be contended, from the Orthodox point of view, and in the light of the historic tradition of the Eastern Church, that diakonia in this sense cannot serve as a basis for the diaconate as an order. Diakonia is but a function or a task, and it is the task of the whole Church. It may be further contended that this task can be accomplished rather by the laity in the Church, under special commission from the hierarchy and under its supervision. In certain cases an ordination to minor orders may be desirable. As a matter of fact, many of the diaconal tasks, in this large sense of the word, have been for a long time successfully exercised in the Orthodox Churches by lay people: in the field of missions, of education, and religious education in particular, of charity and social service. For these tasks, from the Orthodox point of view, there is no need to restore a permanent diaconate. These tasks and duties belong to the common competence and responsibility of the whole Church.. In this connection one should think rather of the restoration of the old and traditional office of the deaconesses (of which there has been constant talk in the Russian Church during the last hundred years), of the expansion of sisterhoods and especially of medical sisterhoods, and of many other similar institutions. These are indeed urgent and impending problems; but they are outside the scope of this paper.20 Many of these tasks may be assigned to

37

deacons, but rather on the basis of individual competence or vocation, and not as an intrinsic component of the diaconal ministry, in the proper sense.

38