Rediscovering Priesthood ...

[Edward Green]

I must admit I have been in circles when it comes to ecclesiology. I have seen non-hierarchical communities that were deeply authoritarian and non-authoritarian communities that were deeply hierarchical. I have been part of consensus communities that collapsed when key creative personalities have moved on and supposedly led communities that have operated by consensus.

The models that we have inherited strike me as a mess. 'Priesthood of believers' and 'Priesthood of the professional' (with whatever theological underpinning) both speak of individuals, and yet both the Old and New Testaments seem to see 'Priesthood' as a corporate category. Yet many of us are in 'ministry' and recognize the places of 'leadership', 'facilitation' and 'representation' within the faith community, in the wider community and in the pub. It it was not so we wouldn't have speakers, authors, the 'high priests' of emergent.

How do we then continue the story of ministry within the Anglican tradition, and move from me / them, to us? What is it to be a Priestly People? Can we garner anything from the New Testament or do we need to see it as dynamic contextualization that should be imitated in form rather than content?

[Kelvin Wright]

Superb question. This is the issue on which emergent churches, especially emergent Anglican churches will stand or fall. The experiments called Total Ministry (or Mutual Ministry or Mutual Shared Ministry or...) with a theology of the community as priest all ran smack into this issue within a year or two of founding. I'm not sure many managed a truly effective solution.

A book which was very helpful to me as a young priest, and continues to be so, is Urban Holmes' The Priest In Community. He suggests that priesthood is older than either the first or second Testaments. He says that priesthood derives archetypally - it is the embodiment of the shaman archetype in the person of that individual set aside by the community as priest (or minister, or pastor, or tohunga or shaman...). He says that any community, left long enough, will produce people who embody this archetype, and these people will have certain characteristics in common, and people will respond to them in deep ways, which again have a certain commonality.

That is, when we ordain priests we are tapping into a stream of meaning that is very deep and largely unconscious. We priests are living symbols - of the church and all the church means, but also of something much deeper in the psyche than conditioning, expectation and shared memory.Those of us who are ordained have all felt that deep power in people's reactions to us. For all of us it is surprising the first few times it happens and for many of us the strain of it is uncomfortable. Within a community which has arrived at a theology of "the priesthood of all believers" or the "the priesthood of the community", the unexpected reactions of people -both inside and outside the church - to the one who has been chosen to wear the collar is a surprise, and often an affront.

No matter what innovative model of the church we arrive at we will have to learn to deal with the inescapable fact of priesthood. No matter how anti -hierarchical we are, the community will be driven to select and set aside priests or people who look very much like them. No matter how much we bang on about equivalence in ministry, we will have to learn to deal with the inevitable reactions of people to the living symbols in our midst.

[Mike Croghan]

Much to my surprise, I have to say that my experience bears out what Kelvin says. I'm part of one of those flat, non-hierarchical emerging communities. I'm an Episcopalian, and our church was founded by a former Episcopal priest (who left after a year to return to TEC), so we have "Anglican DNA", but we are non/post/omni-denominational as a community. I'm the only current regular attender who would call himself an Anglican.

For leadership structure, we're very flat. We form and re-form various teams, at need, to accomplish various ministries, projects, etc. Typically, each of those teams has a leader. Things just get done better if somebody's in charge. In fact, the way to become a leader of something is generally to say, "Let's do X", and build some momentum behind it - or to be invited by someone to be in charge of something. Poof: you're a leader. Among "regular attenders", participation in at least some of these ministries/projects/etc. is pretty darn close to 100%. I can't think of anyone who has stayed with our community for a longish while and "just" attended services.

The same "organic" leadership selection principle applies to our standing Leadership Team. Currently we're a team of three: one part-time staff and two volunteers. (Until about a year ago, we were two part-time staff, one volunteer.) When there is a vacancy on the LT - or a need to grow the team, or whatever - the methodology is: we ask for nominations from the congregation, and we ask folks to nominate folks who are already doing the job. So far, there's generally been a lot of consensus around recognizing the leadership of someone who's already acting in that role.

And consensus-building is a lot of what the LT does. We try to maintain relationships throughout the congregation, and listen for what the Spirit is up to. When we have congregational meetings, we spend a lot of time getting everyone's voice on the table, then we typically try to articulate a proposed plan for moving forward. (Actually anyone is free to do this, but typically it's an LT member who does it.) If there's consensus around the plan, then great. If not, then the LT (or anyone with a creative idea) will try to nudge the conversation in a direction that will let us move toward action.

