The Nature of Ordained Ministry or Article III of III on the Present Ecclesiological Culture of the Anglican Church: Whitterings, May 2006

Article III of III on the Present Ecclesiological Culture of the Anglican Church

The Nature of Ordained Ministry

The third aspect of the modern church which I wish to highlight as important is the seeming lack of focus about the actual nature of our ministry. The Strategic Planning Committee is currently working diligently on this issue so I will only examine one aspect of it which I do not believe is being fully addressed, the nature of ordained ministry. There seems to be great confusion around the idea of what a priest and a deacon are and what they are expected to do. Often it seems that every priest has a different idea of what the priesthood is. There is even more confusion surrounding the nature of the vocational deaconate as its revival is relatively new.

The concept of priesthood has changed dramatically since the early church and during different ages has emphasised different aspects of priestly ministry. For Canadian Anglicans the basis of our understanding of priesthood is enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Alternative Services includes an alternative service for ordination that differs in some of its emphasis.

The Priesthood according to the Book of Common Prayer

The BCP Ordination service understands the priesthood as a setting apart of someone who has been called by God to: be messengers, watchmen and stewards of the Lord; teach and to warn; provide for the Lord’s family; seek for the lost so they may be saved; forgive sins; preach; administer the Sacraments. In order to accomplish this ministry the BCP proclaims that the priest needs to: study with great care; be thankful to the Lord; pray earnestly for the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; shape ones life and one’s family to scripture and church doctrine; be studious in reading and learning the scriptures; forsake and set aside all worldly cares and studies; give himself wholly to this one great task and draw all cares and studies towards ministry; continue to pray to God; daily read and meditate upon the scriptures; endeavour from time to time to sanctify his life and that of his family; be a good example of the Christian life. To fulfil these things the ordinand promised the following things before their ordination: to instruct the people according to scripture; to faithfully minister the sacraments; to teach the people about the sacraments and doctrine of the church; to strive against all false doctrine and ideas; to use private and public warnings and strong direction as the need arises; to be diligent in prayer; to be diligent in reading holy scripture; to be diligent in study; to foster quietness, peace, and love among people; to obey church authority.

The Priesthood according to the Book of Alternative Services

In the BAS the Priest is described as being one: called to pastor; called to be a priest; called to be a teacher; called to take part in councils of the church; called to proclaim by word and deed the Gospel; called to fashion their life in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel; called to love and serve the people among whom they work; called to preach; called to declare God’s forgiveness; called to pronounce God’s blessing; called to preside at Baptism and the Eucharist. In the BAS candidates for the priesthood promises to: be loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ in the ACC; obey the Bishop and other church authorities; to be diligent is the reading and study of scripture; to diligently seek the knowledge of such things as may make one a stronger minister; to administer the sacraments and teach and preach the Gospel with love; to labour to build up the family of God; to pattern their life and family to the teaching of Christ so as to be a good example; to persevere in prayer both publicly and privately; to ask for God’s grace.

You can see that the BAS is much more vague than the BCP on the nature and work of a priest. However, I put it to you that in taking these two ordination rites together there are certain things that describe the nature of the priesthood as understood by our Church. Implicit in the nature of the priesthood is the call to: discern the truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church and teach it; be administrators of Christ’s Sacraments; love and care for others. The duty of a priest is to: teach and warn the people of God; to study scripture, theology, and the world in which we live; to pray; to be a good example to others; to administer the sacraments; to obey and be loyal the church hierarchy; take part in the councils of the church. The disciplines of a priest are to be: be passionate and committed to the work and life of a priest; to pray daily; to study scripture daily; to study regularly; to regularly examine their life.

The Deacon according to the BCP and the BAS

The BAS reflects a much deeper understanding of the deaconate that has arisen in recent years. It is quite similar to the early church understanding of diaconal ministry and stems from Acts 6.2. The nature of the deacon is that of servanthood. The duties of a deacon are to serve liturgically and pastorally with a special emphasis on the weak, the poor and the ill. The disciplines of a deacon are to: faithfully read and study Holy Scripture; faithfully pray; and to seek to discern Christ in all people.

This is a long summary of the theological basis of our Church’s understanding of ordained ministry. There are many different models of ordained ministry that can be supported by these ordination rites, especially for the priesthood. Some emphasise the priest’s kerygmatic role (proclamation or preaching) such as Karl Rahner and Benedict XVI. Some emphasise the cultic or sacerdotal theology of priesthood such as Otto Semmelroth or John Paul II. Some emphasise the community leadership of the priesthood such as Thomas O’ Meara and Robert Schwartz. All are consistent with the ordination rites. All of these emphases are personal and every priest would have their own ideas that they would like to see more emphasis placed upon.

