Sometimes the blogosphere feels rather like a weather system. Issues seem to rumble around like tropical storms. A recent post on the Out of Ur site, picked up in a St.Joseph's Vanguard post by Roman Catholic apologist Devin Rose caught my eye this week. As did Maggi Dawn’s scrutiny of glass ceilings and women in ordained ministry. There are good things in all of those conversations, but perhaps the real 'glass ceiling' is the difficulty of raising fundamental objections to clericalism. To be more specific, it ought to be possible to question ordination per se rather than have progressive clerics repeatedly shunting the issue off into the sidings. It's like a restaurant where every meal comes with chips. The ontological divide between laity and clergy is a travesty of Christian community. That divide does not need re-balancing, only abolition. In that vein here are my comments in response to Devin Rose on priesthood:
Thanks for responding in detail and for the ‘challenge’. Let me begin by saying that I don’t believe there is a discernible New Testament scheme along the lines of say, Calvin's ‘fourfold pattern of ministry’. I accept your picture of interchangeable roles. We might have a discussion about ‘priests’.
If I were responding in depth to your ‘challenge’ I would ask you for clarification. What justification have you for saying that the early Church seems to have had a ministerial priesthood? When you say ‘early Church’, what period are we talking about?
In essence I believe, with Bernard Haring, that for the first three centuries the church didn’t know ‘the concept or the reality of a ‘clergy”. That said, I accept that by the time of Ignatius in the early 2nd Century, episcopacy was beginning to acquire a normative status. Prior to that we are confronted with communities (for example in Hebrews or Justin) where leaders were described in terms of the secular hegeumennoi ('presidents'). Hebrews is notable for a stance which the priesthood of the Old Covenant is contrasted with the once for all priesthood of Jesus.
The challenge I would make to your sacramental understanding of the priesthood is both ecclesial and missional. If the priest is in some sense Sacerdos alter Christus what remains for the whole people of God? Are the laity left clinging to the clerical coat-tails? What does it means for the ‘shape’ of the whole community (see http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/02/shape-of-christian-conversation.html) if the community is ontologically partitioned? In essence, one of my key objections to priesthood is that it cedes to a clerical elite what properly belongs to all of us.
What lies in the background of our discussion is the legitimacy or otherwise of change. To give an example, how should we view the Constantinian transition? Anabaptists have routinely seen the 3rd Century as a calamitous ‘fall’. Others are rather more Eusebian. How shall we decide on the legitimacy of change or the necessity of restitution?
8 comments:
Grenz and Kjesbo's Women in the Church briefly looks at the qualifications required of the Levitical priesthood, and criticizes the way that clerical Christianity creates a pick-and-choose version of that priesthood that ends up making certain types of people more representative of God by their very nature.
Ouisi, welcome to radref and thanks for the comment. This is very helpful. Grenz and Kjesbo's book looks intriguing. I did joke the the other day that my idea of an ideal home was a library with attached bedsit. My wife was not amused.
good writing is hard to come across on this theme and I tend to jump on everything I can. Shalom, phil
I have told my family I would like to live in a lighthouse with a library floor, a art studio and a room to sit in - the rest of them are going to live elsewhere they said.
I do find that I struggle more and more with clericalism. Maybe since I have come to know more clergy and for the mystery to have been wiped from my eyes - they are like 'us', I'm not sure that they are any more committed than some of us; I see the same priesthood in myself and others (you, I imagine). But of course for my church I am clerically persona non grata (just to support their seeming desire to return to dead languages).
A friend of mine who is an Anglican convert from Baptist has always said that I am more Baptist than anyone she knew in her congregation - I am beginning to wonder if it is true? Maybe a clerical set-up needs its radicals rustling in the pews to offset the imposition of such an exclusive authority? Maybe that's vanity? But I do see exclusion and hierarchy as instruments of humanity not divinity and in the RC church the divide is beginning to widen again - priests returning to clerical garb being only one symptom.
As usual - thoughtful
Dear Mairie, I'm reminded of Is 5:8: "Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land." Sadly, it applies to the Church too. We wish away our ecclesiastical neighbours. I am sure you are right that the 'establishment' needs the dissenters - the awkward squad. The is true within denominations and beyond them. At one point monasticism served that function in Catholicism. These days it's down to people like the Catholic Worker.
Unfortunately there is ample evidence of clericalism and authoritarianism is the Protestant fold as well. I find this issue very difficult because I have dozens of clerical friends. I wish to affirm them as people, but in all honesty the ordination leaves me cold.
I can sense the tension underneath what you say. It's there for all of us who have ever sought to be honest, for our own sake and for others. Curiously, the Baptists themselves had their own crisis of identity. Were they Reformed or Anabaptist, for example. Quite a few of us from a Protestant background look enviously at the depth of Catholic spirituality.
I think I would make an unlikely priest. I don't have the patience for it. At one point earlier in my life I did consider converting to Catholicism. I also considered the Methodist ministry. I have never felt that any of this was right for me, though I have the training for it. Life is so strange and curious sometimes. Bless you, Phil
I guess the same with me.
One of my best friends is an Anglican vicar who invites me to lead alternative services at her chuch under the veil of ecumenism.
There is a sense of masochism in this because the option is always there 'displayed' before me but there is nothing in me that tells me to move branches and I do love Catholocism for the depth and expression of it's spirituality. Trouble is some people think that the 'show' is enough.
I often tell the sisters that I work with that they don't sell their vocation well enough as a career choice - monasticism is a very tempting way of life. Although, again for women more about obedience - could always try to be a Teresa of Avila I suppose. Although I am not pretty or charming enough.
I had a conversation the other day with a Catholic who was clever and respectful. I like the man, so this doesn't amount to much of a criticism. He is however, fostering a climate in which Catholics are encouraged to proselytize their Protestant friends. I know the same thing is happening in reverse.
I believe in Catholicity. I believe in Christian unity. I do not believe any one Christian tradition represents that unity or is alone, 'Catholic'. Wherever Christ is present, I am happy to say 'here is Church'.
In Christian traditions as well as in politics pendulums swing from right to left and visa versa. The current Magisterium is as near the right of that swing as it's possible to get, but the need for change and openness will re-emerge. It's easier to be sanguine from the outside looking in.
As an ordained but ex-parish priest, I think I can add my voice here. I am against clericalism. There were times in parish life I had to exercise my role as chief exective officer, but mostly I was just the person appointed to say the words and elevate the elements on behalf of all those sitting down behind me. By education I had the werewithall to preach and teach; by temperment and experience I was gifted in pastoral ministry; by authority of the church itself - as great a mystery as that is - I asked God to bless those gathered. But privileged? No. Responsible, perhaps, as a parent or caretaker or employer is responisble. I was steward of my parish, not monarch. Some priests I know think they are especially blessed to make decisions for the laity - I cannot presume as much.
Hi Magdalena, I know a great many clergy, some of whom wouldn't see themselves as 'privileged'. I think if one day we see the end of clericalism the all of us - laity or clergy - would be better off.
Post a Comment