(xviii) Wider Ordained Ministry (Lambeth #33)
https://archives.anglican.ca/link/official8483
- Date
- 1969 November 3-7
- Source
- House of Bishops. Minutes
- Type
- Resolution
- Mover
- Bishop of Calgary
- Seconder
- Bishop of Nova Scotia
- Prologue
- The Bishop of Kootenay reported, requesting that the Committee be allowed to continue its work but with wider terms of reference. The report is printed as Appendix A to the Minutes.
- Text of motion
- "That the report of the Committee on a Wider Ordained Ministry be received and that the Committee be asked to continue its work and to consider any other matters which, in their judgment, are related to the question."
- Notes
- APPENDIX A
- BEING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON "A WIDER ORDAINED MINISTRY"
- In a letter dated April 9, 1969, our Primate asked Bishop Scott of Kootenay, Bishop Hambidge of Caledonia, and Bishop Frame of Yukon to form a committee of the House of Bishops in order to consider Resolution 33 of the 1968 Lambeth Conference, and "to see if there are any recommendations that we ought to bring before either the House of Bishops or General Synod."
- Our terms of reference (Resolution 33) are as follows: "This Conference reaffirms Resolution 89 of the Lambeth Conference, 1958, on the Supplementary Ministry and recommends a wider and more confident use of this ministry."
- In turn Resolution 89 (Lambeth '58) reads: "The Conference considers that while the fully-trained and full-time priesthood is essential to the continuing life of the Church, there is no theological principle which forbids a suitable man from being ordained priest while continuing in his lay occupation. While calling attention to Resolution 65 of the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Conference now wishes to go further and to encourage provinces to make provision on these lines in cases where conditions make it desirable. Such a provision is not to be regarded as a substitute for the full-time ministry of the Church but as an addition to it".
- Finally in order that the picture be as complete as possible, we quote Resolution 65 of the Lambeth Conference of 1930: "The Conference for reasons given in the Report of its Committee on the Ministry cannot recommend a widespread adoption of the proposal that men of mature age and assured position might be called by authority, and if willing, ordained to the priesthood without being required to give up their present occupation. But while declaring that ordination to the priesthood involves full and life-long service, not to be made subservient to any other interests, it sees no insuperable objection to the ordination, with provincial sanction, and under proper safe-guards, where the need is great, of such Auxiliary Priests.
- Further, in order to meet the present pressing need, the Conference would not question the action of any Bishop who, with the sanction of the national, regional, or provincial Church concerned, should authorise such licensed Readers as he shall approve to administer the chalice at the request of the Parish Priest."
- Our first reaction is to ask why Lambeth 1930 could not recommend a wide-spread adoption of what appears to have been the much-discussed theories of Roland Allen on "Voluntary Clergy". Under the title of "The Ministry of the Church" the bulk of the report deals with the declining statistics of the number ordained, how best to foster vocations, a long section on the training of the clergy before and after ordination, Deaconesses, Spiritual Healing, Religious Communities, and a short section on "Voluntary Clergy".
- To quote a few sentences: "Your committee feels bound to point out that the scheme, though it has much of attractiveness, presents many difficulties ... (then follow a number of practical problems) ... The Priesthood demands the whole of life ... It should be clear that the man has been called of God". Even so "... your Committee, is disposed to recommend the ordination of such men in regional churches where they are needed." (In 1928, Roland Allen had written: "... the idea of voluntary clergy is gaining ground ... it is, I am told, to come up at Lambeth in 1930 ... one day I believe and hope they will act".)
- Lambeth 1948 says nothing about voluntary clergy or "a wider ordained ministry". Again concern is expressed over the shortage of clergy and a challenge is issued "to boys and young men" ... "to consider whether God is calling them to the ministry of His Church ..." In the Report "The Anglican Communion" from which these words come, two points seem worthy of note: "while it is clear that there can be no lowering of the standard for those to be ordained, it cannot be too emphatically stated that the need for more candidates for the ministry is of the first importance", further the Committee "would stress that ordination is into the ministry of the Church of God, and not into any province or diocese." It is as if the first tentative steps of Lambeth 1930 had never been taken !