The Priest as Seeker and Discerner of Truth

Placing personal biases aside there are certain aspects of the priesthood (there is not enough room to treat the deaconate and the priesthood equally) that are to be held as given by all priests and their congregations. Some of these aspects of the priesthood need to be re-emphasised today. The Anglican Church of Canada, in common with other Anglican Churches, sees the priest as a discerner of truth and a teacher of it. The basis for the exploration of truth is consistent, disciplined regular study of scripture, theology, and knowledge of the world that will help to make sense of Gods work in creation. It is stressed that all study and reading should be for the discernment of God. The idea is similar to that of Kierkegaard's passage from the ascetical sphere into the ethical sphere. The priest is to make sense of the world, the human situation, and ways to react and live faithfully today. Certainly there is no other profession or vocation today that has as one of its main purposes to search for meaning for the wider community. For example, a priest should be able to make theological sense of the rise of blogging on the internet by our young or the popularity of reality TV and have something to teach about it. After studying and wrestling with truth and meaning the priest is then to teach the community at large through preaching, bible study, teaching about the sacraments and the purpose of the church, and private and public warning about danger and false ideas.

The Priest as Sanctified by Prayer

Another aspect of priesthood that needs to be re-emphasised is the duty and privilege to have a disciplined, daily time of prayer and meditation upon scripture. It is the foundation upon which all the rest of ministry is based. Remember John Wesley’s famous quote reminiscent of Saint Augustine’s:

“I have so much to do daily that I must spend several hours in prayer to be able to do it.”

In 1930 Evelyn Underhill wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, about the state of the clergy in the Church of England. She claimed that they lacked a substantial interior life. That their lives were not based on prayer and study.

“The church wants not more consecrated philanthropists but a disciplined priesthood of theocentric souls who shall be the tools and channels of the Spirit of God: and this we cannot have until Communion with God is recognised as the first duty of the priest. We look to the Church to give us an experience of God, mystery, holiness and prayer…We look to the clergy to help and direct our spiritual growth. We are seldom satisfied because with noble exceptions they are so lacking in spiritual realism, so ignorant of the laws and experience of the life of prayer. Their Christianity as a whole is humanitarian rather than theocentric, so their dealings with souls are often vague and amateurish. I know that recovering the ordered interior life of prayer and meditation will be very difficult for clergy immersed increasingly in routine work. It will mean for many a complete rearrangement of values and a reduction of social activities. They will not do it unless they are made to feel its crucial importance. I venture to put before the conference the following practical recommendations: (1) Education of Ordinands--- That the bishops shall emphasize the need and importance of a far more thorough, varied, interesting and expert devotional training in our theological colleges which, with a few striking exceptions, seem to me to give insufficient attention to this vital part of their work. (2) The Clergy--- That they should call upon every ordained clergyman, as an essential part of his pastoral duty and not merely for his own sake: (a) To adopt a rule of life which shall include a fixed daily period of prayer and reading of a type that feeds, pacifies and expands his soul, and deepens his communion with God; b) To make an annual retreat; (c) To use every endeavour to make his church into a real home of prayer and teach his people, both by exhortation and example so to use it."

It seems to me that her plea is still important as it will be for every new generation. We need to be reminded not only that it is a duty but that it is a great gift. I read in the Church Times of March the 10th that the Bishop of Portsmouth, Kenneth Stevenson has made a recovery from acute myeloid leukemia. He describes his experience in an interview on the back page.

“Come hell or high water, I said morning and evening prayer every day. I remember once making myself put on clean pajamas, clean up, and read. It was not what I felt like, and a lot of the time it meant nothing, but the discipline was so important, and I depended on it. Sometimes I would have to stop if a doctor or nurse came in. It was one of the things that got me through, even on the days when I could barely see because of the chemotherapy.”

The church needs to re-examine and re-emphasise the duel nature of serious and disciplined prayer and study as the primary foundation of the priestly ministry of administrator of the Sacraments, teacher, and pastor.

I offer these reflections as part of the ongoing process to build up the church in this place. I have used this basic understanding of the priesthood and the deaconate to submit a paper to the Bishop’s Commission for the Discernment and Formation of Candidates for the Ordained Ministry. If you are interested, I would be more than happy to share it with you.

