It's unusual for me to read theological books for fun (?) or interest, but I had a look at a new book in the library called "Clergy: The Origin of Species" by Martin Percy. Here's some of his final paragraph, which I found interesting:
Marginality is, it seems, part of the character and construct of being a minister. Clergy, to function as effective ministers, often discover their roles and tasks to be about becoming central in the more marginal and ambiguous moments of life. Clergy occupy that strange hinterland between the secular and the sacred, the temporal and the eternal, acting as interpreters and mediators, embodying and signifying faith, hope and love. They are both distant and immediate, remote yet intimate. And in occupying this most marginal and transitory ground, and sometimes helping to close the gaps between these worlds, they become humanly and spiritually necessary even as they live out their (partly willed, partly imposed) social marginality. It is a unique yet evolving paradigm. It is nothing less than to follow the call of Jesus: to belong both to the wilderness, but also to the city. To be a citizen of some place; but also of heaven. To be of the people; but also for their sake, to be wholly other.
Any thoughts?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
On Ordination as marriage
Yet another ordination discussion. I am becoming quite aware that I am using analogies to describe ordination, but this is a work in progress. Today's discussion with a minister was one that answered a few of my questions from the last couple of dialogues. If ministry is allowed to be exercised without ordination, why do we insist on people becoming ordained to exercise certain ministries on more than a short-term basis?
This discussion began with the usual discussion on the life-time commitment, but was drawn into new areas once we began to play with ordination being analogous to marriage. In our current community the only significant difference between a de facto relationship and marriage is the commitments made by each party and the blessings prayed for by the congregation (along with witness and some other functions). What is the difference between a ministry intern or a lay ministry agent in a supply arrangement and an ordained minister? Of course, the answer is the ordination service and the commitments the ordinand makes to the church and the church makes to the ordinand, plus the witness and prayers of the congregation.
If this is considered to be the case, the vows are also analagous to the wedding vows. Would a couple be willing to take the wedding vows unless they were in love and seeking to spend their lives together? One would hope not, and the vows assist the couple in clarifying their relationship prior to marriage as well as being a reminder after the service of the commitments they made to each other. As the minister said "remember ministry is about being, rather than doing." In the case of ordination, this occurs after significant effort is made by the candidate and the church in the years prior to the service. The vows, in the time of preparation, provide a moment of crisis for the ordinand: "is this really me?"
This lead on rapidly to the final stage of the discussion, where we played further with the analogy. If the test is that of identity rather than capacity, the act of ordination can be seen as a stage in the growth of the relationship between the ordinand and God and between the ordinand and the church. The act of ordination should not occur until both the church and the ordinand discern the call of God for the life-time ministry, and represents the acknowledgement of both parties to this commitments. However, this reflects relationships that stretch back well prior to these were expressed and both the church and the ordinand look forwards to the future growing in relationship with each other and with God into the future.
An extra point: this was the first time one of the ministers asked me what I was thinking about ordination myself. For me, my call has been affirmed by my candidature so far and I hopefully look forwards to growing in ministry until both the church and myself feel ready to take this step in the presence and providence of God.
This discussion began with the usual discussion on the life-time commitment, but was drawn into new areas once we began to play with ordination being analogous to marriage. In our current community the only significant difference between a de facto relationship and marriage is the commitments made by each party and the blessings prayed for by the congregation (along with witness and some other functions). What is the difference between a ministry intern or a lay ministry agent in a supply arrangement and an ordained minister? Of course, the answer is the ordination service and the commitments the ordinand makes to the church and the church makes to the ordinand, plus the witness and prayers of the congregation.
If this is considered to be the case, the vows are also analagous to the wedding vows. Would a couple be willing to take the wedding vows unless they were in love and seeking to spend their lives together? One would hope not, and the vows assist the couple in clarifying their relationship prior to marriage as well as being a reminder after the service of the commitments they made to each other. As the minister said "remember ministry is about being, rather than doing." In the case of ordination, this occurs after significant effort is made by the candidate and the church in the years prior to the service. The vows, in the time of preparation, provide a moment of crisis for the ordinand: "is this really me?"
This lead on rapidly to the final stage of the discussion, where we played further with the analogy. If the test is that of identity rather than capacity, the act of ordination can be seen as a stage in the growth of the relationship between the ordinand and God and between the ordinand and the church. The act of ordination should not occur until both the church and the ordinand discern the call of God for the life-time ministry, and represents the acknowledgement of both parties to this commitments. However, this reflects relationships that stretch back well prior to these were expressed and both the church and the ordinand look forwards to the future growing in relationship with each other and with God into the future.
An extra point: this was the first time one of the ministers asked me what I was thinking about ordination myself. For me, my call has been affirmed by my candidature so far and I hopefully look forwards to growing in ministry until both the church and myself feel ready to take this step in the presence and providence of God.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
On Ordination as accepting responsibility
I had another discussion on ordination with a minister this afternoon. It was interesting, after my previous discussion, to have what seems to be a continuation of the point I picked out of the prior discussion.
The minister commented that when he was in my position, ordination was seen as the end of a long path, but that his view developed as he lived in the position. He was keen to point out that the act of ordination is an act of "setting apart", not of a change of nature, but the key point for him was the acceptance of responsibility of leadership on a permanent basis. He also emphasised the responsibilities taken in order to preserve the church and represent the church in a place.