- Resolution 89 of the 1958 Lambeth Conference does recognise what was begun in 1930. Provision for a wider ordained ministry is to be made "in cases where conditions make it desireable". The Committee Report "Ministries and Manpower" which underlies Resolution 89 gives us much food for thought: "... changes of many kinds, and in all parts of the world, may imply that the pattern of Ministry, which has served the church for more than a thousand years, now requires to be modified or extended". It goes on, "All our perspectives will be falsified if we do not see the Ordained Ministry in the only context in which it can have meaning: namely within the life of the whole Church, and in the relation of that Ministry to the priestly office inherent in the Body of Christ in the world. There is also a need for a better theology of the Laity, together with an increasing realisation of what is meant by Christian vocation throughout the rank and file of the Church's membership. In a real sense the laity -- that is the laos, the People of God -- are the Church. All baptised members of the Body are called to share in its priestly function, the offering of life as a living sacrifice, acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ ... we are commissioned to bring into the Kingdom of Christ the whole of the common life of man. As the supply of the ordained Ministry falls short of the need, so an ever increasing responsibility must rest upon the Laity of the Church in bearing witness in the world ... whilst provision can be made for the ministry of teaching and preaching by the use of large numbers of Catechists and Readers in many areas, it is impossible to make adequate provision for a sacramental ministry because there are too few priests."
- In 1968 the aspirations of Lambeth 1958 come boldly into print. "To be a Christian is to accept with Jesus the way of self-emptying in order to share with Him the powers of this new age. Thus all ministry is sacred ministry, whether it manifests itself within the ordered life of the Church or through its service of compassion and reconciliation in the world. Alike in confirmation and at the ordering of deacons, priests and bishops, the gift of the Holy Spirit is invoked for the work of the ministry to which the whole Body of Christ is called." And there is more: "In the whole Anglican Communion ... we should expect to find -- and we should encourage -- a corresponding diversity of forms of ministry ... The various patterns of ministry, ordained and lay, are equal; we cannot rightly speak of an 'inferior office' ... we see a need for developments in ministry which go beyond any of the existing forms."
- From 1930 to 1968 long strides have been made in this area of "a wider ordained ministry"; but as more and more thought is given to the subject and increasing number of problems arise -- as your Committee discovered in discussing the matter. Some hint of their nature can be seen in the statements of Lambeth '58 and '68. A discussion of "a wider ordained ministry" or of "voluntary clergy" inevitably leads us to a "better theology of the Laity".
- Lambeth 1930 besides giving certain well-known and practical problems as reasons why they could not recommend any widespread adoption of such proposals, suggested two principles which they considered of cardinal importance:
- 1. the Priesthood demands the whole of life and must not be subservient to any other interests;
- 2. anyone seeking ordination must be clearly called of God
- If only by implication we are bound to ask whether it is not true that the vocation of any Christian demands "the whole of life" and it may not be "subservient to any other interests." To quote our Catechism: "Remember always that Baptism represents unto us our profession, which is to follow our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto Him." Surely we mean what we teach. The fact that some particular ministry may be exercised "full-time" has proven a generally useful tradition; but are we ready to suggest that any ordained man must by right of his office, be supported ? Presumably this applies to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
- As for the second principle, we should have great difficulty reconciling this notion of a solely subjective criterion for Ministry with our generally acceptable practise of choosing Bishops. The voice of the Church must be heard. And underlying that is our belief that all men are called into their Baptismal Priesthood. Consider Lambeth '68: "Vocation to God's service in the ordained ministry is never the concern of an individual alone. It is also that of the Church which he is to serve and of the bishop who bears the responsibility of ordaining him."
- And it is perhaps here that we can best point to a confusion that can be traced throughout these Lambeth Reports. "Ministry" or "Ordination" do not necessarily mean Priesthood. Lambeth '30 identifies the two constantly. In criticising Roland Allen's thesis the assumption is made throughout that it is the Priesthood that is in question. Indeed Allen himself is guilty of this over-simplification of the problem. Whenever shortage of clergy is raised , it is always in terms of "priests". We boast of a three-fold order of ministry. Yet many of our documents and much that is written on the subject pay scant attention to the facts. Here is one place where the concept of "a wider ordained ministry" needs to be thoroughly understood. "Ministry" does not necessarily mean "priesthood". Indeed if we are to be completely true to the facts, the New Testament speaks of more than a three-fold order of ministry and we would do well to consider to what extent our continual narrowing of the whole notion of "vocation", "ordination" and "ministry" has contributed to the problems that have been troubling us for so long. Lambeth '58 seems to point in the right direction when it suggests the pattern of ministry that has served the church for more than a thousand years may need to be modified or extended. If we have three orders of ministry, then let us recognise the fact and stop trying to make the priesthood -- at the expense of episcopacy and the diaconate -- into some kind of panacea. It is interesting to note that current discussions about the ordination of women are totally confused on this very point. If we are agreed that women may become Deacons in the Church, then the matter is resolved. Let us not make the mistake with women that we have made with men -- that every female vocation is automatically to the priesthood. We are looking at "a wider ordained ministry" not the narrow one with which we have lived for so long.
- Lambeth '48 raises another principle that needs to examined. "...ordination is into the ministry of the Church of God, and not into any province or diocese." Yet it is clear that in spite of the authority imparted at the service of ordination -- "Take thou authority..." -- each ordinand must be licensed by a specific Bishop in order that he may function in a specific place.
