Ordination: The Ontological Question
Dennis M Campbell, in “The Yoke of Obedience: The Meaning of Ordination in Methodism,” writes, “The lack of attention to ordination was made clear to me once when, as a member of the Board of Ordained Ministry, I asked a candidate for Elder’s Orders to explain theologically what would happen in the ordination service when the bishop placed hands on the ordinand’s head. They young man was unable to answer the question, except to say that he would then have the credentials to be a minister. I asked him why we didn’t just mail the certificate of credentials and save the annual conference the expense and time of an ordination service? He could not give a good reason. He is not alone. I realized then that many students never deal specifically with the theology of ordination…(9-10).
I could be that candidate…I am that candidate…which is exactly why I have made it my top priority to understand this culminating event in my last couple of weeks before ordination. Classically, this discussion happens within the realm of sacraments, and although Protestants dismiss it from the litany of sacraments, its dismissal is solely due to its lack of dominical institution, i.e. it was not commanded by Christ. In all other respects, it shares the nature of the sacraments.
It is an outward sign of an inward grace. It is a means of the grace it signifies. It has a physical sign, the laying on of hands. It has a specific Trinitarian formula, “Therefore, Father, through Jesus Christ your Son, give your Holy Spirit to N.; fill him with grace and power, and make him a priest in your Church” (or something to that effect depending on the polity of the denomination in question). These things remain largely unchallenged.
The biggest, and most contentious, question lies in the nature of the ordinand. Classical sacramental theology also includes the element of “ontological” (real and substantial) change. The bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Jesus. In the waters of baptism, the candidate experiences a “new birth” as a “new creation.” In a marriage two become one. The question then becomes, what is the ontological (what is the real change) that happens to the ordinand when hands are laid upon her and she is consecrated to God as a priest/elder in the church?
This is the question at the very heart of the questions I’ve been asking about ordination. This is the question with which I still struggle and to which I have not yet found an adequate answer. So as I continue my quest toward ordination, I want to ask you all:
1) Do you believe this “ontological” change component to be necessary to a sacrament?
2) If so, why is this important? If not, what is the point of the sacrament?
3) What is the ontological change that happens in & to the ordinand?
I will have my answer for you all before my ordination. Perhaps your thoughts can help this struggling candidate. Thank you all for your prayer and support during this long phase of my preparation. May the peace of Christ be with you all.
eef
Home Office
6th Sunday of Easter, Anno Domini 2007
posted by EF + at 9:11 PM
14 Comments:
Hey Eric, I just randomly came across your blog from Evan and Julia's, but I wanted to ask this question in response to your's: Since the Nazarene church doesn't recognize ordination as a sacrament, isn't your question concerning the ontic change of the "ordanee" nonapplicable and/or irrelevant?
Caleb,
Thanks for checking in. I want to respond in two ways. First, the question can be answered with logic. If X=a+b+c+d+e and Y= a+b+d+e, then Y does not equal X. Ordination is not a sacrament in the Church of the Nazarene because it lacks dominical institution. That in no way means that it s ontic element must be questioned. It only means that it lacks Athe complete set of components definative of a "sarament." Therefore to ask this question is neither nonapplicable nor irrelevant.
Second, as good holiness people ought to know, God is not a God who is simply in the business of imputed changes. When people pray at the altar-rail and confess their sin, they say "I am saved." Nazarenes interpret this as an imputed change, ie God granting them a new status, or God declaring them to be saved. By that we mean they are Justified and they are Adopted. God declares they are not guilty (whether they are or not) and God declares them God's children (a change in name). But that is not all God is doing. Our God is a God of Imparted change. When that person is declared justified and adopted, that person is also Regenerated. They are really and actually changed. They are a new creation experiencing a new birth. The old them has died and they are made new! Whenever we are tempted to see only an imputed change, we must resist that temptation and seek the deeper imparted change. It is God's nature to be a creator. God is in the business of creating and recreating.