Keisaku or Article II of III on the Present Ecclesiological Culture of the Anglican Church: Whitterings, April 2006

Article II of III on the Present Ecclesiological Culture of the Anglican Church

I wish to elaborate further on the topic of the teaching vocation of the church. The teaching vocation of the church has many facets. The Anglican Church teaches through its liturgy. One of the theological points that came out of the blessing of same sax couples in New Westminster was the explicit recognition that liturgy is the outward working of official theological teaching. We teach through example to the world by how we govern our personal lives. We teach through our social witness and ministry to the weak and vulnerable. Priests have a special vocation as teachers. We teach through our preaching, leading parish bible studies and other adult education classes, and we teach the faith to a new generation in our Confirmation classes.

The prayer book lays out the teaching ministry of the Priest in the Priestly Exhortation and the questions asked by the Bishop as follows:

“And now again we exhort you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you have in remembrance, into how high a dignity, and to how weighty an Office and Charge ye are called: that is to say, to be messengers, watchmen, and stewards of the Lord; to teach and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same? Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given? Will you be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh?”

The BAS Ordination Rite has a very limited emphasis on the teaching ministry of the priesthood. It is mentioned in the examination once but is not elaborated on in any other part of the service. Perhaps this lack of emphasis is partially to blame for the current educational culture within the church.

Good priestly teaching is seldom comfortable. We do not teach is order to pass on information rather we teach in a purely teleological (functional) way. We seek to illuminate the Gospel and make it applicable in people’s lives. This often involves the challenging of some of the most basic presuppositions that people have about the meaning of life and the purpose of discipline. More and more the church has to teach values that run contrary to the strong currents of postmodernism implicit in today’s culture. We stand with Christ against individualism, consumerism, moral relativism, existentialism, and other isms I have elaborated on before. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is his book God Has a Dream says:

“We are the ultimate paradox, the finite made for the infinite. Anything less than God cannot satisfy our hunger for the divine. Not even success. That is why everything else, if we give it our ultimate loyalty – money, fame, drugs, sex, whatever – turns into ashes in our mouths.”

It is not an easy task. We are called to be fishers of people. If we have no incentive for people to bite the hook we will get nowhere. If we scare people off by placing pharisaical burdens on them or even the burden of discipleship too early (as St Paul talks about at length) then we also get nowhere. However, if we never enter into a disciplined, mature, teaching relationship we also get nowhere. There comes a time in Christian spiritual maturity when the teaching authority of the church is freely accepted by individuals within a relationship of trust. It is then that the true Gospel work of the conversion of lives begins.

The Japanese have a word for this kind of teaching – Keisaku. It means stick of compassion and it refers to the bamboo rod used to occasionally hit practitioners of Zazen (the Zen art of meditation) to keep them mindful of the goal of their meditation, the goal of their life. The Japanese understand that often the best teachers are the ones that have high standards that make you nervous and unsure of yourself. They are the ones that push you to your limit so you can surpass yourself. The best teachers are seldom the ones that are friendly and you are relaxed with. Zen masters are respected because they push unrelentingly against the egos of their students. They are often feared, but almost always loved because the students know that the master pushes out of compassion. They trust that he knows the territory they wish to traverse and that he will lead them across it safely. They are disciplined and committed to a greater goal. The master acts in every respect like a shepherd.

I have sought for such a teacher ever since I left my doctoral research at the University of Cambridge. I find it difficult to stay focussed in my studies without a respected teacher to consistently challenge my presupposition and tear my work apart so that it can be rebuilt in a stronger way. There is often minor criticism of ideas I put forward but seldom with the goal of discovering a deeper truth or structure to them. So I long for strong teaching from the church. Not teachings that rely solely on church structures and authority to be received (as this is a sure sign of theological weakness) but rather teaching that enter into the debates and become strong through the wrestling for truth. I long for teaching that have been refined in the fires of debate and reflection. This however takes time that few seem willing to take. The philosopher Habermass said that the pursuit of truth must not have a time limit set on it. Once the pursuit has begun it must continue until it is at last resolved. This may mean taking several generations to get to the end. This is what a real commitment to the pursuit of truth means.

