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!