Bishop Shawn McKnight has given us a thorough treatment of a broad subject, one that is in need of more clarity at both the theoretical and practical levels. McKnight's methodology sets out to put insights gleaned from biblical study, church history, the theological tradition, sociology, and pastoral practice into conversation. This makes for an ambitious and complex project. For the most part, the author succeeds admirably. The book's sources are deep, wide ranging, and deftly deployed. It is clearly structured, and the writing style is meticulous, yet lucid.
The book begins with an examination of diakonia in the New Testament, and then examines Vatican II's restoration of the permanent diaconate, especially Lumen Gentium §29. Turning to sociological perspectives on social mediation, power, and authority, McKnight refracts these through a theological lens. He then examines the history of the diaconate with an eye toward the deacon as social intermediary and symbol of communitas. In the final section, the author reviews and evaluates the various roles deacons today play in the liturgy and church offices. The last chapter offers some valuable, constructive suggestions regarding roles in which diaconal charisms can be best expressed and utilized. The church would do well to heed this advice.
If there is a weak point in the book's argument, it is in the way McKnight constructs the meaning of “social intermediary,” a theme he will lean on heavily in his theology of the deacon. The problem is not the use of sociological perspectives per se; McKnight knows these must be used by theologians with great care. Rather, the issue is the assumption behind the definition:
An intermediary is someone through whom two other parties communicate. The presence of an intermediate subject makes real dialogue possible between parties who are not in direct communication with one another. (68)
McKnight denies that understanding the diaconate as an “intermediate order” in terms of “social mediation” could drive a wedge between the laity on the one hand and their priests and bishop on the other. Yet my fear is that leaning too much in this direction of the deacon as “social intermediary” could yield precisely that distance as an unintended consequence. Moreover, I think one of the lessons of the string of clergy sexual-abuse scandals we have witnessed is that clergy and laity need to be in direct, constant, unmediated contact with one another in an atmosphere of transparency and mutual accountability.
I received a vivid and memorable lesson in this as a young parish priest. A new deacon came to town and joined our mid-sized parish, which had a vigorous tradition of lay involvement and lay leadership. The deacon's first homily at Sunday Mass spoke about how he saw his diaconal role as a “bridge” between the people and their pastors. This evoked a firestorm of objections from parishioners, for whom the very lifeblood of their parish experience depended upon personal, receptive, collaborative access to their priests. Many did not feel nor see a need for such a “bridge” in a community that had long enjoyed strong bonds between clergy and laity, and rightly feared it could change the parish's character and constitution.
In the foreword to this book, David Fagerberg reports a remark of John Paul II: “The service of the deacon is the Church's service sacramentalized” (xii). I think this insight could be fruitfully developed in ways that might guard against the pastoral dangers of an overly hierarchical construal of the deacon's role, and it might enrich the understanding of the deacon as positively and reciprocally related to bishop, priests, and laity alike. McKnight acknowledges that the goal is a diaconate that “helps [the church] manifest the diakonia of Jesus Christ” (270).
Overall, this is a thoughtful and rich study of the theology of the diaconate, one that will be of special value to deacons, deacon candidates, and their formators. It should also be read in seminaries. The book and the topic deserve further reflection.