The thing I have found most difficult in acclimatising to the Canadian Church is the way many people discuss ideas, or do not discuss them! My educational formation, and to some extent my adult cultural formation, has been within a British educational milieu. Within this culture ideas are expected to be constantly challenged. People argue about them all the time. You have only to take a taxi ride in London, which is hardly in an educational milieu, to have a stimulating debate with the driver about modern culture. Everyone has an opinion. Yet the constant debates are not personal. You can have a heated debate about the nature of politics or religion in a pub and when the time comes for another round the debate promptly ceases the orders given and then the debate begins again in earnest. The point is that debate over ideas is for deeper knowledge for both parties. Both participants are seeking to reach a goal beyond themselves, the continuing illumination of truth – The Epiphany. The debate serves the purpose of strengthening both parties. That is the difference between arguing to ‘win’ an argument and a heated discussion to refine both people’s thoughts, like the prophet Malachi teaches about. When one person puts forward a strong idea immediately another person will begin testing it to find its weaknesses.

However in the Canadian Church when a strong idea is put forward almost nobody say a thing. So instead of having the thought process refined it is left imbalanced and the discussion is perceived as threatening. In such cases, the opening gambit is to put forward a strong idea and then wait for an equally strong idea to block it. Then the wrestling is expected to begin. It seldom does. Canadian Anglicans seem to respond to questioning of their ideas and presuppositions as personal attacks and often respond emotively, if at all. I need not point out the awkwardness of having to learn this cultural tendency the hard way! However, the point still stands. How are we to become stronger in a climate in which conflict and deep, disciplined debate is avoided or limited? How are we to become stronger without trusted teachers who challenge us to surpass the limitations that we imagine for ourselves? How are we to witness to the modern world without prolonged, professional debate and clear theological understanding?

Saint Mark as Sherlock Holmes or Article I of III on the Present Ecclesiological Culture of the Anglican Church: Whitterings, March 2006

Article I of III on the Present Ecclesiological Culture of the Anglican Church

I have recently acquired the complete DVD collection of Granada Television’s dramatisations of the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The dramatisations are a joy to watch because they are well done and primarily because of the delightful portrayal of Mr Holmes by Jeremy Brett. Mr Brett’s Holmes is considered by many aficionados to be the quintessential portrayal of the great detective. He is quarrelsome, addicted to cigarettes, pipes, and cocaine. He sleeps late, lacks almost all basic social skills and is terribly moody. He is arrogant beyond all measure. It is Dr Watson who gives pastoral care to Mr Holmes’s clients and provides the necessary social lubricant for the plots to unfold. Mr Holmes’s strength lies in his ability to absorb huge amounts of information from simple observations and through analysis and logic to understand the essence of situations. As a historical aside, the character of Sherlock Holmes is based on a real person. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle studied Medicine at the University of Edinburgh and later modelled Mr Holmes on his Professor of Anatomy. To commemorate the birth of Mr Holms in Edinburgh there is a beautiful statue of him at the East end of Queen Street across from the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Pub.

What redeems Holmes is that despite his superiority and self centeredness he actually cares deeply about his clients. He is unable to show it in any normal way. His profound sense of responsibility and duty is what drives him to go to extraordinary lengths to save the unfortunate people who seek his help. It is in the subtle acts of kindness that you see underneath Mr Holmes’s formidable exterior. His compassion is implicit in his actions and not his words. It you do not look closely you will miss this. He is a good example of the important maxim that you should always pay more attention to what people do than what they say.

I find that Jesus, as He is portrayed in Mark’s Gospel, is another example of this. It is not that Jesus is portrayed as arrogant or self centred but a he is portrayed as frustrated, impatient, and sometimes irritable and often angry. He seems consistently annoyed that few seem to understand what he is saying, especially his closest disciples. His treatment of some of those who come to him for help, such as the woman with the haemorrhage and the Syrophoenician woman whose child is possessed by a demon, is certainly less than gentle. The Jesus I perceive in Mark’s Gospel is very human. He does not always seem particularly gentle, affectionate, or patient. However, even in these episodes, he strikes me as profoundly compassionate.

It is this compassion that is often misunderstood. Many try to overlook the ‘negative’ aspects of the personality of Mark’s Jesus simple because it makes it difficult to retain an image of Jesus as a gentle, loving, fluffy Christ. You have all seen the Sunday School posters of Jesus with a frilly perm in a pinkish robe, running through a field of flowers with children of many different ethnicities. Different people show compassion in different ways. Many enter into the suffering of others emotionally and share the tears and fears of their brothers and sisters. They “feel the pain” of others. This is a necessary part of compassion and can be healing. However if that is the only kind of compassion shown it can be enabling and weaken those trapped in destructive lifecycles. Too much empathy can reinforce the particularly North American obsession with navel gazing found in the popularity of the self help phenomena and the ‘Dr Phil’ approach.

