 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by C. FitzSimons Allison
from To be a priest, pp. 11-19,
edited by
Robert E. Terwilliger and Urban T. Holmes, Seabury Press, New York,
1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.
C. FitzSimons Allison is Rector of Grace Episcopal Church, New York,
and was previously a professor of ecclesiastical history at the Virginia
Theological Seminary. Dr. Allison is widely known as an author and lecturer and
as a distinguished scholar of 17th-century Anglican
theology.
My fixed Principle is: that a Christianity without a Church exercising
spiritual authority is vanity and dissolution.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
The
first step in understanding the nature of any Christian ministry is to
recognize the overwhelming agreement in virtually every tradition in the
history of the Church that a vocation to ministry must be twofold: it must be
an inner call to the individual and it must be validated by the corporate body,
the “holy folk.” Neither one, without the other, is
sufficient.
The
second step is to appreciate the function and purpose of such ministry. The
purpose of the duly authorized regularizing, authenticating, or validating of
such ministry is to insure that the ministry be truly the ministry, that it
perform the function and purpose of its existence. The priest is one form of
this ministry and shares with all other forms its final authenticity as the
purpose of ministry is fulfilled. This purpose is well expressed by St. Paul in
Romans 15:16 in the phrase “the priestly service of the gospel of God
...” It is the contention of this paper that priesthood derives its
authenticity from its “service of the gospel.”
Our
present dilemma, in relation to the confusion concerning ministry and its
eroding authority, is to see four ways in which ministry has been separated
from its true purpose.
Priesthood not Sacerdos
“Priest” is the English word for “presbyter”
(elder), and the latter is the only legitimate connotation for
“priest.” As the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia of Theology correctly
points out: “It is important to bear in mind, in the following discussion
of the applicability of the terms ‘priest’ and ‘priesthood’
to the office holders in the church, that the New Testament does not use the
terms hiereus, hierateuma, to describe ecclesiastical office.
They occur, however, in the interpretation of Christ’s work of salvation
and in the description of the New Testament people of God" (p. 1281). The
Gospel’s connection with priesthood is that after Christ’s “one
sacrifice once offered,” priesthood in the sacerdos and
hiereus function of offering sacrifice has been completely and finally
done away with. As Bishop Lightfoot explains the Epistle to the Hebrews:
“Now this apostolic writer teaches that all sacrifices had been
consummated in the one Sacrifice, all priesthoods absorbed in the one Priest.
The offering had been made once for all; and, as there were no more victims,
there could be no more priests.”(1)
0Hence, Richard Hooker, theologian of the sixteenth century, preferred
the term “presbyter” to “priest”(2) because he knew that
the word “priest” in English, besides properly translating
“presbyter,” is also the only English word to translate
sacerdos or hiereus, thus making way for the unwitting denial of
the Gospel by slipping from the first to the second meaning of
“priest.”
Scripture does use the concept hiereus / priest, not for the
ministry but for the whole Church, the holy folk. “But you are a chosen
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people...” (1
Peter 2:9). The Reformation doctrine of the “priesthood of all
believers” gets its root from this text (and from the Epistle to the
Hebrews) and has been greatly misunderstood in modern times, as if it were
merely some democratic egalitarianism. For Luther and the Anglican reformers
the doctrine meant not so much the priesthood of each believer but of all
believers. All baptized persons share equally in this priesthood as members of
this “holy nation, this royal priesthood,” this body, of which Christ
is the head. However, it did not mean the “presbyterate of all
believers.” For both Luther(3) and Anglicanism, the presbyter must be
lawfully called and sent by duly constituted authorities before he exercises
this ministry (cf. article XXIII).
