Sermon preached at St. Alban's, Spirit Lake, on April 13, 2008
( Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year A, BCP Lectionary)
by the Rev. Deacon Donald G. Twentyman, Jr.Texts: Acts 6:1-9; 7:2a,51-60
Psalm 23
1 Peter 2:19-25
John 10:1-10Setting the Scene
What an exciting time! The sick were being healed! The Good News was being preached! Peter and the other Apostles had been in prison, but they were out again! The second coming of Jesus was expected within their lifetimes! And to top it off, Gamaliel, a Pharisee and teacher of the law, had warned the high priest and the council that if the work of the followers of Jesus was of human origin, it would fail; but if it was of God, they would not be able to overthrow them – and they might even be fighting against God!
While all of these wonderful events were going on, the earliest followers of Jesus were in the process of trying to get themselves organized – and, as they expected that our Lord might return at any moment, they were somewhat hit and miss about it, responding to problems as they arose and not yet taking the long view. They faced the mundane problems of managing a communal society: people who called nothing their own, but shared all things in common. This was not as simple as they might have wished, as was seen when Anani’as and Sapphi’ra claimed to have given their all, and yet had secretly held back a portion for themselves – with fatal consequences.
Retelling the story of Stephen
In the midst of this presumed utopia, supposedly pervaded with good will and selflessness, there arose the ugly head of racism – or culturalism, to coin a word. A group of Hellenists, those whose language and culture was Greek, had complained that the needy among them were not getting their fair share in the daily distribution of food. Hey! They were all followers of Jesus! That just shouldn’t have been happening! The proposed solution was to appoint seven men from among those who were doing the complaining, the Hellenists, and put them in charge of the distribution. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
The seven men who were selected are traditionally considered to be the first deacons in the Church, and Acts 6:2-7 is one of the readings often used at the ordination of deacons. There are some who think that it is inappropriate, because they see it as too severely limiting diaconal ministry. Others object because neither Stephen nor Philip appeared to be so limited, and thus were not appropriately “diaconal.” Some of those about to be ordained are probably unenthusiastic because of what happened to Stephen next!
When the Apostles prayed and laid hands on the seven, things just did not go quite as they had expected. Stephen, following the example of Peter and the other apostles, proceeded to perform wonders, preach, and he eventually he even got himself hauled before the temple authorities. Filled with the Holy Spirit, he then preached to them, condemning them for their role in the Crucifixion of our Lord. It is a witness to the power of his preaching that Stephen soon became the first martyr, the first follower of Jesus to bear witness to his faith through his own death. Here we reach the end of today’s reading from Acts. Stephen, full of grace and forgiveness, is being stoned to death while Saul of Tarsus stands by approvingly, watching over the coats of those who are killing Stephen.
Summarizing the story of Philip (Acts 8)
The martyrdom of Stephen heralded the beginning of a severe persecution against the church in Jerusalem, with Saul in the forefront, ravaging the church by entering house after house, dragging off both men and women whom he sent to prison. With our 20-20 hindsight we can see how God was able to bring good out of this evil. The immediate effect was to scatter the followers of Jesus, and they proclaimed the Good News of Jesus Christ wherever they went. Philip, the second-named of the first seven deacons, proclaimed the Gospel in Samaria, where he drove out demons and healed the lame. This attracted the attention of a magician named Simon, commonly known as Simon Magus. It seems that Simon may have initially seen Philip as a competitor in the magic trade, but that eventually Simon came to believe and was baptized. Even so, Simon may have been more impressed by the miracles which Philip wrought than by the words which he spoke, for when Peter and John came from Jerusalem to lay hands upon those whom Philip had converted and baptized, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, Simon offers them money saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Peter rebuffed him, making it clear that God’s gifts are not for sale. It is from this that we now have the word “simony,” meaning the buying or selling of that which is Holy. It was the fact that the leaders of the Church eventually forgot the lesson of Simon Magus which led to the Reformation.
Okay. Let’s get back to Philip. After the interlude with Simon Magus, an angel sent Philip from Samaria to Gaza, and thus begins the story which we will hear next year on the fifth Sunday of Easter – the conversion and baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. I am sure that most of you remember it, so I won’t recount it at this time except to say that it closes as follows: “When they (Philip and the eunuch) came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he was passing through the region, he proclaimed the good news to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.” That is the last that we hear of Deacon Philip, except for a note in the 21st chapter of Acts where we read “The next day we (Paul and his companions) left and came to Caesarea; and we went into the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy.”
We don’t know what the other five deacons were up to in the midst of all of these goings on. Hopefully they were busy assuring the equitable distribution of the food and other resources which had been placed in their charge.
