Issues that the Church Must Face

Women in Ministry: A Study

Part 8

Published by Church Information Office
Church House, Westminster, SW1. 1968, pp. 39-42

Before any permanent pattern for women’s share in ministry can be outlined, two questions in particular must be asked and answered by the Church: can women be ordained to the priesthood? and, what is the diaconate? It is true that, even in the present situation, some improvement can be made in women’s ministry, but the Working Party believes that only when these two questions have been faced and answered in one way or another will it be possible to see clearly how women can participate more fully in the ministry of the Church.

The Question of the Priesthood

The Working Party was not set up to discuss this question; but again and again it was driven to consider it. The members of the Working Party could not provide a unanimous answer. They were not aware of any conclusive objections to the ordination of women. Yet not all members were prepared to say unequivocally that there were in fact no such objections, or that it was necessarily right to ordain women at the present time. Some members, however, believe such ordination to be both right and opportune. All are agreed that until the Church resolves this matter, it will be almost impossible to make any clear definition of women’s part in ministry. It should be noted that if the priesthood were to be open to women, so in principle would be the episcopate.

The Question of the Diaconate

The Working Party was obliged to consider the relationship between the diaconate, as the third order of ministry, and the whole participation of women in ministry. This was necessary in the first place to clarify the position of the deaconess. But we were also concerned to discover whether an expansion of the diaconate might provide a sphere in which more women could make a commitment to ministry. These investigations inevitably raised a whole series of questions about the diaconate itself which the Working Party was not in a position to answer. Such questions are already being discussed in various forms, and details of some of the suggested solutions are set out in Detached Notes 1 and 2 at the end of this chapter. Briefly, the Church needs to determine whether the diaconate is, or should be, an order of ministry within the clergy or not.

If the Church should agree with the traditional view that the diaconate is indeed the third order of ministry, then first, its functions must be so distinguished that one can see clearly how they differ from those of other ministries, of priesthood and episcopate on the one hand, and from the ministry of lay people on the other. If the distinctive functions of the diaconate as an order of ministry can be denned, should they not belong equally to the deaconess? She would then be seen to be clearly within the third order of ministry. Indeed a clue to the distinctive role of the diaconate might be found in the present Order of Deaconesses. Some women now licensed as lay workers might find themselves more naturally at home within the Order.

Secondly, it would be necessary to show that the diaconate is more than a period of probation on the way to the priesthood as it is at present in the Church of England. It might well be that some priests would be recruited from those who had served as deacons, but just as deacons would not necessarily become priests so priests need not have been deacons. (The question whether a deaconess might proceed to the priesthood would depend on the answer given to the first question: can women be priests? and not on the nature of the diaconate.) (1)

The church may decide that no specific functions can be distinguished for the third order of ministry, and that, in consequence, the ordained diaconate should be abandoned. Such a decision would underline the responsibility of all Christians for ministry (diakonia) since all are involved in service to the world and all have a share in the liturgical functions of the Church. It would also emphasise the need for the Church to accredit some lay people as its representatives in evangelism and other fields on behalf of the whole body, and to give them appropriate training and payment (see Detached Note 3).

If the male diaconate were abandoned as an order of ministry, the position of the Order of Deaconesses would be even more anomalous than at present. Were the priesthood open to women, this anomaly might be resolved by the disappearance of the Deaconess Order. But so long as the priesthood is not open, it would be wrong to remove the one opportunity open to a woman to make a lifelong commitment to the ministry of the Church (in many ways similar to that of the clergy). (2)

Whatever the Church may decide about the priesthood and the diaconate, lay men and women do, indeed, participate in the ministry of the Church. This is something for which the Working Party thanks God, and to which it would wish to give every encouragement. It believes that such participation is open to women in just the same way as to men, and longs to see the removal of those prejudices against the recognition of this service by women which still remain.

Since all Christians share in the ministry of the Church, it is only right that they should be seen to do so, and, in particular, those women the Church accredits for such work should take part in the working out of policy. For example, licensed lay workers through participation in staff meetings, clergy chapters, etc. should play a full part in the Church’s ministerial life whilst firmly retaining their lay status. What has been said of licensed lay workers applies a fortiori to deaconesses, whatever may be the pattern of their ministry in the future.