This
brings us to the question of how this presbyter/priest is related to that
sacrifice of Christ. There are three ways this connection is made. The
presbyter/priest does not make the sacrifice as the old sacerdos/ priest
did but he now represents that event as elder of the folk, the Church,
this whole “royal priesthood,” this whole Christian ministry. As he
represents the Church his ministry relates all to Christ’s completed
sacrifice and its benefits. He is not a mediator between God and his people,
but he is a representative person of this holy folk, the people of God, the
body of Christ. Secondly, this priesthood relates us to that once-for-all
sacrifice of Christ by the preaching of the word, the Good News. As in the text
from Paul (Romans 15:16), “The priestly service of the gospel of God”
is the function and purpose of this ministry. It is extremely important to note
that whereas hiereus is never used to describe the Christian ministry in
the New Testament, it is here used to describe the function of the Gospel. It
is the Gospel that mediates and relates us to Christ. The ministry does so as
it is a servant of this Word. Thirdly, as the presbyter presides at the holy
table the once-for-all sacrifice is presented in word and action, and this
body, the Church, is united anew with its head (Christ) in his sacrifice. As
the report of the archbishop’s commission, Doctrine in the Church of
England, so well puts it: “But if the Eucharist is thus spoken of as a
sacrifice, it must be understood as a sacrifice in which (to speak as exactly
as the subject allows) we do not offer Christ but in which Christ unites us
with Himself in the self-offering of the life that was ‘obedient unto
death, yea the death of the Cross.’ ”(4)
Hence
the true meaning of priest is lost by its association with the Old Testament
priesthood which has been done away with by Christ. The meaning of priest is
recovered by the presbyter / priesthood fulfilling its purpose as servant of
this Gospel.
Too
Narrow Doctrine of Validity
The
second way in which ministry has been separated from its purpose is by a too
narrow and simplistic doctrine of validity. However necessary some guidelines
must be, the adequacy of the traditional requirements for validity—the
proper intention, form, and matter—is increasingly questioned on all
sides. John Jay Hughes, the Roman Catholic protagonist for recognition of
Anglican orders, cites some very important difficulties increasingly shared by
us all concerning such criteria for judging validity of ordination:
One
example of these problems is that the existing concept of apostolic succession
leads to recognizing the validity of the orders possessed by eccentric
episcopi vagantes, clerical rolling stones who display considerably
greater interest in ritual, ceremonial and a valid “succession” than
in belief, and whose numerically tiny churches, despite their grandiose titles,
possess more clergy than laity. How can one be happy with standards of validity
which treat the Archbishop of Canterbury as a layman while recognizing as
valid, or possibly valid, the “orders” of prelates claiming to be
Bishops, Archbishops, Apostolic Pontiffs, Patriarchs, Exarchs, Ruling Prelates
or Sacred Beatitudes in such bodies as the Autonomous African Universal Church,
the Orthodox Keltic Church of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Old
Catholic Church (Integrated Rite), the Old Catholic Evangelical Church of God,
the Apostolic Church of St. Peter, the Ancient Catholic Church, the Universal
Apostolic Church of Life, the Pre-Nicene Catholic Church and the Old Roman
Catholic Church, Caer-Glow Province of Great Britain—most of these august
organizations possessing only a single place of worship, consisting more often
than not of a back room somewhere in the dreary wastes of outer
London?(5)
To
recall one of the purposes of ministry, the safeguarding of the Gospel and
doctrine, is to raise serious questions as to the effectiveness of such
concepts of validity. Is anyone really comfortable with a doctrine of validity
that might depend upon the thread of one (three are required for regularity,
one for validity) bishop in apostolic succession. In 1939, Bishop Hensley
Henson wrote: “The Church of England, at the present time, exhibits a
doctrinal incoherence which has no parallel in any other church claiming to be
traditionally orthodox.” If that was true in 1939, little has occurred
since then to reassure us that our Anglican polity has been an altogether
effective guardian of the apostolic faith.
Hence
priesthood loses its vitality and integrity when it attempts to define
“validity” in isolation from its function and purpose of serving the
Gospel.