All that has its pluses and minuses, but what I really wanted to mention was the unexpected (to me) desire for some of the liturgical aspects of priesthood in our structurally flat, largely post-evangelical community. Even in a congregation where folks are adamant about full congregational participation in decision-making, ministry leadership, etc., folks seem hungry for at least some priestly functions in worship.

For example, we have no rules about who can celebrate the Eucharist. Anyone who's part of the core of our community can pray the Eucharistic prayer, and many people have done so. However, the vast bulk of the time, it's a member of the LT who does that, and folks seem to like it that way. This surprised me at first.

Similarly, when my friend Deanna (also an LT member) first brought her baby boy CJ to church, after taking the communion bread from me, she asked me to bless him. I was deeply honored, but I hadn't expected it.

And, in our the liturgy we inherited from our founding pastor (which is adapted from the 1979 TEC BCP), there is the prayer of confession, but no absolution. I've been slowly trying to re-introduce an absolution, and my assumption was that folks would prefer the "deacon's" version ("Almighty God have mercy on *us*, forgive *us*...") but was mildly shocked when folks asked for the standard, priestly version, with the "you" language.

So yeah, I've been detecting that archetype at work. Even in our uber-egalitarian community, where we just re-organized our Sunday service planning to require near-zero central coordination, folks want some of that priestly role.

That said, I am a dyed-in-the-wool congregationalist (I didn't say I was a *good* Anglican), and I'm glad to be in a community where anyone *can* lead, bless, or pray in any capacity, if they are so gifted and inspired and feel so called, and if the local community ratifies that call. But I was surprised to find that such a community would still have priesthood, of a sort.

[Edward Green]

In another discussion space we were discussing how in the UK that the Parish Communion Movement had made church unintelligible for the average 'Sunday Seeker'.

In my 'shamanic' (I like the idea but the term sounds too syncrystic for my tastes!) ministry the most effective acts of worship are the 30 minute offices. This is where people who otherwise don't go to church make comments like 'wonderful service' and 'maybe I should go to Church' (which is English for - you made me think about God). Yet on Sunday typically you get the wonderful mysteries of the sacrament. Which can be a converting ordinance. Which is the essential Christian act. But is rather like turning up at Christmas dinner with people you hardly know, sitting through family in stories and jokes, being offered a plate full of meat, whilst actually being a vegetarian.

At the moment I am moving towards a position where public worship should be non-Eucharistic and the Eucharist should be celebrated in peoples homes by the 'head of the household'. This makes the typical 'lead minister' actually an overseer, or 'Bishop', and the small group leaders presbyters or 'Priests'.

It strikes me that the New Testament has two major competing schools of ecclesiology. Antioch and Jerusalem. I am moving towards the former, but the Anglican tradition frequently reflects the latter. The latter is a model that works when drawing people of faith into a deeper faith. Practiced Christian faith is 'cultural Christianity+', as 1st century Christianity was is Jerusalem cultural Judaism+. The Jerusalem tradition has the richness of worship I love (Revelation being an insight assuming it is early, partially an anti-pauline tract, and partially a liturgical manual, which I suspect it is). But it is very centralized. The Apostles I imagine presided at communion, and the idea of Deacons taking the communion out to people who couldn't be with the central community developed from that. It is also Urban. Which is strange because Jesus was a rural minister in the synoptics, and Jerusalem only became an obsession in John.

Antioch however was where a more fundamental engagement with wider culture and faith was happening. Paul, the radical liberal, wanted to break the revelation of Jesus Christ and share it among many peoples. Here at last we have overseers and presbyters. Deputy apostles. And maybe many of them. In Corinthians whilst berating them for their inherited pagan ecstaticism, whilst encouraging them towards a re-envisioning of that individualistic spirituality as part of Christ's body, Paul is deeply concerned about how public worship can be seen by others, by seekers. Indeed I suspect that many of Paul's harder sayings that seem to contradict his open theology of equality are related to this issue.

Most of the movements in Church history have been swings between these competing ideas of Church. At present in western culture we are somewhere between Jerusalem and Antioch.

To be fair the threefold order we inherited is a melding of these different models. Yet still at its heart we know that Bishops (Apostles) and Deacons (Ministers) are the core currency of kingdom leadership and service. Priests are 'Vicars' representatives of the Apostles. Deputy Bishops.

