The Nature of the Keys

With the Church of England’s decision to elevate women to the episcopate, there has been a lot of discussion about the nature of Holy Orders, especially the role of bishops and the life of the church. This is not of immediate concern to me, or at least, why I am spending time reflecting on this.

I am currently discerning a call into the “ordained ministry” and what that would look life for myself. For the past few years, whenever I told pastors that I was interested in becoming ordained, they would usually make a comment about how I should take time to pray and make sure it was my calling. Solid advice, but I was/am pretty sure that it is my calling. And I feel like Im making progress with pastors because they are now asking me instead “why the ordained ministry?” “Why not teach as a layman, the church has lay pastors and lay theologians. Why not do that?”

Its a valid question, and it got me thinking. I have absolutely no idea no idea what it means to be ordained, and what makes it different from a lay ministry?

Martin Luther, in his Small Catechism, states that…

The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinner, but to with-hold forgiveness from the unrepentant…

Thus the job of the pastor is to ensure that the forgiveness and absolution of God is administered and realized on the congregation. Fair enough.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, I choose you…

The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the people of God by teaching…, divine worship…, and pastoral governance…

Yes, I did open that up with a reference to Pokemon. The CCC affirms this sacred-power approach, but expands it to other things besides absolution of sins: teaching, leading worship, and sacred bureaucracy.

Next we turn ordination serive for Priests found in the book of common prayer

In all that you do, you are to nourish Christ’s people from the riches of his grace, and strengthen them to glorify God in this life and in the life to come.

Priests are to carry out a sacred lifestyle for the benefit of others.

Finally, for the win, the bible…

So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.

There were a few other verses pertaining to the mission of the church, but that one cut to the heart of the matter.

It seems that there is a mystical otherness attached to ordination. With the laying of hands, an ontological change occurs. So the change between lay ministry and ordained ministry is that lay ministry proclaims truth; ordained ministry administers truth.

Thus going back to the original question “Why not lay ministry? Why not Ordained ministry?”

I really do not have an answer that that. I really cant answer that. I can say that I want to take part in the secret things of God, but that doesn’t mean that I’m cut out for it. It almost sounds arrogant.

All I can say is that I “feel called” to it, which seems just as out there as the concept itself.

+Alex Resurgent

That they may be one…

Due to recent events, both in my life and the life of the Anglican Church, topics of Church Structure and Spiritual Authority have been on my mind a lot, and this is probably the first in a series revolving around that. Bare with me…

An old friend of I had a good discussion about church unity, and what constitutes it. I shant bore you with the play by play details, but I think her point was that the Roman Church is the only “valid” church, and the rest of Christianity (including myself) should reconcile ourselves to Rome. There is validity to her argument. Christ Himself wished that we would be one, and that is something that we should all strive for.

But what would this “unity” look like? The Roman Catholic Church mastered this concept for millenia, with a strong bureaucracy (the Pontificate), and a universal language for worship (Latin). The Congregationalists likewise turned “unity” into an art by not having any institutional (or necessarily theologically) but still by maintaining an identity.

A few images of this unity come to mind:

Unity in Baptism and Belief in Christ
The church arguably has this already, save for a few exceptions. All Christians profess a belief in Christ, and most have been baptized. Baptism may seem like a small unifying factor, but it is also nearly-universally recognized as being valid, regardless of who did the baptism. Unfortunately the unity ends there as many Christians have fundamental disagreements about the basics of the faith, such as the nature of Christ, his work, and how it relates to the world today.

I try to keep this Unity at the front of my mind, especially when talking theology with people. I may believe that one thing is true, and that the other person is guilty of total heresy, but at the end of the day, they are still my brother or sister in Christ.

Unity in Creed or Confession
This is probably the second most prevalent form of unity; unity centered around a Confession or Catechism, and can be found prominently amongst the protestant churches (Small Catechism for Lutherans, Belgic Confession for Reformed churches, 39 Articles for Anglicans). Plus side for this is that Families of Confessions actually have a basic common faith and history, downside is that they don’t have to share a common vision on what the faith should look like. How many Lutheran/Presbyterian Denominations are there? In a way, these divisions may be even more personal that the inter-denominational divisions.

Unity in Governance
This is a HUGE one, and responsible for more divisions than any other, probably because it is the strongest form of unity, with less room for liberty. Churches united through behemoth style bureaucracies can be amazing for providing unity across states or nations. I think that it is amazing to know that, as an Anglican, I can walk into an Anglican church anywhere on earth and know about what Im going to get, and know that I have a direct institutional link with that church. I cant say that about non-denominational churches. This fact is true for Catholics and Orthodox churches, and to a lesser extent the mainline protestants. The HUGE downside is that it is very easy for the little guy to get over run.

On a side note, the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches maintain belief in Apostolic Succession, the faith that they posses an unbroken linage of Bishops to the apostles. Plus side: provides connection the past and some legitmacy of the faith. Downside is that it can be easily hijacked by wayward Bishops who can preach apostasy under the guise of legitimacy (See Liberal Catholic Churches).

I dont know what “Unity” is supposed to look like today. I dont think that my freinds dream of a universal Roman church will come anytime soon. The Second and Third views, although provides coherency in faith, also breeds division, disdain, neither of which are Christian virtues; meanwhile the first candy coats serious differences that need discussion.

Any thoughts?

+A. Resurgent

Feast of St. Peter and St Paul