Does the C of E ordain ‘priests’?
Over the summertime I enjoyed reading Graham Tomlin'southward recent bookThe Widening Circle: priesthood equally God's manner of blessing the globe. Graham has merely moved from beingness Principal of St Mellitus College in London, which has been seen equally the pioneer of the new pattern of 'contextual' ordination training, to become Bishop of Kensington. I had just heard Graham speak at a New Wine seminar of which I was host, and the volume is marked by the same clear teaching style that Graham presents in person. He offers an interesting mix of theological reflection and reference to main sources, and the whole volume is set out as a kind of thought experiment, in which he advances a tentative thesis. Information technology gives the book a sense of gentle clarity—merely is the thesis really persuasive?
His thesis is this: that God'southward way of dealing with the world is through an intermediary agent, and that agent somehow 'participates' in both parties for whom he or she is acting every bit intermediary. We often use the language of 'priesthood' for such an intermediary, and if this is the case, then 'ministerial priesthood' is but 1 example among many of God's way dealing with the world. Tomlin sets out the appeal of this: in a Church building often divided on this issue, finding language that could be shared past both Protestant and Cosmic would be 'a prize indeed.'
The Introduction sets out the issues effectually the discussion 'priest', and in detail the paradox that, in some circles, the term represents the apogee of spirituality, whilst for others information technology represents the worst abuses of the Church as institution. He connects the idea of priesthood with election in the OT, and observes the shape of Jesus' priesthood in terms of descent and ascension, which the frames the side by side couple of capacity. Here, as in several places, I was surprised that no mention was fabricated of an obvious biblical text which illustrated this—in this case, Phil ii. I am not sure if this is just the sign of someone focussed on biblical studies reading something written by a systematic theologian.
Affiliate ane takes the first of these movements—the downwardly—and explores the incarnation largely through the Alphabetic character to the Hebrews. Along the style, Tomlin gives us a nice primer in Christology with references to a number of the Fathers, but too advances his thesis:
Christ is priest considering he is the Mediator—the one who binds together both humanity and divinity in 1. The incarnate Son is non a 3rd party who reconciles humanity and God. Instead, Christ'south arbitration betwixt God and humanity is dependent on his sharing the full nature of both.
The logic here reminded me a little of Anselm'due south inCur Deus Homo? though used with a different controlling metaphor. Tomlin then draws on Calvin and Torrance (in a characteristic knitting together of the early church, Reformers, and gimmicky theologians) to illustrate the importance of this.
Chapter 2 then moves on to the 2d move, of 'ascent'. I was slightly puzzled every bit to why the crucifixion belonged here, rather than in 'descent' every bit Paul has it—a slightly inexplicable Johannine moment (since John sees the cross as 'glory' and non 'abandonment'). Tomlin again explores Jesus every bit priest through Hebrews—though, curiously, the OT priests are in fact non proper priests since they don't 'participate' in God. From Calvin on crucifixion, Tomlin moves to Pannenberg to assistance us encounter the significance of the resurrection. (Barth might excite our passions, but it is Pannenberg who clears our minds.) The resurrection establishes and confirms the priesthood of Christ, since it confirms God's verdict on his life and his claims, and shows him to be ane with the Father.
The 3rd chapter takes a historical turn, and traces the way that the early church started to adopt priestly linguistic communication (hiereus in Greek,sacerdos in Latin)—and the fashion that the Reformers rather brutally rejected this. I am seriously tempted to say that all ordinands ought to read, acquire and inwardly digest the quotations hither (pp 57–63).
The move that Luther makes is not and then much to utilise the idea of priesthood to the laity, just effectively to deny the stardom between the clergy and the laity birthday…
For Calvin, as for Luther, the word 'priest' is appropriate, not for a special caste within the Church, only for all Christians…The basic fact is that the New Testament does simply speak of two main types of priesthood: the priesthood of Christ, and the priestly character and calling of the Church. There is no mention of the wordhiereus in relation to Christian ministers—a whole range of other words are used (presbuteros, diakonos, episkopos, apostolos,etc) just nonhiereus.
Christ remains the but true Loftier Priest. We do not have any priesthood that is outside of his. Any other priesthood held by the church building, humanity or Christian ministers is a sharing in Christ'due south priesthood, a manner in which his priesthood is exercised in the world.
In setting out the event then conspicuously, Tomlin sets himself an ambitious goal in seeking to reclaim the term 'priest' for ministry in a Reformed context.