He expressed this both in the discussions on the nature of ordination and of the vows, and placed a high emphasis on the fact that (although lay people may take particular authority) the ordained have a lifelong commitment to the mission of Christ. The phrases often used were along the lines of 'backstop' or 'the buck stops here', so I naturally had to throw in my 'divine polyfiller' aversion. He replied that the minister takes accountability for the areas the minister sees as vital (particularly those expressed in the vows of ordination and induction) and leaves room for congregational participation before making decisions. His question back to me was "How to you handle failure?" as it is necessary for initiatives to be tried and allowed to fall over.
One area that this person was strong on was on the commitments made by ministers to participate in the life of the wider church, and the part ministers play in the councils of the church. One element he particularly sees in the vows is the articulation of the particularity of ordained ministry, and he sees the continued development of this articulation to be part of the task ahead for the ordained within the church. He also charged me to always consider that a minister's accountability is to the presbytery, not the congregation.
The final part I would like to reflect on was an analogy for the ordained within the body of Christ. He described the ordained as being the skeleton and the non-ordained the flesh. Neither can be effective without the other, but the act of ordination (with its historical precedence) provides stability and strength to the church. This, to me, naturally places a high emphasis on training, support and continual formation of those who are ordained. This has strongly interacted with the thoughts I have been having about the reformation period and the part that the loss of focus of the clergy played in those events.
In the final reflection though, what part does the church (and the gathered congregation) play in ordination? Does the church merely allow people to take these oaths of high responsibility and receive witness to the faithfulness of Christ, or is there something more? I certainly hope so, I can't do this on my own strength!
The minister commented that when he was in my position, ordination was seen as the end of a long path, but that his view developed as he lived in the position. He was keen to point out that the act of ordination is an act of "setting apart", not of a change of nature, but the key point for him was the acceptance of responsibility of leadership on a permanent basis. He also emphasised the responsibilities taken in order to preserve the church and represent the church in a place.
He expressed this both in the discussions on the nature of ordination and of the vows, and placed a high emphasis on the fact that (although lay people may take particular authority) the ordained have a lifelong commitment to the mission of Christ. The phrases often used were along the lines of 'backstop' or 'the buck stops here', so I naturally had to throw in my 'divine polyfiller' aversion. He replied that the minister takes accountability for the areas the minister sees as vital (particularly those expressed in the vows of ordination and induction) and leaves room for congregational participation before making decisions. His question back to me was "How to you handle failure?" as it is necessary for initiatives to be tried and allowed to fall over.
One area that this person was strong on was on the commitments made by ministers to participate in the life of the wider church, and the part ministers play in the councils of the church. One element he particularly sees in the vows is the articulation of the particularity of ordained ministry, and he sees the continued development of this articulation to be part of the task ahead for the ordained within the church. He also charged me to always consider that a minister's accountability is to the presbytery, not the congregation.
The final part I would like to reflect on was an analogy for the ordained within the body of Christ. He described the ordained as being the skeleton and the non-ordained the flesh. Neither can be effective without the other, but the act of ordination (with its historical precedence) provides stability and strength to the church. This, to me, naturally places a high emphasis on training, support and continual formation of those who are ordained. This has strongly interacted with the thoughts I have been having about the reformation period and the part that the loss of focus of the clergy played in those events.
In the final reflection though, what part does the church (and the gathered congregation) play in ordination? Does the church merely allow people to take these oaths of high responsibility and receive witness to the faithfulness of Christ, or is there something more? I certainly hope so, I can't do this on my own strength!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
On Ordination as admission to a community
The post-field group at college shared a discussion on ordination with a minister yesterday. The minister we spoke to designated two key significances of ordination, the way in which ordination is one of many occasions in which the church affirms the calls of individuals, and the way in which this affirmation places the ordinand within a community of tradition that goes back 2000 years. He sees the key feature of that community is that of function: the call to be attentive to God, and to call communities to be attentive to God.
This lead on to a discussion on the vows of ordination, as the vows move from the generalities of reliance on Christ to the specific functions of ministers in the UCA. The continuing theme was that of spiritual leadership within different contexts, and we were reminded of the many ways that communities can tempt ministers away from the focus.
Yet, when we got to the end, the question in mind for me was "What is the difference between ordination and commissioning?" The response was immediate, "Ordination is for life, but commissioning is for a specific purpose or context." This was said with passion, this was important. This is more than just a job, it is a membership in a community of those who have agreed, and the church has agreed, to set their lives apart for the purpose of spiritual leadership.
So, in this case, the rite of ordination is a rite of admission. The vows serve to remind the minister and the church of the roles and responsibilities, and the minister serves this out in a life of spiritual leadership. Once again, I am struck by the honour which I have been called to, and to which the church is affirming at the moment.
Do you confess anew Jesus Christ as Lord? That one's easy, it is only through the grace and call of Christ that I may understand myself with such company.
This lead on to a discussion on the vows of ordination, as the vows move from the generalities of reliance on Christ to the specific functions of ministers in the UCA. The continuing theme was that of spiritual leadership within different contexts, and we were reminded of the many ways that communities can tempt ministers away from the focus.
Yet, when we got to the end, the question in mind for me was "What is the difference between ordination and commissioning?" The response was immediate, "Ordination is for life, but commissioning is for a specific purpose or context." This was said with passion, this was important. This is more than just a job, it is a membership in a community of those who have agreed, and the church has agreed, to set their lives apart for the purpose of spiritual leadership.
So, in this case, the rite of ordination is a rite of admission. The vows serve to remind the minister and the church of the roles and responsibilities, and the minister serves this out in a life of spiritual leadership. Once again, I am struck by the honour which I have been called to, and to which the church is affirming at the moment.
Do you confess anew Jesus Christ as Lord? That one's easy, it is only through the grace and call of Christ that I may understand myself with such company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