If there is no real change, then I would just prefer to have my certificate mailed. We need not continue to confuse people with empty rituals. However, I don't believe these rituals are empty. Our Tradition (big T Christianity, not little t Nazarene) teaches these rituals to be effective and life changing. That is why we still do them.
I go back to the question with which I opened my post. "What happens in the ordinattion service when the bishop places hands on the ordinand's head?" We ought to at least have an adequate response to that basic question.
How would you respond to that question?
NICE ROBE!
First, let me apologize. I was reading over my first comment, and it seemed a little abrasive. I didn't intend for it to be, so I'm sorry.
Second, I agree with your assessment concerning imputed/imparted change; it seems to be a major problem in many churches today, especially in regards to salvation. Hence, if one intellectually and cognitively assents to a bunch of abstract theological principles, then one experiences a metaphysical status change. Boo on that for two reasons: 1), there is no real change (which is simply reemphasizing what you said), and 2), salvation becomes all about me, the individual. Amen, brother; I'm in solidarity with your critique.
My question is much more specific to ordination (something I'm currently struggling with). Since it isn't a sacrament, why would we assume it has all the characteristics of a sacrament except dominical institution (i.e. why would we assume it carries with it ontologoical change)? Could it be that ordination is not about us and our ontological or metaphysical status change but about the Church (the big "C" Church) and its continuation of the Missio Dei? In this sense, then, it wouldn't have to be an empty ritual, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be a sacrament either. So . . . ordination wouldn't be primarily about changing us but about the church commissioning those in its fold to perform the duties and activities of the pastor/priest.
Let me know what you think about this because I'm still pretty open to revision . . . even an ontic change revision. If ordination does produce an ontic change, what do you think it could/would be?
Caleb,
I didn't take it as abrasive, so no worries. You are right, I do not have to assume and ontic change. The problem I have is that in the service the hands are laid on the ordinand, and the liturgy (in the Roman Catholic Church, the Book of Common Prayer and the Methodist Book of Worship) talk of the ardinand as the object of blessing. There is an epiclesis (prayer for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit) just as there is in the Sacraments. In the sacraments this classically (I understand we may not follow exactly here as there is no epliclesis in our Manual rites) is the point of change. It thus follows that liturgically there is an expectation of some type of change.
I have no problems at all with your explanation in terms of the missio Dei. I just think it is incomplete. As much as anything we do is all about God, so too is this. But it is about me, or you, or whomever. We are the ones being ordained. We are the ones upon which hands are laid. We are the ones over whom the epiclesis is prayed. Thus I must have something to do with it.
As far as what that change is, in all of the traditions listed above the idea is that we become...well...the RCC uses the idea of "in persona chisti" -- in the person of Christ, and the Methodist Church speaks of "the representative man." This takes quite seriously the extending of the missio, but also takes seriously the real change (Methodists do not view this as a sacrament either).
I don't understand the extent of this change any more than I understand "this is my body...this is my blood." Is it cellularly bread and wine or is it flesh and blood? Am I genetically Eric or genetically Christ? I think those are the wrong questions.
Perhaps this raises more questions than it gives answers, but it is late and I need to get to bed. Perhaps more thoughts later on the "in persona Christi."
Might I recommend the two books listed in my reading list on the subject:
Yoke of Obedience
Gift and Mystery
---
Thanks for the dialogue. I thought I might get more debate than what I got. Peace!
Eric (et. al.),
OK, I don't really have anything to add to this conversation so far, (which is why I usually don't post) but I think we would agree that, as in other sacraments, God is the one at work here. We need to "show up." Whatever God does (& I totally get the imparted, imputed, regeneration thing) there is (or should be) a substantive (please read carefully) change.
My questions is, in light of this week's revelations regarding a recent ordinand, what does it mean to even "show up" at all? To me, whatever God was trying to do in transforming this person into in persona Christi was immediately distorted through sin. Someone did not show up.
If I believe in a progressive or gradual work of sanctification, I can say what ordination does is confirm that transformation . . . apparently that did not happen in this case.