- What is at stake here ? In our present practice are we suggesting that special grace is conferred through the Bishop, but even so, a special license is required before such grace may be "used" in a particular place ? Or are we really "ordering" persons to a function within the life of a church and authorising them to function as a representative of a bishop in particular places ? Clarification is needed here. What is ordination ? As Mollie Batten asked at Lambeth '68: "What more can you give me ?"
- If there are certain universal orders of ministry in the Church, what relation do these bear to each other and to the whole body of Christ ? And further is not Baptism equally as universal ? No one is baptised or confirmed into any province or diocese, nor is any license required for them to "practice" their share in the Christ-life when they move from one diocese to another. Their identity is not provincial, or diocesan, and is certainly not congregational. Indeed one might ask whether it is even denominational ! If we must license ordinands to particular bishops and particular places, is there not room here to consider more carefully this principle of universalism and, in turn, what actually happens at Ordination ? Can we not say that in one sense Ordination is really a narrowing of a universal baptismal vocation to a particular ministry in a particular place at a particular time, under a particular bishop ? Lambeth '58 points to our "falsified perspectives". Is there a sense in which we have been looking at things upside down ? Perhaps it is the "baptised priesthood" whose order is universal and, we might add, indelible.
- And that brings us to our last point. Lambeth '68 says, "Alike in confirmation and at the ordering of deacons, priests, and bishops, the gift of the Holy Spirit is invoked for the work of the ministry to which the whole Body of Christ is called." It is on this very point that your Committee became bogged down. Before we can proceed to implement any suggestions regarding "a wider ordained ministry", we are in desperate need of clarification with regard to the inconsistencies that abound in our practice of Baptism and Confirmation. Is Confirmation a gratuitous bow in the direction of coming of age ? Is it the occasion when the baptised make their personal commitment to Christ and his Church ? Or is it actually the other half of Baptism, without which Baptism is incomplete ? Is Confirmation a first principle as our Prayer Book suggests ? Is it essential ? If not, then let's be done with it. If it is essential then we must stop talking of Baptism (meaning the first stage of initiation) as if that alone were essential. "Baptism" then would mean the complete initiation rite of the Church and would include "the laying on of hands."
- And Lambeth '68 seems to be aware of the problem. "We are concerned at the lack of any form of commissioning for laymen analogous to the ordination of clergy." We commend the following alternatives as possible lines of experiment: (a) Admission to Holy Communion and confirmation would be separate. When a baptised child is of appropriate age, he or she would be admitted to Holy Communion after an adequate course of instruction. Confirmation would be deferred to an age when a young man or woman shows adult responsibility and wishes to be commissioned and confirmed for his or her task of being a Christian in society." (This alternative does complicate the picture.) (b) "Infant baptism and confirmation would be administered together, followed by admission to Holy Communion at an early age after appropriate instruction. In due course the Bishop would commission the person for service when he or she is capable of making a responsible commitment." (And how would such commissioning differ from ordination ?)
- Lambeth '68 is aware of the problem; but the alternatives offered do not appear to get to the root of it. Your Committee is in the same situation. We can but remind you of Resolution 25, Lambeth '68. "The Conference recommends that each province or regional church be asked to explore the theology of baptism and confirmation in relation to the need to commission the laity for their task in the world, and to experiment in this regard."
- Before we can begin implementing any part of "Towards a Wider Ordained Ministry" (Lambeth '68) serious attention must be given to widening our existing orders, to what actually happens in Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination, to the whole question of the "universality" and "indelibility" of "holy" orders, and finally to "a better theology of the Laity." Then we shall be in a position to "go further and ... make provision for ..." a wider ordained ministry. We can agree with Lambeth '68 that "parochial and non-parochial, full and part-time, stipendiary and honourary clergy are all needed"; but there are too many inconsistencies, too many assumptions, too much danger of "falsified perspectives" for us to proceed at once.
- Subjects
- Ministry - Anglican Church of Canada
- Ministry - Anglican Communion
- Anglican Church of Canada - Clergy - Appointment, call and election
- Anglican Church of Canada - Clergy, Non-stipendiary
- Priest workers
- Anglican Church of Canada - Clergy - Secular employment
- Priesthood - Anglican Church of Canada
- Priesthood - Anglican Communion
- Vocation - Religious aspects - Anglican Church of Canada
- Laity - Anglican Church of Canada
- Lay ministry - Anglican Church of Canada
- Lambeth Conference, 1930 - Resolutions
- Lambeth Conference, 1958 - Resolutions
- Lambeth Conference, 1968 - Resolutions
- Baptism - Anglican Church of Canada
- Confirmation - Anglican Church of Canada
- Christian initiation - Anglican Church of Canada