Preoccupation with Credentials
The
third way in which the purpose of ministry has been frustrated is the tendency
to be preoccupied with credentials alone. John Henry Newman, in 1833, set the
tone of this preoccupation with his first tract, “Hard Master He would not
be to bid us oppose the world and not give us the credentials for doing
so” (italics mine). For over a century a strong tradition in Anglicanism
has presented the credentials of a ministry in apostolic succession (quite
narrowly defined) as the esse of the Church; that is, to be without it
is not to be the Church. Hence, in spite of the refusal of Reformation
Anglicans or the official Anglican formularies to specify dogmatically what
particular form of ministry or polity is essential, this tradition of Anglicans
did not hesitate to unchurch “non-conformists” who shared their
commitment to Scripture, creeds, and ecumenical councils, and who for centuries
had manifested at least as much “fruit” as had we in the Anglican
communion.
Opposed to this exclusive position were those who, following Richard
Hooker, refused to elevate a particular polity to the level of dogmatic
essence. Hooker’s argument with the Puritans was precisely along the lines
that no one can be sure what, if any, particular form of polity is prescribed
by Scripture. The most we could claim was that our threefold polity of bishops,
priests, and deacons was historical, primitive, and not un-Scriptural.
Hooker’s restraint has held up far better than the dogmatic claims of his
contemporary antagonists or his successors’ exclusive position in the
light of modern scholarship.
The
Anglican Articles of Religion and the Preface to the Ordinal omit any claim
that our polity is enjoined in Scripture, or that it is the only valid form of
Christian ministry, or even that it is the best form. Anglicans are simply
required to recognize that it is a valid form and not contrary to Scripture.
Article 36 affirms that the Anglican ordinal contains nothing
“superstitious and ungodly,” nor is it to be regarded as a defective
form of ordaining the ministry.
The
exclusive position largely begun with the tractarians in the nineteenth
century, came to be called the esse view (that valid orders, not just
for the Church of England but for all Christians everywhere, required
ordination by bishops in apostolic succession, without which there could be no
valid sacraments nor any true Church) and was opposed by the bene esse
view (that such ordination was for the “well-being” of the Church).
One’s head or liver, for instance, is of the esse of being human,
whereas one’s ear or arm is of the bene esse.
The
esse position was claimed for a long time, not only as a position within
the Anglican Church but the only true position, and that it was the view
historically held by the Anglican Communion. Historical studies have for some
time proven this latter claim untenable. Even the Anglo-Catholic leader, Dr.
Darwell Stone, acknowledged this:
But
I think that we have now to face the facts that, so far as the Reformation and
post-Reformation formularies and divines are concerned, there are loopholes
which we can use but not the support for an exclusive
position."(6)
There
have been frantic attempts, however, to maintain this exclusive position in
spite of the overwhelming contrary evidence, especially that produced by Norman
Sykes in Old Priest and New Presbyter. The most judicious view of this
whole controversy is perhaps that of the Anglo-Catholic bishop, A. E. J.
Rawlinson:
...
despite the attempts so insistently made in post-Tractarian times by
Anglo-Catholic Theologians to stiffen up the Anglican claim for Episcopacy and
to treat it as being of the actual esse of the Church, the attitude of
the classical theologians of Anglicanism in the age of the Carolines did not
involve quite this assertion. The conclusions reached by the Dean in Old
Priest and New Presbyter are not in fact likely to be upset. The defenders
of Anglicanism in the 16th and early 17th centuries, however emphatic their
claims for Episcopacy, nevertheless did not, with one or two possible
exceptions, go so far as to “unchurch” foreign Protestant Churches.
The change of opinion on the question of Episcopacy which came about in the
19th century was due to the influence of the Tractarians and of their
successors the Anglo-Catholics. The “exclusive” theory of Episcopacy
(to use the late Dr. Darwell Stone’s epithet) is today widely Prevalent
among the clergy of the Church, though it is less widespread among the laity.