Perhaps the fault lies as much on the church leadership who blindly fail to recognize what that change should really look like. Am I making any sense?
Anyway, if you haven't already, I think Keith Drury provides some good insight into waiting for ordination. OK, I've got to go. Evan's getting irate. :)
Grace & Peace,
Julia
To speak of "in persona chisti" or "the representative man" seems much more like salvation language rather than ordination language to me (but then again, so does ontic change). Do non-clergy get to represent Christ or participate in his person? And if they do, then wouldn't this mean that ordination has no significant ontic change to offer.
This returns to my basic qualm concerning non-universal sacraments (i.e. sacraments that not everyone is able to participate in - such as marriage, ordination, etcetera). Are those who partipate in them more spiritual (having received more of an ontic change) than those who have not / do not? Is the clergy more Christian or more spiritual than the laity? Are they closer to God?
Also, I think Julia brings up a good point. If ordination provides an ontic change in the "ordanee", then how do we account for all the ordained ministers who have seemingly never experienced such a change? They've shown up at the ordination service, had hands placed upon them, and left to commit horrendous sins.
For these reasons, I'm much more inclined to view ordination as symbolic without an ontic change. But then again, I've never been ordained either.
Wow. I'm following this dialog with great interest. I appreciate both points of view. Caleb, I haven't given any consideration to the sacraments as being in a "category" as universal vs non-universal before. But is marriage a thing that some one cannot participate in other than choosing not to? A tangential thought would be marriage and homosexuality (and our cultural battle for their rights to participate in it) but that's not here. I'm wondering about the "system" that allows both clergy and laity (within the Roman system) to both participate and live in and into the sacramental, whether it be orders or marriage. Does that make any sense?
Michael, not all laity are married, so distinguishing between clergy and laity via the sacraments of holy orders and matrimony still leaves people out.
This is my major hesitancy about ordination. With every sacrament (like Eric has said earlier) one is changed/transformed and given grace. Thus, to receive communion is better than to not receive it, and to be baptized is better than to not be baptized. Why? Because to receive grace is better than to not receive grace, and to be changed/transformed is better than to not be changed/transformed. Now, what about the other sacraments? Are we really willing to say that to be ordained is better than to not be ordained? If we are, I think we would be forced to say that the clergy are “better” than the laity, for they have been ordained while the laity has not. Also, are we willing to say that to be married is better than to remain single? Although there are parts of the Bible which might indicate this, the Apostle Paul obviously doesn’t think so. This is why I have a hard time thinking that one ontologically changes (i.e. is transformed) in ordination, marriage, etcetera.
Maybe my understanding of sacrament is off-base, but I would think they would be things that all could (and should) participate in, especially if they are transformational and grace-giving.
Thank you guys for the post. I fully understand the concern over the "universality" issue. The only ones included in that particular issue are Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony. Our modern Protestant eyes create the illusion of difficulty here.
I believe the problem to be a historical one. If my memory serves me, the others were univesal and then each person was to choose one or the other of Orders or Matrimony. Orders were in many ways a marriage. The ordinand was married to the church. It worked with the assumption that one should not have split priorities (a problem most of us in ministry understand). Can one devote oneself to a spouse fully if she is also devoted to the church in a pastoral way? Can one devote oneself fully to the church if she is also devoted to a spouse and family?
Historically, it wasn't that some didn't get one or the other, but one chose the one to whom they would be sacramentally tied.
This presents us a problem in our thinking because (1) we allow ordination and marriage and (2) in the Church of the Nazarene we have no "orders" for those who are not called into a marital relationship to a person and chose to live a life of celibacy.
I tend to look at the issue as not one of who is better, but rather to whom am I call to bind myself sacramental...to fully love and serve. In our tradition we have a tough row to hoe because we want the best of both and balancing that tightrope is not an easy task...
Again, thank you all for your thoughts. I am now ordained. I look forward to our continued conversations.
For you and With you,
Pastor Eric +
please read "guys" as "friends"!