The Working Party gave much time and thought to the issues which are raised in this chapter and particularly to the question whether an expansion of the diaconate might provide a sphere in which more women could make a commitment to ministry. Some members believed that a true diaconate would provide the setting in which women could serve more fully (see Detached Note 1) and at least one member regards this plan as an indispensable and urgent requirement if women are to be given an adequate status and share in the Church’s ministry so long as the priesthood is closed to them. Without this, he would regard the rest of the proposals of this report as useful within their limits, but as wholly inadequate to meet the difficulties and to seize the opportunities which confront the Church in this area of its life. Others believed that a diaconate for men and women could only be unbalanced on the women’s side so long as the priesthood is closed to them, and they would therefore put more emphasis on the importance of lay participation in ministry (see Detached Notes 2 and 3). All, however, were united in pressing for some immediate action and our proposals will be found in Chapter IX.

Detached Note 1

Accredited Ministries and the Diaconate: A Plan

The Working Party rejects the idea, hinted at in Women and Holy Orders that there is no place for professional ministry by women of the kind exercised by deaconesses, licensed lay workers, etc. On the contrary, it believes that such ministry has been raised up by God, that the Church needs more of it, not less, and that it must be given greater scope and recognition. Chapter IX suggests reforms to this end, without changing the present basic structure of these accredited ministries outside Holy Orders.

But not all the Working Party believe that this goes far enough. A simple but drastic change of structure is, it is argued, needed to make these reforms effective; it is also needed to bring the Church’s practice about its ministry into line with its doctrine. It is both a theological as well as a practical requirement. The proposal has been thoroughly but inconclusively discussed within the Working Party, and also with representative members of the various accredited ministries, who showed keen interest in it.

The accredited ministries outside Holy Orders have an ambiguous status vis a vis both the clergy and the general body of the laity. This is the nettle that must be grasped.

They are much more like the clergy than like the general body of the laity. Like the clergy, they are commissioned to a representative ministry in the name of Christ and his Church. All their main functions are ones which they share with the clergy: evangelism, pastoral care of the congregation, teaching and preaching, leading in worship, compassionate service of those in need. Like the clergy they are sociologically organised as a profession, entry to which requires similar qualities and talents, and theological and practical training and testing; these requirements being related to the fact that all who are admitted may, and many will, give full-time, paid, life-long service.

But they are not clergy. Almost all parts of the Christian Church recognise the unique place of the ordained ministry of the Word and Sacraments and pastoral care. It is given by God; it is a permanent and necessary part of the Church’s structure; it has a unique and authoritative commission. This distinguishes it from the varied ministries of the laity. For these too appropriate forms may be created. But such forms come and go; they are not part of the Church’s essential structure, nor have they the same authoritative commission. The accredited ministries fall within this latter lay category. Only the threefold historic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons (in short, the clergy) is accepted in the Church of England as belonging to the ordained ministry of the Word and Sacraments which is a necessary part of the Church’s structure. Theologically, therefore, members of the accredited ministries are lay people exercising part of the ministry proper to the general body of the laity.

Some members of the accredited ministries see themselves in this light. Some do not accept a life-long commitment; some (especially among the church social workers) exercise few of the functions of the clergy except that of compassionate service, and that in a manner other than is usual for the clergy. But deaconesses explicitly accept a life-long commitment; many licensed lay workers and Church Army officers do so implicitly. Except that they do not celebrate the Eucharist or pronounce Absolution, or hold posts which require these activities, many of these workers devote their lives to a ministry which is almost indistinguishable from that of the clergy, and what they do not do on the sacramental side they often balance by a richer fulfilment of the functions of pioneer evangelism and compassionate service than is usually possible for the clergy. They rightly expect to be accepted as responsible fellow members of the ministerial staffs of parishes, hospitals, etc. Thus what are technically lay ministries are being in practice used for the kind of ministry exercised by the clergy, but with the limitations imposed by the fact that their members are not clergy.

