Skip to main content

Priesthood: ontological change?

One of our students/ordinands very recently was plunged into thinking about this, see here: Re-vis.e Re-form: Priesthood and ontological change
Her dilemma will probably sound familiar to many of us as it probably names something many of us who have evangelical streaks will likewise struggle with: "If, as I heard today at my ordinands' Christmas retreat, that ordination brought about an ontological change in the curate who stood at the front to tell us of his experiences, am I to understand that his essence is changed by this ceremony? Will I be ontologically changed? My essence - changed? If I deny that this can happen am I blocking the power of the Spirit - that I would never want to do? But if I think of myself as ontologically changed because I am a priest, isn't that almost like saying I am super-holy? I don't get it, aren't we all saints (Ephesians 1)? Aren't we all consecrated by God, set apart, if we are 'in Christ'? What does this kind of talk do to the idea of the 'ministry of all believers'? Didn't the reformation aim to break down some of the divides between laity and clergy and isn't a claim to clerical ontological change recreating the divide?"

Now, when she raised this on Facebook I responded by pointing to a blog post I wrote a handful of years back when my wife was ordained. It was kindly noted that perhaps this wasn't expressed in a way that helped address the issue in the way I thought it did. I looked again and thought perhaps it could be clarified (I'm thinking about the last few paragraphs which talk most directly about the issue of this post).

So what might I say further or (hopefully) better?
Well, In the Anglican church, the move to reappropriate more Catholic (vs arguably catholic) understandings of sacraments including regarding ordination as such came with the Oxford movements rallying cry to 'magnify your office'. In this sort of view, the dispensing of valid sacraments depends on a valid priestly ministry: in order to effect the kind of essential changes in blessed bread and wine and water to produce efficacious sacraments carrying the grace of God, an essential change is envisaged as needed in the human agent of such changes. Some Catholic theology speaks of an indelible 'stain' (in a positive sense) on the soul. Now I'm no expert in this, and it's a while since I was reading up on this stuff, so I can't say much more than that. However, I note that this kind of view presupposes ways of looking at anthropology and even ontology which made a lot more sense when the philospohical background to our society had more Plato and Aristotle in it: where things have substances and forms and somewhat dualistic conceptualisations were in vogue. Our problem with some of this, Reformation heritage aside for now, is that we tend to start with the Material and work on from there.

Anyway, because of that I said and still think that perhaps we shouldn't try to decide whether we want to think of ministerial priesthood either in terms of 'ontology' or of 'function' (which tends to be the opposite extreme of the debate). I tend to think of our identity as formed in a nexus between our social locations and the attendant meanings given there, our relating to God and our biological/physical history. I would have to say that I would locate our relationship to Church as overlapping the social and God dimensions.

So, who am I before God? Is 'priest/presbyter' part of that? And if so, in what sense?
Who am I within 'my' social networks? Is priest/presbyter part of that? How?
Who am I physically? Is 'priest/presbyter' part of that? How so/not?

I think that the first of those questions is most likely to yield an answer on the 'ontological' side of things, but I don't think it's straightforwardly so.

Easier to answer, as I did in the previous blog post, is the social one: "...acquiring the 'right' to wear a dog-collar, be addressed with 'Revd' and all those other social and cultural odds and ends that go with being a CofE clergybeing...". So, in as far as we 'are' our social beings (and I think we are) this is an ontological change, but probably not the kind Catholics usually mean. In some way it might gain the sympathy of functionalists -but only if they are willing to recognise that perhaps we don't have some kind of essence that is unrelated to our social roles. I'm arguing, I guess, for an emergent understanding of identity where role and 'being' mutually inform and generate giving rise to something that is more than the sum of the parts. In such an account you can't pull the two things apart, but neither are you thinking in a way that wholly satisfies the previous 'language games' the debate has run between.