He does this past taking a step back, and looking (in chapter 4) at the priesthood of humanity in creation: nosotros were made to mediate God to the created world, to aidperfect the world, and tooffer information technology in praise to God. Here we come to another great virtue of this text—Tomlin'southward willingness to admit where his case is weak or has critics. Thus he cites Richard Bauckham, who criticises this kind of approach as part of the 'anthropocentric fantasy that God relates to the residue of creation just via humans.' More than persuasive is chapter v, where Tomlin focusses on the priestly role of the people of God in the world. Here he uses the 'mediate, perfect, offer' paradigm to skillful outcome, and in the section on evangelism I sensed he was at his nearly comfy, making this significant observation:
One of the very few places in the New Testament where priestly action is explicitly carried out past the Church building or by Christians is a reference not to the Eucharist, nor even to approval or absolution, just to evangelism…Evangelism is, perchance surprisingly, 1 of the most priestly acts of the Church building.
The church that fails to engage with this priestly activity, the church that forgets the centrality of evangelism has forgotten its true calling, to be the ways whereby Christ makes his priestly offering to God of people ransomed, healed and forgiven.
If affiliate 5 is the strongest, so affiliate half dozen is the weakest. Here Tomlin tries to contend for a singled-out, 'priestly' part for clergy, and it is notable that as he does so, he is not able to lean on Scripture or Reformed theologians in the manner that he has previously. Indeed, some of what he says here is fighting against what he has said previously, and he has 2 particular bug.
The first is in the language of ministry in the NT that he has previously highlighted. As Robert Banks points out (inPaul's Idea of Community) Paul takes a radically unlike view of God'southward people from both Jewish and pagan religious ideas:
Paul's dissolution of traditional distinctions: betwixt priest and laity
Within the church building, distinctions betwixt priest and layman, mediatorial and mutual service, cultic ritual and secular activity, do non and cannot exist…
Between officials and ordinary members
Paul rejects the idea of certain members of the community possessing formal rights and powers…
Between holy men and common people
Paul has no identify in his view of community for the traditional distinctions between its members along cultic, official or religious lines… (chapter 13)
This is not suggesting that Paul's thinking near church organisation was undeveloped, and needed filling out in the post-churchly era—quite the contrary. These things were the hallmark of the piece of work of the Spirit, recreating a new humanity later the pattern of Jesus'due south life and ministry—and it is i resulting precisely from the reconfiguration of priesthood by the life, expiry and resurrection of Jesus. If we borrow Tom Wright'southward paradigm of new covenant and new creation—agreement the church as both the renewal of Israel and the renewal of cosmos—then the priesthood of the people of God both renews the priesthood of humanity and reforms the priesthood of Israel. Neither of these allows the development of a priestly 'caste.'
The 2nd thing that Tomlin is fighting confronting here is the linguistic communication of the Church of England itself. Although information technology uses the discussion 'priest' with reference to clergy, it does and then in a highly qualified fashion, and 1 that doesn't permit for the common agreement of a priestly degree with a distinctive mediatorial part in line with other religious traditions. Information technology is the 'ministerial' priesthood; in parts of the Anglican Communion the term presbyter is preferred. In Communion, the person leading is the 'president' and not the celebrant or priest. He or she stands at a table, not an altar—the word occurs nowhere in authorised Church of England liturgy. In the Roman Mass, the people pray 'May the Lord take the sacrifice at your easily'; such linguistic communication is just not possible for us in the Church of England. In signing off Common Worship, Synod explicitly rejected any language of 'offer', so that the Eucharistic Prayers talk only of the gifts 'we bring before you' (Prayers B, E and G). If you lot mind advisedly, you lot can almost hear the language of 'offering' being side-stepped.
All this is because Cranmer took the understanding of 'priest' dorsum to its etymological origin—it is a contraction of 'presbyter'—by pulling the church back to NT understandings of ministry. Communion at present focuses not so much on what the president is doing, but on how the people are receiving (see Colin Buchanan,What Did Cranmer Think He Was Doing?). It is striking that those who wish for a more distinct, sacerdotal understanding of ordained ministry must await to other liturgies (the rejected 1928 Prayer Book, or the Roman Missal) for support; the Church of England'southward liturgy every bit information technology is simply does non give them what they need.
It is worth reflecting on whether weneed to recover a 'priestly' agreement of ministry. I can quite understand Tomlin's desire to reform (or restrain?) some of the gimmicky language of leadership, every bit he aims to do in the final chapter. But my reading of gimmicky reflections on the church is that a greater need is for both 'clergy' and 'laity' to have a larger vision of the priestly ministry of the whole people of God. In this book, Tomlin offers a good deal of material which supports that task admirably—and some clear, substantial theology which provides much food for thought.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, would you consideraltruistic £i.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, you can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Proficient comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful argue, tin add real value. Seek offset to understand, then to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a conflict to win; accost the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/does-the-c-of-e-ordain-priests/
0 Response to "Does the C of E ordain ‘priests’?"
Postar um comentário