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?

[Mike Croghan]

Tom, I feel like I've seen what you're describing as well, and I have to say that I strongly suspect that the "full time ordained ministry" model is going to become less and less sustainable in more and more contexts. I know of many "emerging" church contexts (including my own church) in which this model was initially assumed, but proved untenable. Most often, this has resulted in the death of the church plant. (It did in the case of my church too, but in our case there was also resurrection.)

This is hard, because our seminaries are still training folks for this model. It's also hard because we (the Church) have a *ton* of work to do to come up with other models to solve very, very real problems: 1) Communities need leadership. 2) Leaders need to feed their families. So how *would* we enable folks who are called to give (huge chunks of) their life to ministry, without the full-time clergy model? Tent-making? Spousal sugar-daddies (or mommies?) Communities hold things in common, per Acts 2?

All of these hold promise, but it's crystal clear to me that options like: "Be a tent-maker! Give huge amounts of time and effort to your church, raise your kids, and hold down a high-paying day job too!" are simply not sustainable either. That burns out people and families. (I do think it's possible to "pick two" of those and retain sanity - or better yest, "modified" pick to. For example, I can have kids, and I've cut my day job hours to part-time, which makes tent-making work pretty well for me. But if I were a parent? No way.)

But also: in a context with a full-times ordained minster, why wouldn't the priest be doing a share of those "delegated" ministries? I mean, our church is only 30-40 adults plus kids, and there's plenty to keep everybody busy. I guess there are issues with being "the clergyperson" and just being a participant in ministry - everyone probably expects to defer to the priest.

Edward, really interesting thoughts. You've got me thinking about the orders of bishop, priest and deacon in a new way, when I'd mostly come to the conclusion that they really are no longer appropriate in most contexts. But if they are indeed focused on the margins, as opposed to on the provision of services within the community, then I can really envision a vital mission and vocation for those orders for a long time to come. Hmm.

Thanks, gents, much to think about!

[Edward Green]

I was somewhere between 'Tent Maker' & 'Suger Spoused' for a couple of years before I started training. It is not easy. One of my best friends leads a local Charismatic Evangelical church of about 30. I know he struggles - he I imagine is both the biggest financial and time giver in the community.

My understanding of my ministry is that I am not paid. I don't have a salary, I have a stipend. This is a gift from the church to enable me to fulfill the ministry which the church recognizes I have been called to by God. I am not employed by congregation or diocese, but I am under authority - to my Bishop and also to the local faith community.

If a congregation however started to demand I minister solely to them and leave the edges I would talk to them, but also with the Bishop, who I hope would remind them of apostolic nature of ordained ministry. In reality the CofE is embracing the apostolic nature of full time ministry through 'Fresh Expressions' and 'Pioneer Ministry'. It is cropping up in 'Job Descriptions' for roles that would have been just 'Team Vicar'. This is also breaking the 'Chaplaincy' model.

I am glad I have got you thinking about Bishops, Priests and Deacons. It is what I have been thinking about. If these ministries are about just serving the gathered church then the gathered church is finished. They are supposed to be representative, participatory and inspirational. What they are doing is supposed to be what the whole church is doing. We represent the church because we are freed to. We bring the church into the work we do. We inspire others to follow this way of life. Is that what we see in our Bishops?

The 'Celtic Church' was managedby un-ordained Abbots. Not that this was a golden age! Many of them were people from a background of wealth and power. But the point is that Bishops had a more itinerant ministry.

In the CofE these days it is amazing how many people (clergy and laity) relate better to their suffragan (assistant) Bishop than to the Diocesan. I wonder if this is because the assistant spends more time fulfilling the Apostolic vocation of the Church rather than being required to spend huge chunks of time on management?

[Mike Croghan]

Just realized I should fix one minor typo in my previous reply - where I'm talking about how I make "tent making" work, I typo'd above "I can have kids"; I meant to say "I can't have kids" - but more to the point, my wife and I *don't* have kids (we could adopt, but we haven't), which helps make tent-making tenable for me.

Not trying to make a big thing of it, just correcting the typo in the interest of comprehensibility. :-)

There were a bunch of other typos in that - I was in a hurry - but that was the only one I saw which actually reversed the meaning.

[Mike Croghan]

Tom, another thing that touches on your concerns is a story I heard from Brian McLaren: Brian knew a priest (CofE, I think) who was hired to be rector of a small church. When he got there, it turned out that the congregation basically saw "church" as a venue for a really lovely choir - much of the congregation was in the choir, and it really was excellent, but that's really all they wanted: choir rehearsals, and one service per week which was a chance to either perform in the choir, or enjoy the performance. The priest tried to interest these folks in a more holistic walk with Jesus, but this was not welcome. And this was his job. And he felt strongly called to follow Jesus missionally into the world and invite others to do so. What could he do?

