I have a friend who objects to the idea of Christian priesthood because he believes it diminishes and even denigrates other members of the Body of Christ who are not priests or bishops. His objection is to a distinctly “sacerdotal” image of the priesthood, in which only the priests or bishops can perform sacraments and teach in the Church, while all other members are more or less passive. To put it in a simplistic and crass way: Priests and bishops are seen to have “magic hands” which can consecrate sacraments, while everyone else is “non-magical”. To be fair, this view of the priesthood is a caricature, and very few people would insist that all ministry must be done by ordained clergy, while everyone else must be passive and receptive. However, this CAN be an implication of some early modern conceptions of the “sacerdotal” priesthood.
For instance, in the article on priesthood in The Catholic Encyclopedia from 1911, we are told that “Sacerdotal powers are conferred on priests by priestly ordination, and it is this ordination which puts them in the highest rank of the hierarchy after the bishop… The exercise of the sacerdotal powers is both a duty and a right for priests having the care of souls…” So, the permanent and indelible power to minister sacraments is given here in the act of ordination by a bishop, and those not ordained simply do not have this power.
Fifty years later, a toned down version of this idea is found in the documents of Vatican II. In the 1965 “Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests” it states that “Priests act especially in the person of Christ (Latin: In persona Christi) as ministers of holy things, particularly in the Sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of Christ who gave himself for the sanctification of men.” Thus the priest, by virtue of ordination is an “Alter Christus” (another Christ) who uniquely can minister sacraments “In persona Christi”. This unique sacerdotal identity is different from other non-ordained members of the Church, who are not seen as “Alter Christus” in the same way, and cannot stand behind the Altar to celebrate Eucharist in the place of Christ.
It is only a few logical steps from this position to see the priest (and bishop) as an ontologically different kind of being from other Christians, alone possessing certain powers that ordinary Christians cannot possess. Furthermore, it would be only a few more steps to think that this means that since ordained clergy alone have “magic hands” as “Alter Christi”, then only clergy should preach or teach or do any significant ministry in the Church. This can lead to a very clergy-centric idea of Church in which the clergy do everything, while the laity do next to nothing except receive sacraments and donate money. Granted, most churches with a sacerdotal priesthood avoid this and have very vital lay ministries. And quite a few Protestant churches without a sacerdotal priesthood still have a very clergy-centric model of common life.
But this led my friend to ask me if there was another version of priesthood which emerges out of the New Testament (NT). And I think there is. I think we can find there the beginnings of a vision of ordained ministry which holds a special place for the identity and role and responsibility of clergy, while also encouraging vibrant ministry by ALL members of the Body of Christ, lay and ordained. Furthermore, I think this vision avoids many of the pitfalls of a “strong” idea of sacerdotal priesthood (outlined above), while also embracing the idea that something does permanently change about the identity of the ordained person once they are ordained.
But, to be clear, it is not all spelled out in the pages of the NT itself. I think the development of ordination and ordered ministry is analogous to the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation: They are implicit and in embryonic form in the NT, and become explicit and full grown in the life of the broader church. For instance, even the terms we use for ordained persons are rooted in the NT, but not spelled out there. “Bishop” is a shortening of the NT Greek word “episkopos” meaning overseer. Likewise, “priest” is a shortening of the NT Greek word “presbyteros” meaning elder. Over time it went through iterations such as Old English preost from the Germanic form prestar or Frisian prestere or Latin prester. And the word “deacon” comes straightforwardly from the NT Greek word “diakonos” meaning minister.
The leadership structure of the early churches was not codified nor universal by 70-90 CE when the NT was largely written. That work would largely be completed a century or two later. In the NT, Presbyter (elder) and Episkopos (overseer) were overlapping categories, with Apostles taking the role of overseers of large geographic territories. In select cases, we find Apostles giving certain presbyters regional oversight capacity over several house churches in the area (cf. Timothy, Titus). It would be natural that this system, after the Apostles died, would morph into threefold leadership of episkopoi who oversee regions (taking the role of Apostle), with presbyteroi over local congregations, and diakonoi in specific ministries. And of course, in the NT we find these roles begin to be recognized and commissioned by an "ordination" sacrament, which includes laying on of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, by those already established as leaders in the Church. The development of these sacramental acts are, again, a natural outgrowth of the NT trajectory.