Lay workers sometimes wish to be treated by the clergy as partners in ministry and at the same time by the laity as fellow lay folk. But this is not, broadly, how it works out. Their professional standing separates them from the ordinary laity; their theological lay status marks them off from the clergy; and they are not accepted as fully belonging to either. In practice they are often regarded as inferior assistants to the clergy, useful for chores but unsuited for genuine spiritual responsibility, or even as an imitation substitute for the clergy, to be put up with when you cannot get the real thing. Far from getting the best of both worlds they do not fully belong to either. This disastrous ambivalence must be resolved. It can be done in the following way.

The historic ordained ministry is essentially one. Its members all share the same basic functions; leadership in evangelism, pastoral care, preaching and teaching, leading in worship, compassionate service. All, including bishops, are servants; all, in-eluding deacons, share in leading the congregation in its worship and witness. But it is internally divided into three Orders each of which emphasises one aspect of the common ministry; the episcopate that of oversight; the presbyterate that of the pastoral care and teaching of the younger by those older in the faith; the diaconate that of service; and these differences of emphasis are of course reflected in differences of liturgical functions. The deacon’s special emphasis on service arose from his duty (a) to serve the bishop as his personal assistant; this was partly liturgical, but partly general so that it might (as in the case of Athanasius) include important teaching or pastoral functions, and (b) to serve the sick and needy, visiting them, administering charity, bringing them the Eucharistic elements. Thus the diaconate was (1) a liturgical ministry because of its service to the bishop; (2) a general pastoral ministry because of its participation in the common ministry but also because of its service to the bishop; and (3) a ministry of compassionate service, because of its service to the sick and needy. It was parallel and complementary to the presbyterate, sharing much common ground but with its own distinctive character; and was like the presbyterate linked directly to the bishop so that often the deacon was the bishop’s natural successor.

The present use of the diaconate as a probationary ministry for aspirants to the presbyterate, with no distinctive responsibility for compassionate service, distorts its status vis a vis the other Orders and empties it of its distinctive significance. The Ordinal retains indications of the truth: the deacon is to assist the priest (who is now the bishop’s deputy) in leading worship; he has pastoral duties, e.g. instructing the young; he is to care for the sick and poor. But the fact remains that in practice the modern deacon is simply an embryo priest and not really a deacon at all.

Yet the Church urgently needs a true diaconate. Today it is awakening to its calling to be the Servant Church, identifying itself with human need at every level. It ought to have this vocation to humble service of humanity visibly embedded in its structure; and to have within the ordained ministry those who take special responsibility for fulfilling this aspect of the Church’s vocation to be the Body of him who came not to be served but to serve. If in the past it had preserved an effective diaconate the Church might have fallen less often into prelacy and into identifying itself with the ‘haves’ rather than with the ‘have nots’.

But the Church has such a ministry. Only it is outside Holy Orders. Deaconesses and lay workers assist the priest as the bishop’s deputy in leading worship; they exercise a general pastoral ministry; they conspicuously render compassionate service both through direct social work and also through the personal care for old, ill and needy individuals which they so often excel at in the course of their general pastoral ministry in parishes and elsewhere. They fulfil the functions of the diaconate, and they show the emphasis and proportion proper to the diaconate. Perhaps they were raised up by God precisely because the lack of an effective diaconate had somehow to be made good.

Let the Church, then, take two simple steps. (1) Let it stop ordaining candidates for the presbyterate as deacons. Let it treat them as what they are, senior ordinands being trained and tested for the priesthood. Let them serve for a year as full-time paid lay workers in a parish and then be ordained straight to the priesthood. (2) Let it ordain as deacons present members of the accredited ministries and future candidates who accept a life-long commitment to this Order. They would continue to fulfil the same kind of ministry as at present, but with the additional scope, opportunities and recognition which would result from their being within Holy Orders, fellow-clergy with the presbyterate, exercising a ministry parallel with and complementary to that of the presbyterate, directly linked to the bishop, and sharing with the other Orders in membership of the one historic ordained ministry of Word and Sacraments. And the Church would have, and be seen to have a real diaconate.

Some questions would arise.