So Brian said, well, this job pays you enough to live on, right?

Yes.

And how many hours does it take in the average week to provide what these folks expect of you?

About 10.

Well, why not use rest of your week, beyond those 10 hours, to go find some way to follow Jesus missionally and live out your vocation? You can do it on a volunteer basis; you're fine, money-wise.

(Croghan's comment: tent-making, with one's "church job" as the "day job". How about that? An idea whose time has come? A sad state of affairs? A situation of hopeful opportunity? Hmm....)

[Edward Green]

Sounds like a wonderful job!

I can think of a similar story. The Priest brought about a completely new community of completely new people on a different time model to the existing congregation which resulted in a change in the whole church. Yes some people left sadly. But many where inspired to change and grow.

[Edward Green]

It does make sense.

Although the priestly aspect of the Christian vocation does seem to have distinctives. It is worth noting that the Jewish people were a 'Nation of Priests' as well, and that the Christian Covenant can be seen as a restoration of the Abrahamic covenant.

What seems to have changed is the role of high priest. Christ should be the model of Christian Priesthood rather than Moses.

So yes, the imitation of Christ is at the core of this aspect.

[Mike Croghan]

Nice - reminds me of the Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism, but with a distinctly Christian core of taking up the cross. Good stuff.

[Aaron]

I apologize to jump on the train at this late date, but I’m curious about how y’all think the concepts of theological education & ordination fit into the models of church & mission which have been suggested. Are they even necessary?

[Edward Green]

Theological Education is vital.

I find Rob Bell an extremely engaging speaker. As do many. But his material is clearly infused with theological reflection and scholarship.

It is very easy to look at Jesus' disciples and note that they were not theologians. And yet it is Paul the theologian who was the emergent figure in the early Church. Who pushed through boundaries and engaged with wider culture.

Ordination is about recognizing peoples vocation and calling. It actually helps avoid the cult of personality. I know that as someone who is perhaps not a ''typical priest' that the orders of the wider church mean people take me seriously even if naturally they don't warm to me, or even like me.

Training should be ideally full time and contextual. I know too many part-time trained clergy who struggle with a lack of personal resources. However it should also be relational. I have learned more from working with other ministers than from college. But without that foundation of scripture and theology and discipline I would not find my work sustainable.

Training varies from place to place, and I am sure it needs to change. But having spent years watching bright young things ascend and flounder in the New Churches it cannot be dispensed with. Methods and Content may need to change. My principles would be:

1) Training should be funded by the wider church not by the minister. Tent making is not a ministry ideal to be aspired to. Sorry - been there done that.

2) Training should include the reality of parish and pioneer work. Academic elements need to be related to that through personal tutors.

3) Training should continue into a first post. Apprenticeships are very counter cultural. The cost of these posts should be borne by the wider church, not a particular community.

[Mike Croghan]

Great questions, Aaron.

Re: theological education: perhaps surprisingly for someone who has a lot less of it than a most of y'all (two years of EfM, some undergrad and assorted classes, plus lots of self-study), I agree with Edward that it's vital. However, I think it's vital for all members of the community, to differing degrees and with various foci. I don't think there's any particular advantage for a small minority of community members to have Masters-level theological education, while it's regarded as mostly optional for everybody else.

In the community I'm a part of, we have a ton of diversity in theological background and education level, but most of us who are interested in doing so (which is most of us) are plenty capable of holding our own in the fairly in-depth theological discussions we have all the time, including during Sunday services. We have varying levels of actual theological education: I think we have one MDiv, one M. Th., a bunch of people with undergrad and maybe a little graduate work, a bunch of folks who either went to Bible college or just grew up in the church as voracious learners, plus folks who are fairly new to church and learning fast. All of this is combined with a variety of hands-on ministry experience for almost all of us, and also (significantly) by our training in other fields, from systems engineering to law to management to music to nature conservation to carpentry to computer programming to teaching to nursing to poetry.

These disciplines don't just provide non-theological perspective in our discussions, they shape our theology, and they're vital. If we lost our MDiv and our M. Th., would it change the fabric of our community and our theological discourse? Hugely. But their theological Masters degrees are only a small part of why that would be the case. And it would change our community (and our theology) just as much if lost our two systems engineers, or our three schoolteachers. And if we did lose the two guys with "theological" graduate degrees, I honestly don't believe that the overall quality of our theological discourse as a community would plummet.

On the other hand, a friend of mine calls us "geek church", and she has a point. It's true that we're a bunch of insatiable autodidacts, and that's not true of every community.

