A People So Bold and Boy in the Bands have each responded to my recent salvo on what ministry is and ain’t. Some further thoughts:
1. Ministry is not a profession. The professions—law, medicine, and psychology, most typically—are necessarily self-serving guilds. By credentialing and policing their members, they preserve the power to control public access to the services they offer. Government serves as a check on this power, threatening encroachment if the professions do not deliver quality and safety.
2. Ministers do not serve guilds, and they do not serve the general public. They serve communities of faith, or, more specifically, congregations. Communities of faith are ekklesia, not the public. Communities of faith serve to incarnate the promise of the Blessed Community, not the Powers-That-Be.
3. Buddhist traditions teach upaya, that the means of reaching enlightenment are a matter of expedience: whatever gets you across the river to Enlightment is okay if it doesn’t cause further suffering. Ordained ministry is a matter of upaya. It is only useful insofar as it helps faith communities incarnate the Blessed Community. Faith communities do not exist to serve ordained ministry; ordained ministry exists to serve faith communities communities.
4. Congregations form and ordain ministers, not denominational structures. That congregations band together for quality control is a matter of upaya. Denominational credentialing procedures exist to serve congregations, not ministers, and not the denominations themselves. Congregational ordination of ministers is not a procedural nicety on the way to denominational certification; rather, it is the opposite.
5. At times it seems we “believe” that seminary and denominational proceduralism makes someone clergy, that there is an ontological change that takes place upon the approval of academy and guild. This is not just a violation of congregationalism. Behind this notion is a hidden doctrine of “ministerial transubstantiation,” that is, the belief that the Words of Academic and Denominational Institution transform a person into the Body and Blood of Ordained Ministry.
6. Why would anyone hold this view? Because it makes them feel safe. Ministerial transubstantiation allows congregants to skip past the relationality that makes someone their minister to the quick fix of certified clerical authority. This act of spiritual cowardice lays the foundation for congregations to neglect their responsiblity to call and form ministers. Congregations grow frustrated with the unformed clergy they encounter and demand better quality control from their denominations. The denominations, in turn, demand more from the seminaries. The seminaries, in response to this slight, increase their academic requirements, a move further complicated by the academy’s own guild politics. Every move reinforces belief in ministerial transubstantiation. It is a vicious circle.
Much of what you state definitively isn’t so definite, even if I assume that what you write as an absolute only refers to Unitarian Universalism. Particularly the guild part. And I think you’re confusing congregationism with independency.
and it’s more than just that:
we hold these “ministers” (clergy) to a different standard than the rest of humanity (ie issues with ordaining women). we use the minister as a thing to point to god and it eventually drives a wedge in the ways we see ourselves as the image of god.
look at communion for instance. (i can only say this from the UM point of view, but i think it carries over). the eucharist is a connection between us and the divine, jesus, and one another. in order for us experience the church legitimized version of the sacrament, clergy must say magic words. what is the benefit of this hierarchy?
I argue that you have missed the theological meaning of profession in my response. Click my name.
I agree with Scott, we are a congregational polity, and we seek stonger bonds between congregations, and between ministers than that which characterized “independency.”
Scott,
I was educated in an espiscopal polity (of sorts), so I can’t claim to know all the ins and outs of congregationalism and independency. I’m happy to be educated on these points. But I’m not trying to advocate independency, as I understand it. I understand the need for denominational standards, but I’m trying to argue that they have exceeded what is necessary and helpful for congregational life. On the point of ministerial formation, I think it should start, intentionally and deliberately, at the congregation. I’m sure there are procedures in place to promote this, but I am skeptical that this is actually achieved.
Clyde,
I just responded at your post. In short, I share your appreciation for the theological meaning of profession, but I believe the professions have largely failed in upholding the tradition.
Lots of interesting stuff here – more than I can really comment on right now, but this definitely strikes a personal chord. As a UM, I’m told that even if I feel a call to ministry, because of my sexual orientation I can not be ordained. Granted, I don’t want their stinkin’ ordination (for a variety of reasons, including the hierarchical/institutional authority that you’re questioning as well), but have chosen to become a Deaconess – which is a lay person who commits to a ministry of love, justice and service and gets commissioned through the General Board of Global Ministry. My apologies to the non-United Methodists in the room, but now that you’re talking about this, I wonder why the UM even has this position for lay people. If we honestly believe in the priesthood of all believers (I’m not sure we do), what is the point of commissioning? Why have I chosen a titled position rather than just working a job that I understand to be my ministry? Perhaps I’m still seeking the approval or blessing of the institution I feel called to question…
[…] I was going to reply to Chutney’s half-question about independency and congregationalism after reviewing (and if appropriate, referring) a pamphlet I read ages ago. But I couldn’t find it online. Instead, I found the NACCC’s magazine available for download as a PDF file: The Congregationalist […]
[…] Finally The Gifts and Graces for Ministry at Making Chutney, and from another scribe, in response; The Gifts and Graces and Fellowshipping of Unitarian Universalist Ministers at A People So Bold, and Chuntey’s reply. Check out the comments section of each for some excellent discussion. […]