Its upholders are more vocal than those of the “Evangelical” school;
it may be doubted whether they are more numerous. They are a “school of
thought” within Anglicanism, and their view is permissible; but it is very
likely to be adopted as the official doctrine of the
Church.(7)
The
contrast between the clergy and laity mentioned by Bishop Rawlinson should not
be overlooked. The sociological factors that would naturally lead more clergy
than lay persons to increasing emphasis upon credentials are hard to
exaggerate. A poll in England in 1973 showed 87.7 percent of the Anglican
clergy in favor of eventual union with Roman Catholics versus 57.85 percent of
the laity for that outcome. On the other hand, only 27.7 percent of the clergy
were for eventual union with Congregationalists, versus 72.2 percent of the
laity who were for reunion in this direction.(8) One can hardly explain this
discrepancy on the basis of doctrine and theology.
The
widespread relinquishing of the esse position (cf. K. M. Carey, ed.
The Historic Episcopate, Dacre Press, 2nd ed. 1960) is not so much due
to taking account of the historical scholarship that was long ignored by
otherwise responsible scholars (e.g., Kenneth Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry,
1957 edition with preface by A. M. Farrer, Hodder and Stoughton, London), but
to the fact that this esse position no longer served to safeguard what
Anglo-Catholics so highly—and often correctly— valued. Especially in
the case of the reunion of the Churches in South India and in discussions with
American Methodists, it became apparent that episcopacy and the esse
position could no longer be counted on to assure true “catholicity,”
whatever one’s definition of that may be.
Hence,
the events of history itself have forced us to return from the: exclusive
preoccupation with credentials to associate ministry again with its doctrinal
and Gospel purpose.
Denigration of Doctrine
The
fourth way the ministry has been separated from its purpose is the increasing
disinclination of the Church to deal with doctrine. No sensitive person can be
unsympathetic with Church officials for their reluctance to open up what is, if
not a Pandora’s box, certainly an explosive and perhaps divisive
enterprise. When the demand for some official response to Bishop James
Pike’s doctrine resulted in the publication of the book Theological
Freedom and Social Responsibility (ed. S. F. Bayne, The Seabury Press,
1967), the recommendation was that, “the word ‘heresy’ should be
abandoned except in the context of the radical, creative theological
controversies in the early formative years of Christian doctrine” (p. 22).
Although there were some wise and helpful things said in the report and the
associated papers, it could hardly be claimed that this was a bold and
confident willingness to maintain and proclaim the doctrine and teaching of
classical Christianity.
William Temple faced a similar issue earlier in this century in regard
to the problem of treating the touchy and possibly centrifugal issue of
doctrine in the ecumenical movement. He insisted that it could not forever be
ignored or delayed. He was opposed on all sides by those who maintained that
“service unites; doctrine divides” and that he would tear apart this
tenuous association by bringing into it questions of “faith and
order.” We are all the beneficiaries of his courage and wisdom in helping
to bring about the great World Councils on Faith and Order.
If the
Church could take the real risk in following Temple’s example, it would
face and understand afresh the theological and doctrinal issues without which
our understanding of priesthood will be continuously impoverished. From the
time of Scripture, Ignatius, and Iranaeus, the ministry has been seen as the
expression and guardian of unity and doctrine. Of the eight vows publicly
acknowledged by the candidate in the Prayer Book service of the ordination of a
priest, four of them are explicitly concerned with the responsibility for
maintaining doctrine. Hence the authority of priesthood is derived from
its engagement in its function and purpose, preserving and manifesting the
unity and doctrine of the Christian faith.
“What He did not assume, He could not
redeem.”—Athanasius. One of the values in associating again the
ministry with Christian doctrine is the light thereby shown on the nature of
priesthood. Athanasius’ insight concerning Christ, insists that the
soteriological (e.g., the salvation of man) purpose of the Incarnation is
paramount; it was truly, completely, and fully man that the Logos assumed in
the Incarnation. This dictum became the hallmark of orthodox Christianity
against the prevailing atmosphere so uncongenial to the New Testament’s
portrait of a fully human Jesus.