The corruption and suppression of the diaconate
Over the centuries, from this somewhat erratic beginning, the influence of deacons continued to grow as the Church moved from being a persecuted sect of Judaism to being the major power in the then-known world.
The tradition of the original seven was honored by the bishops of Rome and other bishops each of whom had seven deacons serving directly under them. The senior deacon, or archdeacon, usually served as the bishop’s chief financial officer.
As the power and influence of deacons grew, corruption was not uncommon. As early as in the “Shepherd of Hermas,” from the second century, it was written that:
“They that have spots are the deacons that exercised their office ill and plundered the livelihood of widows and orphans and made gains for themselves from the ministrations they had received to perform.”[1]
What a sad reversal of the service for which deacons were originally called!
Bishops were often selected from among the deacons, and as late as the reign of Henry II in England it was no surprise when, in 1161, Thomas a Becket, then the Archdeacon of Canterbury, was chosen to succeed Archbishop Theobald as Primate of All England. Thomas was first ordained priest by Walter, bishop of Rochester, and then was consecrated archbishop by the bishop of Winchester.
The power and influence of deacons, as well as the corruption, led to their eventual suppression as a permanent order in the Western church. The diaconate evolved into a mere stepping-stone to the priesthood, and the work and the liturgical role of the deacon was generally taken over by priests. Even the office of Archdeacon was then filled by a priest.
Moving into the Present
By the latter 1800’s the “revival” of the diaconate was under serious consideration. In 1872 the Rev. C. H. Sale wrote in the Church of England’s Mission Life:
“But whatever causes may have conspired to bring about this abeyance of the Diaconate, amongst them is certainly not to be found any want of the work proper to the deacon. If the deacon was necessary in the first days of the Church, in order to undertake the secular or semi-secular work of the ministry, how much more in these, when the disciples are no longer few, but the Church is in theory commensurate with the nation, and established by law; and when all kinds of employments are accumulated in the hands of the clergy, some by law, many by custom, others by the well-earned confidence of the laity in times when physical suffering and temporal needs attract even more attention than the moral degradation and spiritual destitution with which they are so often connected.
“There is the deacon's work, and more and more of it every day! And we may thank God that so far it has not been either undone or ill done; but it has been done by the priest.
“There are two evils in this – waste of power, and damage to the instrument itself.”[2]
In the Episcopal Church, the diaconate was initially revived as a way of honoring, for example, a respected Lay Reader who had faithfully served a congregation for 50 years. These deacons, almost always elderly men, usually had no function but to assist at the Eucharist.
By the 1970’s a number of dioceses had come to recognize that deacons, as a permanent order, had a place and useful function in the Church. These dioceses began to create formal structures to prepare for ordination to the diaconate those men and women, usually over 40, who had no calling to the priesthood and were not in a position to attend seminary. Initially we were referred to as “permanent deacons,” but as we came to be seen as the norm the adjective was eventually omitted. We deacons are expected to support ourselves, and it is usually expected that much of our ministry will be outside of the church’s organizational structure, but still under the oversight of the bishop, or of a priest designated by the bishop. Aha! No more loose cannons such as Stephen or Philip, it is hoped.
Overall, the function of deacons in the Episcopal Church is still not entirely clear, and varies widely from diocese to diocese. Several dioceses still will not ordain deacons except for those in transition to the priesthood. It is also not unusual to hear a priest comment that he or she had or heard of an unfortunate experience with a deacon, and that therefore he or she will not work with a deacon. Yes, I too have known deacons who made a real mess of things, usually by grossly overstepping their bounds. Offhand, I can’t imagine that any bishop today would put up with either Stephen or Philip as a deacon in his or her diocese – they just didn’t “know their place.”
Oversimplifying, I see the work of the deacon, that which is outside of the liturgy but within the Church, to be twofold. First, it is to assist the priest so as to free the priest to do his or her own ministry. Secondly, it is to work with the priest in enabling the laity to better perform the ministry to which you are all called. After all, we are all the ministers of the Church! As it says in the Catechism:
“Q. Who are the ministers of the Church?
“A. The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons.”[3]
In conclusion, I think that part of Fr. Sale’s quote from 1872 bears repeating:
“There is the deacon's work, and more and more of it every day! And we may thank God that so far it has not been either undone or ill done; but it has been done by the priest.”[2]
Let us pray:
“O God of unchangeable power and eternal light: Look favorably on your whole Church, that wonderful and sacred mystery; by the effectual working of your providence, carry out in tranquility the plan of salvation; let the whole world see and know that things which were cast down are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made new, and that all things are being brought to their perfection by him through whom all things were made, your Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.”[4]