I was recently – for the first time – in Scandinavia where the state churches are Lutheran with bishops. They went through the Reformation in quite a different way to other parts of Europe, including how the Reformation developed in England. These churches are in full communion with Anglican Churches (with the Church of England, with the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, etc). Full communion means I can function as a priest there; their ordained persons can function as clergy here.
What I had not realised until visiting these churches: in these Scandinavian churches, you cannot be both a deacon and a priest! In these churches, nurses and other caring professions may be ordained as deacons; priesthood is a separate vocation from the diaconate. Both have their own pathways, separate training, and academic degrees.
Priests lead the gathered Christian community. Deacons lead the dispersed Christian community in service.
I have a number of articles on this site arguing for this per saltum form of ordination – being ordained directly to the office to which God is calling you. I was called to be a priest – I affirmed that God was calling me to the diaconate because my church would not ordain me to the priesthood without spending about a year as a deacon. I am not convinced by those who insist that, when I was ordained priest I continue to be a deacon, as if one is collecting a set, and the most valuable (bishop) being a person who has collected the full set!
There are priests (and bishops) who loudly repeat, “I am still a deacon!” Usually with unironic pride rather than diaconally-appropriate humility!
Now here are Porvoo churches, these Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Episcopal Churches, who are in full communion with us, who agree with my challenge to the nesting-clergy-doll theory that inside every bishop there is a priest; inside every priest there is a deacon… Along with the nesting-clergy-doll approach comes a devaluation of the diaconate, subdividing the diaconate into two new orders: “transitional deacons” and “vocational deacons” also called “permanent deacons” (as if bishops were once “transitional priests”!)
But wait, there’s more! Whilst in Scandinavia, I heard of people being ordained priest in a Scandinavian Church and then going to serve as a priest in the Church of England. So there are priests in the Church of England who have never been, let alone currently still are, deacons!
These Scandinavian Churches, in full communion with Anglicanism, are yet another challenge to the nesting-clergy-doll theory. Not only is it right and just to ordain (per saltum) to the order to which God is calling, but it is already happening, and not only in churches in full communion with Anglicanism, but it has been the process involved with priests serving within Anglicanism now.
UPDATE: Latvia has a Lutheran church with the episcopacy but doesn’t have deacons of any kind. I note: we (ACANZP) are in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia.
Some previous posts on this:
Transitional Priest – Vocational Bishop
A Bishop is not a Priest
The end of the dalmatic?
Per saltum ordination
To Confirm or not to Confirm?
Some useful websites of Scandinavian churches:
Swedish resources in English
The Porvoo Communion
Liturgies of the Norwegian Church
Thank you to liturgical scholars from these Scandinavian churches whom I befriended at the Congress of Societas Liturgica in Paris earlier this year, for the discussions we have had around these topics.
Do follow
The Liturgy Facebook Page
The Liturgy Twitter Profile
The Liturgy Instagram
The Liturgy Bluesky Profile
and/or sign up to a not-too-often email
Hm… it’s interesting to see how the per saltum has panned out in practice! I’m not fully convinced, but it does show how the diaconate and the priesthood are two different vocations and how our current practice obscures those distinctive vocations.
In the Scandinavian practice, does a bishop have to have been ordained a priest first? Or can they have been ordained a deacon and then be called to the episcopacy? Or do we consider per-saltum ordaining bishops (which, frankly, some folks in seminary would *love* because they’re in seminary waiting for a miter and a diocese to rule!)
We occasionally see it in the US where someone is ordained a permanent deacon, and after years of service the priesthood calling emerges. In this Scandinavian model, it doesn’t sound like that would be possible.
As a parish priest, I exercise some of the liturgical functions of a deacon (proclaim the Gospel, set the table, dismiss the people, bid the prayers, etc) – but if a priest can do that without being ordained a deacon, does that diminish the liturgical function of deacons?
I guess I return to this: if I can’t say I’m called to be a servant, can I say I’m called to be an elder/presbyter in the church? And if a bishop wasn’t first called as a servant and an elder, what makes them fit to be an overseer?
Thanks, Joseph.
Your own position is not simply theoretical; the church in which you serve (TEC) is in full communion with The Church of Sweden.
Firstly, as I’ve already highlighted, there is no such thing as being “ordained a permanent deacon”. I have seen ordinations and ordinals altered – I think this is very unwise. One is ordained a deacon. Full stop.
Yes, under the Scandinavian model one can be ordained a deacon and later find that God calls such a person to be ordained a priest. I do not know if one can be ordained a bishop per saltum there – I’m enquiring. We both know this has happened historically.
Your fourth paragraph highlights a significant issue. I’m sure we have both seen celebrations where there is a deacon present and does not exercise one or more of the roles you enumerate, but this is done by someone other than the deacon. Your paragraph calls for a much more serious renewal of the diaconate – so that it is taken for granted that there are always a number of deacons in every worshipping community.
Your last paragraph misunderstands Christianity: all the baptised are “called to be a servant”! Renewing the diaconate does not mean clericalising service!
We may need to seriously re-examine our understanding of ordination. Clearly, in the early church, there were two orders: overseeing eldership and outward-focused diaconate. The evolution of the episcopacy leaves the question: is this an order in which you and I have some sort of partial share as priests, or do priests have the fulness of overseeing eldership and we, by convention, delegate some of our role (eg ordaining) to a first-among-equals of us. The latter position certainly opens some fruitful ecumenical dialogue.
Thanks again for taking up the discussion. Blessings.