Another aspect of compassion is frustration and irritation. Let me give an example. A great deal of suffering is brought upon ourselves because of a lack of moving in the right direction (Sin: technically meaning “missing the mark”). Often people hold onto their suffering like a comfort blanket or out of fear of liberation. It is like a weakened, stooped, man burdened by a sack full of rocks on his back, stumbling down a long road in great pain. Hey complains that the rocks (Sin: guilt, lack of forgiveness, lack of thanksgiving, lack of spiritual discipline, hatred) are destroying him. He feels that they can not keep stumbling along like this. Then in the middle of this articulation he sees a nice new rock and seizes it and throws it into the sack with the others. You can respond to such pain by showing gentleness and listening to their experience. For others their compassion for such a person will be shown by irritation and even anger. “Stop picking up bloody rocks you’re hurting yourself!” It can come out in many variations: “Stop sticking pins into your eyes!” “Stop letting others hurt you!” I am certainly not suggesting this as a universal pastoral model! However I do believe that it is sometimes necessary to shake people out of their complacently to, and collaboration with their own sin. Most of all I assert that such a response comes as much from compassion as any other approach. It is love that leads to righteous anger and the fight for social justice. If everyone just cried with the impoverished of the world nothing would be accomplished. I thank the Lord that there are enough people that see injustice and cruelty and respond in anger and frustration to fight the darkness. Often these people sacrifice their own peacefulness for the good of the weak. It is a heavy price to pay. It is commonly observed that those who fight for social justice the most are often the least to show forth the peace of God in other aspects of their lives. This anger and irritation must be constantly analysed to make sure that it does not lead to judgementalness and hatred of the enemy. Once the anger leads to demonification we have already lost because we have become like the darkness that we set out to fight. Yet it is love that makes one want to shake the complacent out of hurting themselves or letting themselves be hurt. It is love that wants to fight for a new social order.

The Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is compassionate in both ways and as such is balanced. He is gentle with some and irritable and angry with others. He also despairs when people who need to hear him can not, but he still walks away. So why is the church not balanced in this way? Why does the modern Church elevate only one side of compassion as acceptable to be used by the Baptised? There is a Political Correctness associated with the 1970’s and 1980’s Clinical Pastoral Theology Model. This is seriously weakening the witness of the church and is handicapping the church in its ability to ask hard questions and make hard decisions. There is a Pollyannaish tyranny abroad that has thrown the church off balance. I would say that it is best summed up by the word “nice”.

The Diocesan guidelines for the discernment of vocations to the Ordained Ministry are such an example. At the end of the document there are guidelines and clues for discerning a vocation for ordained ministry. There is nothing wrong with what has been laid out but it is unbalanced. It is based on a model that has arisen from the somewhat dated CPE model. It speaks a great deal about personal limitations and realistic acceptance of weakness, openness to God, willingness to doubt, cooperation, ecumenism, inter faith dialogue, having an affirming nature, being joyful, having a balanced lifestyle and having a life outside of the church community. There is some language that I can only guess the meaning of such as ‘Family of Origin work” and ‘personal faith story’ and ‘small group prayer” (unless this includes the offices and the Eucharist). There was no such language in my British Theological education. These are all things necessary for the Minister’s health and are all part of the Alban Institute clergy wellness guide. However there is not as much about the core nature of priesthood. There is limited language about strength, intellectual and emotional discipline, sacrifice, the price for standing against the darkness, the defence of the weak, the teaching nature of the ministry, or the prophetic and radical nature of priesthood. The lack of balance in today’s ecclesiological culture leads to the very real danger that only one type of vocation will be recognised by the church. This could leave us without any shepherds strong enough to fight off the wolves. If I had my say I would add that a good sign of a vocation is the presence of an abhorrence of committees.

That is what I enjoy about Jeremy Brett’s portrayal of Holmes; he is an example of compassion in action that has none of the characteristics associated with the “nice” model so often found in today’s church. That is also why I am most attracted to Mark’s Jesus, he show’s divine compassion that balances care and affection, with strength and determination. He is a shepherd that can save by attracting others to himself by affectionate compassion as well as bringing them to himself through warning them away from the world.