One of the great ecclesiological debates of our day is regarding the validity of holy orders. Whom do Roman Catholics recognize? What about the insular, ethnically-focused Eastern Orthodox? How do Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and other Protestants interact with clergy outside of their tradition? Anglicans, who purport to be Catholic and to hold the Apostolic Episcopate, seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about this. It certainly is an important issue as it relates to questions about full vs impaired communion, the validity of the sacraments, and how denominations work together on the mission field. Ultimately, it is a key subset to the broader question of authority, which is the pressing issue of the Church in our era.
My goal today is not to answer (or even address) this question. My assertion, instead, is that the discussion is altogether misguided. To say it another way, if you are debating the validity of one denomination's holy orders over against another's, you are already off base. You are misconceiving of ordained ministry entirely.
Paul left Titus in Crete to "appoint" elders (presbyters) in every town (Titus 1:5). He did not appoint a bunch of elders and send them out to find churches in need of leadership (or even to plant churches). There are certainly those who are called to itinerant ministry, but that is not the vision for the presbyters of local churches. As the Apostles and their assistants evangelized and planted churches, local men were chosen from among the people to lead the people. Ordination was not some ontological change to their nature, but a setting apart to fulfill a role. It was a sacred role, but a role nonetheless.
Those ordained did not become members of some external society. They did not enter a brotherhood or "order" from which churches would select them, nor were they specialists chosen to oversee the measly laity. They were members of the Body and of local bodies, brothers serving their brothers and sisters in Christ. There is no indication that ordination was necessarily permanent.
Furthermore, this group of leaders did not serve a sacerdotal function. They were mature Christians set apart to teach, to lead in worship, to organize the local congregation, and to exercise oversight and discipline. They did not offer sacrifices at an altar. The New Covenant does not have a priesthood analogous to the Old Testament priesthood. Christ, as Priest and Victim, offered one sacrifice for all time. We commemorate that sacrifice when we meet to observe the Eucharist, and the elders ensure that everything, including our worship, is done decently and in order.
Since I began writing this, Matthew Barrett has posted a popular article about pastors who want to be Anglican, but feel stuck in their denomination because their ministry is their livelihood. Now, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that it is fine and good to support presbyters financially, but I think Barrett's article exposes a major problem with the modern conception of the pastorate. We view it as a profession. Sure, it is a spiritual profession, and ideally those who pursue it do so with a sacrificial mindset, but it is a profession nonetheless. They go to college to get their degrees. They are licensed and credentialed. They have resumes and CVs, and they climb the corporate ladder.
The fact that any pastor would have to decide between following his conscience or keeping his job reveals something about our system. I sympathize with men who find themselves in this position. At one point they followed what they felt was God's call on their lives, but now they feel like their ministry and personal walk are missing something. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are victims of a system that long ago turned a ministry role in the Body into a respectful, middle-class career.
One final thought. Of late it has become fashionable to speak of the laity (a term I eschew, despite the fact that it just means the people) as a fourth order alongside bishops, priests, and deacons. Again, I find this to be revealing. This is not the Biblical picture of an organic Body, comprised of different parts serving different functions, but of a society divided by class and status. The attitudes and behavior of those using this terminology are, no doubt, noble. They are trying to get the people/parishioners/congregants more involved in the life, worship, and administration of church, but they fail to recognize that adding another "order" only reinforces the separation inherent in a system that so strongly bifurcates clergy from laity. You cannot correct a systemic issue while maintaining the assumptions of that system. You have to reevaluate the system altogether, which means considering that maybe "orders" isn't the correct way to conceive of church roles at all.
Comments
Post a Comment