With our present structure I am not sure how we can have public service that is non-Eucharistic, and still ensure that the sacrament is embraced by practicing Christians on a weekly basis. Priests may be deputy Apostles but we do not have the authority to 'order' others in our community to preside at Holy Communion. In a Church of 120 , with groups meeting in homes there is no way that a single presbyter can visit them all in a week. And sending a 'Deacon' with bread and wine from another celebration is not the same at all.

It may be that our small groups are too small. If people gathered in the courtyards of larger homes then maybe we are looking at celebrations of 30-60 rather than 6-12. But culturally this is difficult to imagine in our context. Although as smaller groups are actually a far better new discipleship ground in many cases than larger gatherings perhaps it is best to celebrate communion in medium size gatherings?

This may seem tangential, but how we order the rhythm of our lives is the actually the wider set that includes both our worship and our understanding of ministry. One thing is for certain, we need a re-adjustment between Jerusalem and Antioch to effectively engage in our current mission environment.

[Mike Croghan]

Hmm. Good stuff. Our entire church is in the 30-60 people range, FWIW. Also, I've often reflected on the suspicion (fact?) that there's a connection between the liturgical worship elements we've inherited from TEC through our "Anglican DNA" (the creed, the confession, the Eucharist, etc.) and the fact that our church consists almost entirely of "church" folks looking for a different kind of church, as opposed to non-churched folk. These elements are almost certainly a turn-off to non-churchy folk who wander in to the coffee house where we worship, due to the "family dinner" dynamic you mention. Hmm.

[Edward Green]

Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

"If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. After the secrets of the unbeliever’s heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, ‘God is really among you.’ "

Our forms of worship are as alien to many outside the church as speaking in tongues was to many in Corinth. We need a renewal of the prophetic gift - not mock OT 'thus says the Lord' but rather an spirit infused engagement in word and action with our culture.

Don't get me wrong. I am sustained by liturgy, especially the sacraments. Holy Communion is the center of my faith practice. But it is very excluding - as are many other forms of 'in' worship in different traditions.

Not that church should be 'easy'. Just not 'mad'.

[Edward Green]

I agree Kelvin. This is certainly my experience of parish ministry.

In the last three weeks none of the six funerals I have taken were churchgoers in the fullest sense. However the families sought someone to 'stand in the gap' and speak for them. The same happens in the gathered community of the church, although our more emergent community Streams struggles with it more (including myself of course!).

Tied with this discussion of priesthood is the nature of apostolicity. The priestly ministry to my mind is as a representative of the apostles. Bishops need to be seen more in apostolic terms.

[Mike Croghan]

Tony Jones, along with some recent personal experiences of mine, have got me thinking about the concept of "chaplaincy". I've come to the conclusion that chaplaincy - by which I mean provision of religious services (a phrase that's often used pejoratively in emerging church circles, but I don't mean it that way here) for folks who may or may not be part of a missional community of active disciples - is a good, holy, and necessary calling. It can be evangelistic, but probably more important, *all of us*, whether active Jesus-followers or not, *need* someone to "stand in the gap" for us sometimes, and pastorally care for us as we pass through life's joyful and sorrowful transitions.

But, I think it's a different vocation than leadership of a missional community of active disciples. The two vocations are most often combined, of course, and require many of the same gifts, but I feel like one aspect of the dissatisfaction I hear from friends in ministry within the "established" church is that their job description is weighted too far toward chaplaincy, and not enough toward missional leadership, for the way their heart is discerning their calling every day. The chaplaincy aspects of the job are the non-negotiables: whatever else happens, the clergy *must* ensure that the standard menu of religious services is provided.

And like I said, I've come to believe that those chaplaincy services are vitally important, good, and holy. But I also think it feels helpful to me to think about vocation through this (admittedly false) dichotomy. In a context where chaplaincy services are the de facto core of the job and where church membership carries no de facto expectation of active discipleship and participation, will there be time or opportunity for missional leadership? In my experience, this is rare, and it's a source of dissonance for leaders whose vocation tends more toward missional leadership. On the other hand, it's certainly the case that leadership in a missional community carries with it plenty of opportunities for chaplain-like roles and pastoral care.

Anyway, that may be a bit of a tangent. Sorry.

[Edward Green]

Interesting. Ironically some of the people I trained with having become frustrated with parish ministry have moved into explicit chaplaincy roles (hospital, prison, education, etc.) because there is more of an opportunity there to be mission focused and do something different to the pattern of ordinary parish work.