That
Jesus was a male must not, then, mean the exclusion of women from salvation.
Jesus’ humanity must include all humanity lest they be not saved. It would
seem, therefore, that his maleness in the work of salvation is personal
and not sexual. Theologians agree that all masculine pronouns, when used
of God, are to be understood to mean not sexual but personal God
is not a male but he is our personal God, not an it. Just
such considerations as these should guide us in considering who may represent
the Church as priest/presbyter. It would seem that tor the Church to exclude a
woman believing herself truly called to priesthood merely on the grounds of sex
would be confusing what is essentially personal with what is merely
sexual, what is a matter of humanity with what is a matter of
gender.
Priest/Parson
There
is a long history of confusion regarding what name to call a priest. As we have
seen, the New Testament understanding of priesthood has no Old Testament
sacerdos/hiereus function, but this order is set aside to serve the
Gospel and represent the whole body. There is great power in a name, and we
must be quite careful by what names we are called. Not to have some name that
distinguishes the priest from the laity is to overlook the special functions
and distinctions between clergy and laity that have existed from the time of
“the 70" through and including virtually all traditions of Christendom.
But to name a name that distinguishes and separates is to violate the
common priesthood/ hiereus character of members of this “holy
nation,” this “royal priesthood.”
The
term “Mister” does not seem to satisfy the need to express the
special representative character of priest, and the term “Father”
would tend to deny the priesthood participated in by all baptized people. It
needs to be added that it is difficult to understand how “Father” can
be used without seeming to encourage hierarchical temptations of the clergy and
at the same time nurturing infantilism in the laity. This latter is a
particularly acute and often justifiable criticism by psychologists of the
results of conventional distortions of Christianity. The issue is whether God
works through Christ, then the ministry, to the Church; or through Christ, then
the Church, through which he calls and sends his ministry. The latter is
clearly a more “catholic” as well as more biblical view. It is not
the ministry which makes the Church but the Church which makes the
ministry.
Over
the centuries the Church in England evoked from the faithful a name for the
priest: parson. It was sometimes used pejoratively and is now regarded as
quaint. But it was the English word for “person,” the
“person” of the parish, of the congregation. The sacramental nature
of the office worked. The faithful being called on knew their
“parson” had come, the congregation was represented to them in this
person. I remember quite vividly a few years ago lying in a hospital recovering
from surgery. Coleman McGehee, the rector of my parish church came to see me. I
was glad to see him as a delightful and affectionate friend but even more as my
“parson,” the person representing those people of God who had helped
set him apart and paid him a salary to represent them, to be their
“person.” The name seems to carry as none other the New Testament
function of priest, the priest /presbyter, who in his person shows the true
priesthood of all believers, by whom God is known in this world, and who is set
apart to maintain Christian doctrine and unity by “the priestly service of
the gospel.”
Notes
1. J.
B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry (New York: T. Whittaker,
1883),
2.
Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, vol. 2, (New York:
E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1954) pp. 429, 432.
3.
“. . . no one may make use of this power except by consent of the
community or the call of the superior.” G. Rupp, The Righteousness of
God (Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1953), pp.
315-316.
4.
Doctrine in the Church of England (London: S.P.C.K., 1938), p.
162.
5.
John Jay Hughes, Stewards of the Lord: A Reappraisal of Anglican Orders
(New York: Sheed and Ward, 1970), pp. 2, 3.
6.
Quoted in Norman Sykes, Old Priest and New Presbyter (London & New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1956), p. 211.
7.
The Anglican Communion in Christendom (London: S.P.C.K., 1960), pp.
57-58 and 49-52.
8. Reported in
The Living Church, 22 (July 1973).
Contents of “To be a Priest
”
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!