Physically/biologically ... hmmmm at first the instinct was to say 'no'. But wait: the 'performing' of oneself as a priest rewires our brains over time and even leaves physical marks on our bodies. And perhaps we need to see that the act of ordination is (among other things) a ritual which has the effect of cementing and activating 'gestalts' (some of which are socially derived some of which are being built in training) which have neurological configurations and so change, as we learn to perform them appropriately, our social being. This has physical correlates in body language and more mundane things related to the decisions we make about where we 'park our bodies' in everyday life.

So back to the 'coram Deo' dimension (before God): part of the deal is that we are acting on a sense of vocation to something that is best, we think, lived out as a public representative of the Church and by being authorised to carry out certain kinds of duties on behalf of the Church. Is that ontological? It sounds a bit functional. But, again, I think it is both and neither. It is ontological in that it concerns who we are before God. It is ontological in respect of the way that God wills leadership, service, public representation etc and so that some people do that stuff because they are fitted naturally and grace-fully for it.

We all have callings, for some people these are best expressed by ordained ministry because this is the way to demonstrate the Church's confidence in and authorising of publicly representative ministries. And this is where it starts to feel functional too: I do think we need to recognise a certain degree of contingency in all of this. Especially given the wide expression of ministry in the catholic (not Catholic) Church or churches. If it was clear that the threefold ministry was unequivocally The Way of doing things, then we could be more confident of a certain 'ontological' givenness about ordination. But if in fact we don't think ordination is a sacrament in the way that Baptism or the Lord's Supper is, then we have to recognise a degree of contingency. And by that I mean that it could be otherwise: if I happened to be a Quaker and had the sense of calling that I do, I might be expressing it by offering to be a Clerk of Meeting or an Elder, perhaps. In the Methodist system, I wouldn't have been ordained deacon (which from my current standpoint I would see as a significant symbolic loss). I think it is hard to be firm about a Catholic 'ordination ontology' without denigrating ecumenical partners' expressions of leadership or pastoral ministry.

So where have I got to? That there is an ontological change but that it is more contingent on particular church polities and our social being than on some God-ordained absolute leadership-ordering and so has quite considerable similarities to a functional account.

However, something else needs to be said, I think. And that is to do with the other issue raised of the priesthood of all believers (a non-biblical phrase to express a biblical concept, captured by the RC recovery of a high appreciation of Baptism in thinking about church order). Part of the reason why the issue of ontology relating to ordination is so big an issue is the issue of comparative valuing of ministries. The practical ecclesiocentrism of the churches manifests itself in an over-concentration on ordained ministries rather than the ministries in the world. This also manifests as 'maintenance' rather than mission (yes I know that's a cartoon, but I trust you'll take the sense rather than quibble just now) and the failure of ministerial priesthood to properly equip and encourage those in missional priesthood -that is living out their baptisms in service and witness in the 'secular' world. Instead we have churches where the actual agenda is to serve the institution and so support the ordained and ordained-a-like rather than where the ordained help to fashion the institution to support the world-facing ministry of God's whole people.

If we could get that more right, it'd kick the feet out from under a lot of the issues about the ontological status of the ordained.

Perhaps that's no clearer than before, but I'm too tired now to improve it further. I'll publish and let comment and discussion, if any, help clarify: the posse is the priest, people! And crowd-sourcing is the name of the game.

Comments

Rev R Marszalek said…
Thank you Andii

Very helpful - it's been an interesting 24 hrs reflecting on these things as i explore in a new post. I'll look into getting a copy of the book you recommend.

I found your post very helpful but want to keep returning to it as I keep mulling these things over.
Mark V-S said…
Insightful and thought-provoking, Andii. I'd thoroughly agree with what you say about the social changes, which are very real, though as you say, not really what catholics mean by ontological change.

I'm not especially happy with the language of 'ontological change', but I suspect that as you say, this is largely because I don't tend to work in the sort of Platonic/Aristotelian categories of thought the term implies. However, there is a genuine sense in which ordination marks a change in status and role within the body of Christ. Ordination is a liminal moment. Not recognising the fact that you have changed in your role within the body often leads people into profound pastoral difficulties. Priests who insist they are just like any other lay person can end up abusing the power and authority they refuse recognise that they have.

