Deacons and Bishops

A new way of thinking has been making its way through the Church. Once upon a time, the adage was 'once a deacon, always a deacon.' In other words, even after being ordained priest, by being first ordained a deacon, you will always be a deacon, and must always keep an element of servanthood, even in priestly ministry. I have always seen that as a good thing -- in that it keeps parish priests humble, because we are always called to be servant leaders.

However, with the rise of the vocational diaconate (which is, by the way, a good thing), there has been a new perspective that says that Holy Orders are not like trading cards to be collected -- that in fact, you are ordained a deacon only until such time as you are priested. Then you are no longer a deacon, but a priest.

There are a couple of problems with this notion, as I see it. First of all, what does this do to the notion of indelible marks on the soul? (See the Wikipedia entry on Sacramental Character.) Do we no longer believe that ordination is permanent, like Baptism or Confirmation, but more like Matrimony, (which creates a permanent bond that only lasts until death, but not forever)?

The other question it raises for me is this: If, as they say, I am no longer a deacon, but a priest, does it also hold true that our bishops are no longer priests, but bishops? Not too long ago, Bishop Pitman told me that after some of the latest retirements, he was the most senior priest in the diocese. Do I have the same right to correct him for hijacking my priestly ministry as the deacons who think that I am taking something away from their diaconal ministry by claiming to still be a deacon myself?

And if I'm really not a deacon anymore, did the church want me to lie at my first ordination, when the bishop asked me 'Do you believe that you are truly called by God and his Church to the life and work of a deacon?' Hmm...

9 Reasons to Stop Going to Movies

I’ve had enough. I finally understand why going to the movies is so frustrating.

• Every time I go, they ask me for money.
• The people that sit next to me never seem happy to see me.
• The seats are too uncomfortable.
• No matter how many of his movies I go to, Steven Spielberg never comes to visit me.
• Sometimes movies are more than two hours long, and I’m late getting home.
• The movies are often playing at times when I want to do other things.
• My parents dragged me to too many movies when I was growing up. As soon as I could decide for myself, I just wanted to stay home from the movies.
• I once read a book about movies, so I think I know as much as any director.
• I don’t think parents should take their children. Children should be allowed to choose for themselves what movies they like.

It's amazing how when you sit down and think about the movies like that, it puts it all into perspective. I always wanted an excuse to stop going, and now I've got one!

A Startling Statistic

Check out what I just read this afternoon:

Both parents attending church is the single largest indicator of whether a child will attend church in adulthood. (According to a recent study, when both parents attend church regularly, 72 percent of children continue in the faith. When only the father attends, that percentage drops to 55 percent. But when only the mother attends, just 15 percent of children remain involved in the church.)

Can you imagine that? When only the mother attends church, only 15 percent of the children are likely to keep going to church in adulthood! Look at it like this: for every twenty kids who are dragged to church to sit in the pew with mom, statistically, only three of them will be regular worshippers as adults.

That's a really sobering thought -- especially in small rural Newfoundland communities, where
20 children might be the full extent of the under-16 set in the whole congregation. Which three will be the ones to grow up to be regular attenders? It scares me to even think along those lines!

In fairness, there are a lot of issues that this number doesn't address: Single-parent families, conversion experiences where a young adult comes to faith without ever having been brought to church at all as a child, and others. But even if the father takes the kids to church without mom, it's still just a 50/50 chance...But try looking at it like this: our children are almost five times more likely to keep going to church if regular Sunday worship is a family affair. If we have worries about attendance, older folks like to remind us how they were never given a choice about whether they were going to church. Is part of our problem the fact that in recent years, it's been only one parent who has made this a priority? We like to talk about 'bringing families to church' when all we're really talking about is getting the children. Common wisdom says that 'if you can get the children, you'll get their parents as well,' but maybe we should focus our attention on getting the parents, so we'll be able to get their children . . . and when they're grown up, getting the children's children as well!

Yikes! Now I've got to start posting again!

Many thanks to Dennis Laing over at The Mayberry Driven Church for adding me on as a contributing author to their great site. He even posted a link to this blog, so now I have to sheepishly admit to the fact that I haven't posted any new content here in almost a whole year.

So now I'll have to start putting something into Message from the Rector again...