However, regarding the strongest versions of the “sacerdotal priesthood”: I do not find any hint in the NT that this ordination entails any sense of "magic hands" which alone can consecrate sacraments. This is at the base of the sacerdotal priesthood for many who believe in that: It is not a valid Eucharist or Confession or whatever sacrament unless a priest or bishop does it. I simply do not see that. All Christians, by virtue of being baptized into the living Body of Christ, are "Alter Christus" (another embodiment of the Christ life for the healing of the world). Thus, all Christians are valid conduits of sacramental grace for the healing and empowering of others. So, no particular ordained person has "magic hands" because we all are the hands and feet and mouth of Christ (cf. 1Corinthians 12; Romans 12). Thus, the development of the sacerdotal priesthood in this direction is, I believe, invalid and fundamentally at odds with the trajectory of the NT.
HOWEVER I do find that something changes in the identity and role of the ordained person in reference to the Church: Ordination recognizes and commissions an individual's unique responsibility for the mission and health of the church. Presbyterial ordination makes someone (or recognizes someone already is) a presbyter: An elder, a parent in the family system of the Church, a spiritual mother or father. And using family systems, it is clear that parenthood brings unique responsibility to someone's life in a permanent way which is different from the role of a non-parent. For instance, as a non-parent, I have a responsibility to any child I may be around to make sure they are not harmed, and if they are harmed, they get help. This is a base level responsibility all adults share. But when a child is MY child, I have so much more responsibility for their social, emotional, spiritual, physical, and ethical nourishment. They are MY child 24-7, and I bear responsibility for their total well-being. And at the very moment of their birth, or at the moment I sign those adoption papers, my identity for them and with them is changed irrevocably. I will never again not be their parent, and I will never again not have special responsibility for them. I may be a good parent or a bad parent, but I will always be their parent.
I think this kind of permanent change of identity and responsibility is implicit in the NT use of the term presbyter (and episkopos), as well as the references to being a "father" in Christ as used by some of the epistles. This is also further spelled out by the lists of duties given to Titus and Timothy, which read very much like Christ-centered version of ancient Greek texts on “oikonomia” or how to run a proper household (cf. Xenophon’s Οἰκονομικός and similar works). Someone who is ordained as a presbyter (or episkopos) thus bears parental responsibility for the wellbeing and full flourishing of the Body of Christ in their purview. For the presbyter, that purview is the local congregation they are stationed in, and in conjunction with other presbyters, to promote the wellbeing of the entire church in their region. For the episkopos, that purview is the regional Body of multiple congregations, and in conjunction with other episkopoi, to promote the wellbeing of the entire church around the world. I think Acts 15 gives the implicit precedent that the “top level” of responsibility in the Church is the entire college of bishops in conversation, and not in some kind of monarchical super-bishop. There may be a bishop who has the role of lead spokesperson to declare the will of the college of bishops (as the Apostle James served as in Acts 15). But there is no bishop which inherently has more authority than any other bishop, regardless of whether their title is archbishop or prelate and patriarch or pope.
In all of this, the role of responsibility for the ordained is to empower ministry by all members of Christ’s Body, and to ensure the Gospel is proclaimed, the Faith is taught and defended, and make sure the sacramental means of grace are available for the healing and flourishing of the Body. Note, this does NOT mean they are the sole ministers of the Gospel, or Catechesis, or the Sacraments, although they should be exemplary and effective ministers of them. They should empower all the other members of the Body to minister the Gospel, Catechize, and share Sacramental grace with others. Thus, I do not think it is against ordained ministry if ordained leaders authorize and commission lay people for special ministries and even for the ministry of various sacraments, so long as ordained leaders retain ultimate responsibility for proper preaching, teaching, and administration of sacraments. Furthermore, the ordained have the responsibility to lead Church discipline and correct or stop those who preach, teach, or minister in ways contrary to the Way of Christ.
So, to sum up: I see the trajectory of the NT pointing toward a “family systems” model of ordained ministry, in which ordination recognizes various levels of responsibility in the family of God. Episkopoi are "grandparents" over a family of families, Presbyteroi are "parents" in a local family, and Diakonoi are "elder siblings" leading their siblings in various specific ministries. All members of the family are ministers of the Word and Sacraments, but those who are ordained bear permanent responsibility for the discipline and wellbeing of the family at their various levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment