 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by B. Green
from To be a priest, pp. 133-140,
edited by
Robert E. Terwilliger and Urban T. Holmes, Seabury Press, New York,
1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.
William B. Green is professor of theology at the Episcopal Seminary of
the Southwest, Austin, Texas, and a former chaplain at Vassar
College.
A wise
pastor and teacher has written regarding the call to Christian ministry:
“There is such a call.... I believe with all my heart that a man must hear
it and feel its imperious constraint before he can ever give himself with any
whole-hearted devotion and abiding wonder to this stewardship of the Gospel.
But I believe, too, that more than one minister has been confused by many of
the things he has been taught about it and by a great deal that he has
read.”(1) Recognizing both the necessity of a call and the confusion which
it may entail, this essay aims to clarify the idea of vocation as set forth in
Scripture, in the Fathers of the Church, the reformers, and subsequent
theologians—first as it relates to all believers, then in the narrower
sense as it signifies a call to special offices within the Church.
The
concept of vocation grew out of Israel’s experience of Yahweh as the God
who calls. Abraham was called out of his own country, away from kindred and
house, and was promised that his descendents were to become the instruments of
God’s universal, redemptive purpose. Moses received an equally difficult
call: to inform Israel in Egypt of Yahweh’s intentions, and to be his
instrument in bringing Israel out of Egypt.
Without exception, the prophets believed themselves to be called to
very specific tasks, in the execution of which they were often isolated from
the established religious order. Amos was taken from following the flock and
was created and validated a prophet by the word. The call of Yahweh came to
Isaiah in the Temple, commissioning him to make hisnation stubborn and harden
their hearts by the very message he was to proclaim. Jeremiah heard the word
empowering him to declare both God’s judgment upon his faithless people
and his intention to establish a new covenant transformed by mercy. The events
leading to the prophets’ call were quite diverse, as was also the manner
in which the call was received. There were many shades of difference in the
prophets’ conception of their office. The one constant and indispensable
element was the word of Yahweh by which each was claimed for special
duties.
But
the prophets were not alone in this experience. Israel herself had a divine
commission: “I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness I have
taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the
people, a light to the nations, . . ”(2)
The
notion of call as both an individual and corporate affair is continued in the
New Testament. Individuals are summoned to varieties of service in keeping with
the diverse gifts of one and the same Spirit. All such gifts are to be used
within and for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. In addition, some have
been called to specific offices within the Church: “God has appointed in
the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers,.. .”(3) St.
Paul claims that the Jewish people still have a special function,(4) while the
new Israel, the true sons of Abraham, is thought to be called in the sense of
being both summoned and chosen. Especially in Pauline thought, calling and
election are substantially the same.(5) Thus there comes to expression with new
force the ancient Hebrew conviction that life gains meaning in and through a
“calling and direction” by the sovereign word of God. For Christian
faith, that word is disclosed with new power and wisdom in Jesus
Christ—"at once a promise and an imperative demand for devotion to God and
love to fellow men."(6)
As far
as the Church Fathers are concerned, the doctrine of vocation is a correlate of
the doctrine of creation. Man occupies a special position in the created order
as the meeting place of the different spheres of the universe. By virtue of
this position, he is to function as cosmic mediator. It is his vocation and
task to draw together in himself the material and immaterial, the sensible and
intelligible, that through him cosmic harmony may be achieved and deification
bestowed upon the whole creation. By nature and calling, man is both priest and
king. As priest, he is to sanctify life, bringing it into communion with God,
in whom it finds fulfillment. As king, man is given the power to make creation
into what God intended it to become. Thus both functions are aspects of a
single vocation. The fall of man constituted the rejection of this divine
calling.
In
Christ, the second Adam, man’s original vocation is fulfilled and
restored. The one by whom and in whom all things were made in the beginning has
renewed and integrated the entire creation by assuming it himself. Christ is,
therefore, the one true priest in whose priesthood all who through baptism have
been made new are called to participate. He is also the only king through whom
man’s kingship is re-established. The vocation which man lost as a
consequence of the fall is thus restored Christ who “. . . has made us
kings and priests unto God and his Father.’(7) As a consequence,
man’s daily work in all the occupations whereby the fabric of the world is
maintained should be verified as having an epiphanic and restorative
quality.
A
similar understanding of vocation was proclaimed by Martin Luther. Monastic
vows rest, according to Luther, on the false assumption that there is a special
vocation to which superior Christians are called. But there is no such thing,
since the call of God comes to each at his common tasks. In protest against the
restriction of vocation to specifically religious jobs, Luther applied the
concept to the careers of all Christians. Each person has his own task or
station, none of which is to be despised or demeaned. The magistrate has his
duty, the minister his, the soldier his, the school teacher his, the physician
his, the artist his. One is not better than the other. Each is called to serve
God through his daily work. And all Christians are called to be priests one
toward another, to act as mediators and intercessors. Everyone must express his
faith in loving action designed to bring about a new kind of society, a new
quality of life. Thus Luther abolished the distinction between clergy and
laity.(8) The doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers is a
consequence of Luther’s understanding of baptism. If baptism signifies the
return of man to his original role, then it must follow that through baptism
his basic vocation with its dual aspects of priesthood and kingship is
restored.
While
all are priests by virtue of their faith in the word of God, not everyone can
or should assume the task of preaching and teaching. Luther argued that for the
sake of order, certain persons must be selected to the work and office of the
administration of the word of God and the sacraments. “For we must have
bishops, pastors or preachers, to give, administer and use, publicly and
privately, the four things, or precious possessions, that have been mentioned,
for the sake of and in the name of the Church. . . . The whole group cannot do
these things, but must commit them, or allow them to be committed, to someone.
. . . This duty must be committed to one person, and he alone must be allowed
to preach, baptize, absolve, and administer the sacraments. . . .”(9) But,
warned Luther, “. . . no one may make use of this power except by the
consent of the community or by the call of a superior. For what is the common
property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he be
called.”(10)
While
affirming a universal vocation of priesthood shared by all believers, the
Churches of the Anglican tradition recognize that some are called to a specific
ministry which is not merely an extension of the common Christian priesthood.
The nature of that call originates in and is determined by the special function
of the Church itself in relation to God’s reconciling purpose. If the
Church is the sacrament of the kingdom of God, then such offices as may exist
within the Church must assist in the realization of that sacramental mission.
This means that the threefold ministry is itself sacramental. It is a gift of
the Spirit, a form of the divine presence. Therefore, no one can take it upon
himself to become a deacon, priest, or bishop. Such vocation can be undertaken
only as a response to the divine initiative and only with the sanction of duly
established authority. One cannot decide on the basis of his own desires or
aptitudes to assume a ministerial office. It is not enough that one should feel
called to such office. The discernment of vocation is by persistent tradition,
a corporate as well as a personal matter. It is the right and duty of bishops,
representing the Church, to select and admit candidates for holy orders. In the
exercise of this responsibility, the bishop may consult a variety of
specialists—physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, lay counselors,
teachers, priests—as to the state and potential of the applicant. But the
decision regarding the ratification of a vocation is reserved to the
bishop.
In his
classical statement “On the Unity of the Church,” the third-century
bishop, Cyprian, warns against those who attempt to exercise ecclesiastical
office without call and episcopal appointment. “These are they who, with
no appointment from God, take upon them of their own will to preside over their
venturesome companions, establish themselves as rulers without any lawful rite
of ordination. These the Holy Spirit in the Psalms describes as “
‘sitting in the seat of pestilence,’ a plague and infection of the
faith, deceiving with the mouth of a serpent, cunning to corrupt truth,
vomiting out deadly poisons from pestilential tongues."(11) Cyprian further
argues that the sacraments administered by these unauthorized persons are
ineffective. “While there can be no Baptism save one only, they think that
they can baptize. They forsake the fountain of life, yet promise the gift of a
vital and saving water. Men are not cleansed by them, but rather made foul; nor
their sins purged away, but even heaped up: it is a birth that gives children
not to God, but to the Devil.”(12) As far as Cyprian is concerned, the
call to Holy Orders and the exercise of the same are gifts of grace, not
natural rights. And he foresees only the direst consequences for the Church and
its unity when this is not recognized.
Even
Calvin, who did not provide for the office of bishop in the ecclesiastical
structure instituted at Geneva, recognized the need for corporate confirmation
of the individual’s call. In the Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541),
he stipulates that “. . . ministers first elect such as ought to hold
offices; afterwards that he be presented to the City Council; and if he is
found worthy the Council receive and accept him, giving him certification to
produce finally to the people when he preaches, in order that he be received by
the common consent of the company of the faithful."(13) Only after this
procedure has been observed, is it appropriate “to use the imposition of
hands, which ceremony was observed by the apostles and them in the ancient
church.” There have been rare instances in which the will of the Church
itself constituted the call. One thinks, for example, of Ambrose, who at the
time of his election was a Roman magistrate. By his ability to restore order,
he so impressed the unruly group assembled to fill the vacant see of Milan that
he was unanimously elected bishop. Once the emperor authorized his appointment,
Ambrose was baptized, and eight days later consecrated. To Ambrose the election
by the assembly was the call of God.
The
call to priesthood has as its creative center the proclamation of the word and
the administration of the sacraments. Through the communication of the word,
apostolic doctrine is preserved and instruction given to the faithful. Through
the administration of the sacraments, the most basic of which is the Eucharist,
the Church is continually being reconstituted and fulfilled. For the discharge
of these functions the priestly office was established and it is to the
performance of these tasks that, through the centuries, persons have been
called. Together with all members of Christ’s Church, the priest is to be
a witness to God’s concern for the whole creation and for justice and
mercy in the affairs of men. In addition, the priest shares with the bishop
responsibility for oversight and unity in the Church.
The
source and model of this ministry is, of course, Christ himself. He is also the
one whose Spirit provides the qualification for such ministry. As St. Paul
said: “Before God, we are confident of this through Christ: not that we
are qualified in ourselves to claim anything as our own work: all our
qualifications come from God. He is the one who has given us the qualifications
to be the administrators of this new covenant, which is not a covenant of
written letters but of the Spirit: the written letters bring death, but the
Spirit gives life.”(14)
To
declare that the call to and the qualification for priesthood are works of the
Spirit is not to remove or deny the personal elements of struggle and growth.
Who does not, at some point, doubt whether he has received the call to holy
orders? Who is not, from time to time, estranged from the institutional Church
and its structures? Who does not wonder whether they can fulfill the demands of
priesthood? Who does not know some measure of uncertainty regarding the
activity of the Spirit in and through him?
All of
these concerns suggest the possibilities for painful struggle, self-doubt, and
vocational confusion as well as for development, self-assurance, and spiritual
formation, which may be associated with a call to the priesthood. At an even
more basic level is the reality of ministry as gift and the experience of that
gift.
It is
important to note that the gift of ministry, the call to holy orders does not
obliterate human freedom, or deny personal motives, or disregard natural
abilities. Grace does not destroy individuality and personhood, but liberates
and refines it. Thus, in advising one considering the ministry, account must be
taken of the native abilities as well as the skills which a person may have
acquired. Is it possible to imagine all of these finding suitable expression in
the exercise of the ministry? This is one of the considerations involved in the
discernment of vocations,
Concerning those who may require prolonged deliberation before they
offer themselves for the priesthood, the former Bishop of Southwell asks:
“What valid test or criterion is applicable?” And concludes:
“Perhaps the best rough-and-ready answer that can be given, in terms of
human judgment, is to say that in all probability a man’s vocation is what
he can do best, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including his own
constitutional make-up, his abilities and disabilities. That may sound mundane
and prosaic, pitched in a key too low for so high a theme. But the guidance of
God does come through ‘circumstances’—the way things are and the
way we ourselves are. It is in itself the impact of the Spirit of the living
God on the human soul. But we make a mistake if we look for it only in what may
seem the more ‘spiritual’ evidence of exalted emotional experience. .