There is also, as you say, a clear sense in which ongoing change is ocurring within the person, through the work of the Holy Spirit, to shape and equip them for a ministry they are called to. Although I don't believe that ordination affects this change, but rather recognises and affirms it, I would not deny that it is occurring. I think the key issue here is the recognition that all of us, lay and ordained, are changing in a similar manner, being equipped for different ministries. The scandal is that we affirm this only in regard to ordained ministry, offering no comparable form of recognition to the ontological change that occurs within those called to lay ministries. This, I believe, is where we truly fail to follow the example of Christ, and it is this glamorising of ordained ministry - setting it apart as a completely different (and by implication more holy) ministry than other ministries that risks falling under the critique of Jesus that those who lead should be the servants of all, and know themselves to be the brothers of other disciples, not their fathers.
Andii said…
@Rachel: I hope it will continue to be helpful as you revisit. I'm more than happy to talk further too.

@Mark: I found the way you develop a bit further the thought about different ministries having parity of esteem (to use another terminology) helpful; thanks for writing it. Your final reminder about servants of all is where I actually tend to start my thinking about ministry (and note the etymology of that word) and what I was alluding to in writing about the symbolic loss of diaconal ordination in Methodist presbyteral orders.

A previous Bishop of mine was very cagey about public authorisations of lay ministries for fear that they might be seen as quasi-ordinations. I think that your paragraph would tend to point in another direction? That said, at what point do we draw a line about authorising ministries? If any? Could there be a problem of authorisation inflation?

Popular posts from this blog

Foundation, Empire -and the mission of the church

 I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything but an outline and some character names. A lot has happened in my life since I read the series and now watch it adapted to television. For one thing, I committed my ways to Christ and have a role which involves official ministry in the church's mission. In the intervening years, a constant companion for me has been concern for ecology, for creation. Latterly this has become a more urgent concern and I have realised that we have collectively run out of time. We are living on borrowed time. In fact, some of us, globally speaking, are not even living on borrowed time. All through my adult life I have unconsciously (I now realise) assumed that we would have time, that there was time to persuade and to change and to head off the worst. That assumption, that naive hope, has now been stripped from me. The situation of living on borrowed time  needs t

Pray ceaselessly, but how?

I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and give you a taster... ... ask ourselves whether there is a way of understanding the command to pray ceaselessly in a way that doesn't conflict with loving our neighbour. Paul may have meant his readers to pray as much as they could, whenever they could. However that would be to read a meaning into the text based, perhaps on a sense of realism faced with an understanding of prayer that involves giving God full and exclusive attention. We don't have to be bound by that interpretation. I'm going to suggest a deeper fulfilment of the exhortation. One that makes contact with Paul's command to his Roman readers to offer their bodies as living sacrifices to God (Romans 12.1-2). Perhaps Paul was suggesting making life into prayer rather than making prayer into a life emergingchurch.info > reflection > andii bowsher : Filed in: prayer

The Lords Prayer in Aramaic

I came across this a year or two back and was quite concerned that it was being purveyed as a translation when it quite clearly is not. Now my Hebrew is not extensive but enough that when combined with training in linguistics and biblical interpretation I can tell when a 'midrash' is being offered. [PS inserted here. Since I wrote this originally and noting that this post gets a lot of hits, I have continued to research and would like to encourage readers to visit more recent posts here and here and I tend to add thinngs from time to time to a Squidoo Lens dedicated to the topic of Aramaic Lord's prayer] Anyway, see for yourself the discrepancy between the quantity in the original and the English (as far as I can tell, the orthography is vaguely german, so 'j' is a 'y' sound etc.) The Prayer To Our Father (in the original Aramaic) Abwun "Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes, d'bwaschmaja who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.