As far as ordination, I'm not sure about that right now. I will admit that I'm pretty strongly opposed to the idea of a clergy/laity two-tier class system - I think it's unsuited for many emerging contexts, and to be perfectly honest I have problems with it in other contexts as well, but those contexts aren't mine, so I try to keep my mouth shut. :-) I don't think, in many emerging contexts, that it makes sense to limit certain functions to clergy, or to perpetuate expectations that "lay people" should be paying someone to follow Jesus for them.

I'm not sure any of us really know what we mean when we say "priesthood of all believers", but I do feel strongly that following Jesus is meant to be a whole-life commitment for all of us, and the concept of "ordained clergy", as typically practiced, seems to turn that "all of us" into "some of us".

Also, I don't believe there's any gain - to gospel, kingdom, community, or world - in saying that only "priests" can (for example) consecrate the communion elements. By institutionalizing certain things that only the priestly class can do, it seems to me that it all-too-frequently tempts folks to add to that list. Start with absolution, blessing, and consecration, and quickly add on pastoral care, thinking and talking theologically, preaching, leading ministries, serving as a minister at all...etc., etc. There may be ways to keep the privileged priestly class and avoid the slippery slope, but I don't see the value in keeping the class system at all.

(And I recognize that the responsibilities of the ordained priest far outweigh the so-called "privileges" of absolution, blessing, and consecration - but my point is not t

[Edward Green]

I miss being in a geek church. In Cambridge I was ministering to and learning from folks who wanted to talk about theology and philosophy over a drink after church activities. Now I serve folks, some of whom are not really 'readers'. It becomes quite an issue with using new material if people can't read fast enough to use it. But at the heart of it many of the questions are the same, and I have learned just as much from folks.

I can see your argument against ordination. I think it is possible to be organic within a structure. My concerns are with models of ministry which turn into a local popularity contest. Ordination to me speaks of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. Ordination belongs to the wider church, not just a local gathered community. I see lots of folks fulfilling God's vocation who would have never made it through their gifts being recognized by the local congregation in which they worshiped and were part. To be honest I think there is room for both, and both can be seen in the New Testament, especially in Paul's ministry.

Does setting certain roles apart for ordained ministers lead to the sort of expectations you describe? Possibly. I think it is a symptom of our culture rather more than a symptom of the model. I do believe that at heart God calls us to Be Human. That one can live a life of discipleship in everyday life. I have been to too many churches where everyone thought they had some sort of Ephesians 4 ministry, because they thought that is what it was to be a Christian. It was pretty hard to get anything done. I remember preaching in one about first learning about God's call for us to Be Human. Afterwords folks still came up to me and told me they were called to be an Evangelist in Africa. Maybe they were? They were just sitting around doing nothing waiting for it to happen.

Before we dismiss the 'Catholic' understanding of orders we need to understand the positive reasons it developed and look carefully at other communities that have left it behind. Much of protestantism has abandoned 'Priests' for 'Leaders'. Even churches formed in the heat of 70's Charismatic 'Body Ministry'. I am not convinced this is the best option. My experience of these churches was that fi your face / theology / vision didn't fit then you didn't get used. Very sad.

The only movement I have touched upon which does not have a structured leadership is the UK Society of Friends. There are no sacraments, so that question doesn't arise.

One of things that impressed me about Anglicanism when I converted was that I knew exactly why a particular person was behind the altar. Not because the were the most popular in the community. Not because they were 'special', but because the wider church had set them apart for that role. That for me is still infinitely preferable to a Darwinian Leadership culture.

Having said that, I am still looking for the third way. Priesthood 2 shall we say?
.

[Mike Croghan]

I really wonder if the "cult of personality" leadership phenomenon in Protestantism (which I certainly don't deny) was a trick from the beginning, or if it's what happens in "egalitarian" communities over time. That is, were dudes (and it was certainly dudes) mouthing "we're all the same before God, no mediator except Christ, etc." while secretly or openly playing power games, right from the beginning? Or was the practice really initially more like a priesthood of all believers, and it devolved into the celebrity-pastor-king crap we see today?

I'm sure there are as many stories as there are denominations (and churches), but two things make me think it was largely the former (i.e., that church leadership was about power and hero/guru-ness all along in most of those traditions) - and hence that a tradition that's honestly built with egalitarian ideals from day one might endure. The two things are: 1) The Quakers (whom you mentioned). They didn't devolve. And 2) the postmodern shift in western culture. To me, the single biggest change in postmodernism - the one thing that is in no sense just a reclaiming of truth from pre-modernism - is the emergence of flat, egalitarian structures as a viable (and culturally desirable) form of human organization. Like the Web, or Emergent Village.

So #2 makes me hope that emergent communities like ours can be like the Quakers, and build in real (not fake) egalitarian values that stick. But could 10 people leave my church, and be replaced by 10 others, and the place become a cult-of-personality disaster just like that? Maybe. I don't think so.

Hmm.