. . And if the decision a man makes is right, if it is in accordance with
God’s will for him, he ought to be able to justify and defend it by
rational and moral arguments without recourse to the language of
piety.”(15)
This
is not to deny the decisive, utterly self-authenticating experience that
constitutes for some the call to Christian ministry. But it is to say that such
happenings are relatively infrequent. Certainly one should not hold back from
offering himself for holy orders just because he lacks that kind of
experience.
Statements made earlier regarding one’s natural aptitudes for
ministry need clarification. That is to say, priesthood is not to be sought
either as a resolution of a personal or professional identity problem, or as a
means of self-fulfillment or of actualizing one’s potential. This is to
raise the issue of motives or intentions in offering oneself for holy orders.
One may, in fact, discover in the surrender to God’s service an identity,
a fulfillment as a person which far surpasses one’s natural
potentialities. As von Balthazar alleges, “The man obedient to his mission
fulfills his own being, although he could never find this archetype and ideal
of himself by penetrating to the deepest centre of his nature, his super-ego or
his subconscious, or by scrutinising his own dispositions, aspirations, talents
and potentialities. Simon, the fisherman, before his meeting with Christ,
however thoroughly he might have searched within himself, could not possibly
have found a trace of Peter. Yet the form ‘Peter’, the particular
mission reserved for him alone, which till then lay hid in the secret of
Christ’s soul, and at the moment of this encounter, was delivered over to
him sternly and imperatively — was to be the fulfillment of all that, in
Simon, would have sought vainly for a form ultimately valid in the eyes of God
and for eternity. In the form ‘Peter’ Simon was made capable of
understanding the word of Christ, because the form itself issued from the word
and was conjoined with it."(16) So the “form” of one’s vocation
is at one and the same time an act of pure grace, and of one’s membership
in the Mystical Body of Christ, of having participated wholly in the context of
redemption.
Vocation has been spoken of as it applies to all, owing to the
restoration of man’s nature and place in the universe through
Christ’s redemptive activity. It is the duty of every man to serve God in
whatever work or office he may undertake. Beyond this general vocation shared
by all, there are specific offices within the Church to which some are called.
This vocation presupposes both a commission to the individual and ratification
by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority. There are a number of factors
which must be taken into account when deciding whether to pursue holy orders:
the individual’s aptitudes, motives, and circumstances as well as the
Church’s evaluation and position. Whatever the outcome, one may be assured
that all Christians have a vocation to serve God and to participate in his
creative activity.
Notes
1.
Paul Scherer, For We Have This Treasure (New York: Harper & Row,
1944), pp. 4-5.
2. Is
42:6; cf. 48:12.
3. 1
Cor 12:27-28.
4. Rom
11:29.
5. Rom
8:28-30; 11:28-29.
6. R.
L. Calhoun, in Nelson, J. O., ed. Work and Vocation in Christian History
(New York: Harper & Row, 1954), pp. 88-89.
7. Rev
1:6.
8.
Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” Three
Treatises (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1943), p. 234.
9.
Quoted in H. T. Kerr, A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1966), p. 139.
10.
Ibid., pp. 137-38.
11-
Cyprian, “On the Unity of the Church,” chap. X.
12.
Cyprian, op. cit.
13. J.
K. S. Reid, ed. and trans., Calvin: Theological Treatises, Library
Christian Classics, vol. 22 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), p.
59.
14. 2
Cor 3:4-6.
15. F.
R. Barry, Vocation and Ministry (London: J. Nisbet, 1958), p.
22.
16. H.
U. von Balthazar, Prayer (New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc., 1967), p.
49.
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!