(1) Would the accredited lay ministries disappear? No. The Order of Deaconesses would go. But some members of the other accredited ministries see themselves as lay people exercising a lay though professional ministry. They would still be needed in these capacities. But as lay accrediting would be deliberately chosen rather than ordination to the diaconate, the lay character of their ministry would stand out clearly, and this would be all to the good.

(2) Would the diaconate be open to women only? No. Some men in the accredited ministries, for example some Church Army captains, might well become deacons. The diaconate would be open both to men and women who seek a ministry centred in evangelism and compassionate service rather than in the administration of the Sacraments.

(3) Would a pledge of life-long service be required? No. What would be required would be life-long commitment to the status of deacon, which implies readiness to exercise this ministry as opportunity offers. Just as priests may at times refrain from exercising their ministry or may exercise it on a part-time basis, so might deacons.

(4) Would there be valid theological objections to ordaining women to the diaconate? No. The objections to ordaining them as priests centre upon the fatherly and presidential character attributed to the priesthood, which some think inconsistent with the femininity of women, and with the subordination thought to be ascribed to them in Scripture. A ministry characterised by diakonia would not have this supposed inconsistency.

(5) Would ordination to the diaconate make much practical difference? Would it create a satisfying ministry even though it would not include the right to celebrate the Eucharist? Yes, because:

(a) the very existence of the diaconate in the Church’s structure testifies to God’s will that there should be a ministry centred in service, and to the Church’s need for it. The desire for presidency, even at the Eucharist, is not a Christian motive, and a serving ministry perhaps comes closest to that of the Lord. The Church must make it possible for members of such a ministry to use all their gifts to the full, in service which is fully responsible and spiritually significant; otherwise their dedication to service is at least in part wasted and frustrated. But even in the present very imperfect conditions those in the accredited ministries find their service deeply satisfying and rewarding. The proposed change, by giving more scope for responsible service, would make it even more so.

(b) Certain practical enlargements of scope would necessarily follow.

(i) As deacons they would automatically be entitled to perform all the functions now allowed to deacons, including (for example) assisting in distributing the Holy Communion; taking the reserved Sacrament to the sick; preaching regularly including at Holy Communion; baptising; burying the dead. This is not so now; and those who remained in the lay accredited ministries would have no such right; they would be licensed individually only to such duties as in each case the bishop thought fit.

(ii) As members of the clergy they would be entitled to a share in decision making, through representation in the Houses of Clergy in deanery, diocesan, provincial and national synods; and legal provision for this representation would need to be made.

(c) Their place as clergy in Holy Orders should lead to their being recognised and accepted, both by laity and priests, more fully as partners in ministry with the presbyterate, with a ministry partly shared and partly complementary, This, one hopes, would lead to them being given more share in the ministry and greater opportunities for exercising responsibility. For example, they could be given full and final responsibility for certain fields of work in parishes; in group or team ministries they could also become leaders of the group or the team; in hospitals and other communities where they were exercising full-time ministry, they could be the responsible official chaplains, while priests coming in to celebrate Holy Communion would do so by way of brotherly assistance. Finally, their place as clergy would make it clear that the bishop should have the same personal pastoral care for and relationship with them as he has with his priests. One cannot tell in advance all the things to which the venture would lead. The only way of finding out is to try it. But at least it would create conditions in which many good things might happen.

Detached Note 2

Alternative Suggestions for the Diaconate

(a) The Bishop of St Andrews has suggested that the real need may not be to recover a true diaconate but rather to identify it as already in existence in the present servant ministries of the Church. For the most part these are lay ministries (e.g. catechists, readers, evangelists, nurses, welfare workers and administrators), and to turn all such men and women into clergy would be a mistake. To such a ministry, men and women would be appointed by a simple rite of laying on of hands with prayer, in outward appearance more like a commissioning or licensing than a conventional ordination. The ordination would be for a period rather than for life. The whole emphasis would be on service (diakonid) and the pattern would be flexible, allowing the Church’s ministry to respond to contemporary needs in different parts of the world.