Is there a problem when one enters into the sacrament of Eucharist in an "unworthy manner?" What about baptism? Marriage? Ordination? If God truly calls and God's church ordains, what is the church to do with a pastor who is not called or worse, called and yet enters into ordination in an "unworthy manner?" (As in recent events that have come to light.)
If the sacrament makes us better, would it not, at least to some degree, be dependant upon the "worthiness" of which the sacrament is received? If so, the one who isn't called to this vocation of holiness we call the pastorate, yet seeks ordination would be recieving in an unworthy manner. Perhaps for her betterment, she must remain laity. If one enters into marriage in an "unworthy manner" would it not have been better for him to have remained single?
Caleb, this is perhaps a bit of a loophole for those of us who believe both ordination and marriage should be taken more seriously. A sort of we can have our cake and eat it too. The better state would not necessarily depend soley upon the sacrament, but on the prevenient grace that calls us to that sacrament in the first place. For me, God has used my wife to change me, make me better. She is sacramental, a real means of grace. I only hope I am the same for her. I am better for entering into covenant with God and Julia. Though this might not have been the case for just anyone.
The universiality of sacraments may not be easy to grasp. There are those who come to the table with no desire for God to change them, yet they recieve. Same with ordination (see Stephen Kerr). The ontic change that may or may not be there would not have happened. (help me to see whether or not this follows.)
One other thing. What if the change is not merely ontic. As some of you may know, I am more interested in ethics as first philosophy, not metaphysics or ontology. If not ethics, I'd settle for epistemology. We have no problem with the understanding that I am changed ethically by the canon of practices, particularly the strong medicine of Holy Eucharist.
These are just thoughts, not hard opinion, so don't anyone jump me. I still need to work through all of this.
I agree about the "worthiness" aspect. A previous pastor always included in his liturgy "the worthiness of which Paul speaks is not a perfect life, but an open and contrite heart before God."
I think of worthiness in terms of faith. Sacramentology typically focuses on the worthiness of the officiant (ie Apostolic Succession) and the proper words/elements. But it also includes worthiness of the recipient. That is often defined in different ways. Most often Baptism is the sign of worthiness. The key, I think, is the faith by which we are part of the community of the faithful.
I was reading an article this morning in the Wesleyan Theological Journal about sacraments and ecclesiology holding together the practice of Wesleyanism and Catholicism and Orthodoxy. There was a quote from a statement on eccumenism from Vatican 2. It talked about "Justification by Faith through baptism." So even there, the worthiness is the faithfulness of the recipient. When receiving, one must ask oneself if they are receiving out of faithful response to and in faithful seeking of the grace of God.
Man this is fun...
Eric, I feel the difficulty still stands. It simply isn’t a case of one choosing either the sacrament of holy orders or the sacrament of matrimony, and I don’t feel like this is merely a matter of a modern, Protestant mindset. Take, for instance, nuns; they have never received either sacrament. The Roman Catholic church only bestows the sacrament of holy orders to men, and they certainly haven’t received the sacrament of matrimony either. There’s simply too many people who fall by the wayside. Therefore, I think my previous argument still holds water: If being baptized is better than not being baptized, and if receiving the Eucharist is better than not receiving the Eucharist, and if receiving a sacrament (i.e. God’s grace) is better than not receiving a sacrament (i.e. God’s grace), then being ordained is better than not being ordained, and being married is better than not being married (and the latter directly contradicts I Corinthians 7). For these reasons (as well as for a host of others), Protestant denominations, including the Church of the Nazarene, have historically refused to designate either ordination or marriage as a sacrament.
Evan, I believe both ordination and marriage should be taken more seriously as well (and probably more-so in regards to the latter), but I don’t think the designation of sacrament is the answer. This doesn’t mean that ordination or marriage cannot be understood as sacramental . . . I hope they are . . . but so is prayer, worship, Scripture reading, our families and friends, etcetera. Many things could be considered as a “means of grace” but not necessarily as a sacrament.
Post a Comment
<< Home