From my own perspective of coming from an evangelical charismatic background where people in ministry had very little opportunity for engagement with the wider community, I value that community chaplaincy role because it takes me out of the gathered church.

By engaging the laity in aspects of this community chaplaincy work it ceases to be just the work of the Priest, and instead becomes part of the foundational mission of the church, to engage with people in moments of joy, wonder and sorrow. We do see growth through weddings baptisms and funerals. Both numerical in terms of new people, but also in the laity who participate in that work who through service find their own experience of the divine deepens.

When we started Streams as a form of Church that came from our own spiritual experience and creativity, but also would be open to people who were far more unchurched, one of the first things we did was limit it to 30 minutes of formal activity, A typical funeral, wedding or christening will last 30-40 minutes, and then be followed by a longer period of social engagement. We wanted to move towards this as a model of being.

[Mike Croghan]

Yeah, there are a number of issues there which I didn't do a good job of teasing out. Chaplaincy *is* a vital manifestation of the mission of God, and it can be very "outward"-focused (as in the case of your six funerals for not-so-much members, or explicit chaplain roles), and I didn't mean to draw a contrast between chaplaincy and missional work.

My thinking was more in the realm of the "community of active disciples" - in communities where membership is, de facto, not closely tied to active discipleship and participation in God's mission for all members, it seems to me that the community leader's job can end up being very much a chaplaincy sort of vocation: providing religious services both to non-members and to members who are attenders but not so much participants in ministry and mission.

I can definitely see the appeal (and challenge) of explicit chaplaincy roles, as contrasted with parish ministry, for folks who are called to missional service. It's a job that intimidates me - being challenged to show Christlike love to people in the way they need it every day, often without any established relationship with them. And I certainly love the context I'm in, in which being part of the church, de facto, means participation in ministry and mission.

But something I feel like I've observed is that some folks get into parish ministry hoping it will be more like leadership of a community of active Jesus-followers, and find out that in fact it's more like chaplaincy, which may not line up with their sense of discerned vocation. Of course, this is kind of a caricature, but it seems like there's some truth in it, based on the conversations I've had.

[Edward Green]

I am suprised people go into ministry with such unrealistic expectations! Have they not read the Gospels?

However I do agree that congregations that expect a private chaplain are not healthy. But equally in my own ministry I want to pursue the same sort of engagement with folks outside the household of faith as Jesus did.

As so did Paul & his 'party' in the 1st century Church, whilst the Jerusalem 'party' became a more inward facing community.

[Tom Sramek, Jr.]

...some folks get into parish ministry hoping it will be more like leadership of a community of active Jesus-followers, and find out that in fact it's more like chaplaincy, which may not line up with their sense of discerned vocation...

This hits me right where I live. The other paradox is that very rarely is "congregational chaplaincy" (my term) a full-time job. So, what if you have a struggling congregation that is having trouble meeting its budget, can't find any priest who will work for less than full-time, but wants that priest to be largely a Chaplain and blocks that person when s/he attempts to exert leadership in other aspects of the congregation? That's what I have and I can tell you what you get--a frustrated priest and an anxious congregation!

IMO, if we really expect a truly egalitarian "priesthood of all believers" church and thus limit priests to essentially a "congregational chaplain" role, we are going to have to explode the myth of full-time ordained ministry for all but the largest (i.e. over 200 average Sunday attendance) churches. There just isn't enough for one person to do with all but the chaplaincy duties delegated.

[Edward Green]

In the UK it is increasingly rare to find parishes or groups of parishes with their own priest below the '70' size. Where I serve is typical.

The main parish has a ASA of about 70, with a membership of about 120, regular attendees of about 150, and probably irregular numbers pushing beyond 200.

A community of 12,000 people results in 50 funerals, 30 christenings, and 10 weddings a year. Most of these offices are of course for people who never go to church at all. Resulting workload a day a week.

I guess my approach to ministry is that the parish priest as 'deputy apostle' should spend most of their energy on the margins. With the people who come once a month. once a quarter. once a year. The core of the church should be far better at looking after itself! These are mature Christians not little children!

But this is not always the case. I have seen ministers beavering away on the margins with a core community that resented the growth and the innevitable change this brings. I have seen this in every tradition of church I have passed through.

So sometimes I guess you have to focus on rebuilding that central core first. Breaking chaplain dependency. 'Pioneer Ministry' & starting from scratch seems like an easy way out! Except I have friends leading churches a few years old which are already stuck in the chaplaincy trap.