(b) In his essay on ‘Suggestions for a Lay Ministry’ in the report Women and Holy Orders, Dr Alan Richardson, Dean of York, suggested the creation of a diaconate within holy orders for lay men and women. In this case, lay is understood as non-professional, i.e. such ‘deacons’ would earn their living in the secular world. This ministry would be supplementary to the priesthood but distinguished from it.

If such a diaconate were exclusively non-professional, it would offer no solution to the current problems of women’s ministry. But it has been suggested that such a reconstructed diaconate might have a double role, including both the professional and non-professional workers. In a private letter, Dr Richardson, while not ruling out this possibility, held that the whole point of this pattern would be lost were the professional worker to become the typical deacon rather than be the exception.

(c) Others maintain that any revival or extension of the permanent diaconate as a third Order of the ministry at the present time is questionable on both theological and practical grounds. Theologically, the diaconate has lost its identity and has become no more than a prelude to the priesthood, while its traditional functions have been widely distributed among those who are not in holy orders and for whom ordination would not necessarily be appropriate. Some, indeed, would go further and ask whether, in using diakonia as the name of an order of ministry, the Church has made a mistake: diakonia, following the use of the word in the New Testament, would be better understood as a quality of all Christian living, and of all Christian ministry, ordained and lay. The diaconate is questioned on practical grounds because it is feared that few, if any, men would in fact come forward for ordination to a permanent diaconate, whose functions would be similar to those performed by lay men and women. Such men would be more likely to seek ordination to the priesthood and thus the revived order would in practice survive only as a means of securing some participation by women in ordained status: it would simply turn deaconess into deacon.

On these grounds, it is held that the sounder course would be to abandon altogether the idea of a permanent diaconate: those deaconesses and other women whose call to a permanent ministry of word and sacrament the Church recognised should be admitted to the priesthood, and diaconal functions should be exercised, as now, in a wide variety of accredited lay ministries (as well as by members of religious orders and other societies).

Detached Note 3

Lay Participation in Ministry

Any attempt to define a pattern for women’s share in ministry has to take account of many factors. One of these is the conviction of some of those within the present accredited lay ministries that part of the ministerial service of the Church should be given from a lay (unordained) rather than an ordained status. There are several reasons for this attitude, but the most important is the desire to take seriously a lay element in ministry.

The Church has long lived with a distorted pattern of total ministry. Laity and clergy alike have tended to accept a situation in which almost all ministry is regarded as being performed by the ordained. The rest of the Church, i.e. the laity, has therefore shirked its responsibility for involvement in ministry, whether in pastoral care or in mission. But clergy and lay workers are called to be enablers and stimulators of ministry from the whole Church—not the sole agents of ministry.

In order to demonstrate, therefore, that the Church desires a lay participation in ministry, some, at least, of those who minister, should do so from the ‘lay’ side of the clergy line. Yet this should not be done in a freelance way. There should be due accrediting for the roles and functions assigned by the Church to such lay men and women. For they must be seen to be acting in the name of the Church and within the Church’s oversight and discipline in the performance of their ministry.

There is also the question of life-long commitment. At present, the deaconess shares with the threefold ministry a life-long commitment explicitly accepted by the Church. For those within the accredited lay ministry, the Church recognises a specific, but not necessarily life-long, call to meet certain needs. Some intend a life-long commitment: others see a particular task to be done and feel committed for that period alone. Some would express it as a readiness for life-long service, with an openness towards the future. Such an attitude need not represent an unwillingness for Christian commitment, but a genuine uncertainty as to the form it should take.

Notes

(1) One member of the Working Party put forward the suggestion that the male diaconate should be abolished entirely, and that the three orders of ordained ministry should be: bishops, priests, deaconesses. The suggestion was argued on the ground that men and women are complementary rather than identical, and that it was not inappropriate that this should be evident in the structure of the ordained ministry.

(2) This is not to call in question the personal intention which some lay workers make of lifelong commitment, though it is not required of them by the Church, nor the lifelong commitment of members of religious communities which is, however, to the religious life rather than to the ministry of the Church.


Return to Contents of “Women in Ministry: A Study”

Support our campaign

Sitemap

Contemporary theologians

Go to next chapter