Whose calling in an incoherent Church? (art. XXIII)
(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)
After a rather brief diversion into Purgatory, the articles return in number 23 to the organisation and ministry of the Church of England. (Of course, the present Archbishop may currently be feeling that Purgatory is precisely where such questions lead.)
XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.
This takes a stand asserting episcopē over charismatic authority. It is not sufficient for someone to feel they have a calling: that calling must be discerned, validated, and echoed by those who have authority. There does appear to have been some ambiguities in practice with the recognition of those ordained in non-episcopal churches on the Continent, and it is hard to know how much these represented particular theological positions, and how much practical ecumenical generosity borne out of a sense of common cause against the papacy. But, as far as I can ascertain, the preface to the Ordinal remained essentially the same (in this point, at least) in 1549 and 1552, despite the more Calvinist tone of the latter. In what follows I indicate the changes between 1552 and 1662.
It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man [1552 adds by his own private authority] might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were [1552 omits were] approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority [1552 omits by lawful Authority]. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the [1552 reads this] Church of England,* it is requisite that no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.
[*1552 reads for this last section: (not being at this present Bishop, Priest nor Deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following]
In one sense, again, this shows the weakness of Cranmer’s earlier article on the visible Church. There is no easy way to relate what he says there to what is said between article and ordinal here. Here the universal Church stretches back in visible documented history that is “evident to all men” to the time of the Apostles, and the writing of the Scriptures. Here also Cranmer makes clear that he intends that “these Orders may be continued” and so stakes a claim for the Church of England to be a visible expression of this catholic Church in this realm.
Cranmer is reforming the church, not refounding it, and the visible organisation and transmission of authority through episcopal orders is intended to trump any claim to immediate authority granted solely through an individual sense of being called by the Spirit, having the true meaning of the Scriptures, or being authorised by a congregation.
One of the questions that taking this seriously throws up for today’s Church is the appropriate level of authorization for particular lay ministries. In theory, and in most places, the ministry of lay preaching is carried out under a similar pattern of diocesan discernment, training and episcopal licensing through the order of Readers. The ministry of assisting at the Eucharist and taking Communion to the sick is carried out through parochial discernment and training, and episcopal licensing. Those congregations that see fit to organize their own recognition of these ministries are not only going against article and ordinal, but have simply failed to take due note of these as ministries of the whole Church.
But there are a great many other ministries, some of which are still rare or patchy, such as evangelist, lay pastor /pastoral assistant, or those who share collaboratively in the leading of worship. Here there is no coherence in discerning vocations, offering training, or authorizing these ministries from diocese to diocese, which is a strange way to honour either people’s vocations or the bishops’ responsibility for oversight. Not all (or even perhaps the majority of ) ministries need episcopal licensing, some do. Others require perhaps a corporate assent, which would include the bishop’s general consent, and then specific and more local developments.
There are the widespread and common ministries of reading the scriptures in public worship and leading people in prayer, where, to be frank, parishes rarely seem to exercise much discernment about whether people have a calling to do this (and I suggest both these ministries are more important than we treat them) or are trained to do it. And obviously, one could add a great many more, but the principle of appropriate discernment, training and commissioning enshrined in this article for ordained ministry, is one that could profitably be extended, and made coherent for all — not least for the benefit of all those who have been on the receiving end of an incomprehensible reading, or a homily masquerading as prayers of intercession.
It is also at least arguable that the clash between this article on a legitimately authorised ministry, the earlier emphasis on the visible church in a congregation that proclaims the word and ministers the sacraments, and the always hidden but ever-present reality of a national church, is in large part to blame for the incoherence currently affecting the Anglican Communion. The confusion in Cranmer’s ecclesiology is at least as much to blame as new readings (or misreadings – take your pick) of scripture for the current situation where some priests feel they can choose their own bishop, and some bishops feel they can exercise authority in whichever diocese they want to. (Not that I would minimise the problems of American cultural isolationism and internal culture wars, nor the ambitions and egos of those who are competing for the role of first Anglican Pope, and feel that a humble archbishop is weak one.)
It is a stunningly awful practical illustration of the inability Anglicans have had to make a workable theological system out of Cranmer’s inconsistency, and an indictment of the Church of England’s inability to do what, I think, I have repeatedly demonstrated was necessary: to revise these articles coherently with fresh readings of scripture, and due attention to traditional ones. Relying on the British Empire and a form of common prayer in Tudor English to disguise major fault-lines has proved to be no substitute for a coherent ecclesiology.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
More good stuff - but your last paragraph makes me wonder: are you going to try your hand at updating them at some point (updating meaning, in some cases, abandonment)?
October 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I hesitate to say never, but…
October 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Is it by the logic of the articles that you say the ordained ministries are the only ones lawfully able to appoint new ministers? Do you consider that the article implies that “men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation” have to be of the ordained?
I have trouble understanding even the concept of lawful - by whose authority were the ‘laws’ created? In Kung’s treatise on The Church, he finds no scriptural warrant for any exclusivity of the ordained to the administration of sacraments. I don’t think I am in favour of disorder, but I do think that we as church are not fully exploiting or developing the gifts of all. And may there be no sense in which church = {laity}+{clergy}, as if partitioning into two exclusive sets excludes the clergy from the people of God - not such a hot idea, I think. I know though in small congregations, the delegation of preaching and sacraments is deliberate and required - why else do we pay the preacher? (Does then the authority reside in the congregation? It is not a far step for the authority to transfer itself to the Bishop.) But such delegation or such transfer must not turn into abdication. The discernment of ministry is not exclusive to the ordained in Anglican practice here in Canada - and I assume it is not elsewhere.
I don’t know if I ever could come up with a sermon - though I know I sermonize in conversation (hah!). But perhaps I am more ground cover than visible flower, or maybe the invisible mould, worm, or micro-organism that slowly turns the earth.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Bob, first I note that I apply the pattern in the articles of recognition, training and commissioning across a wide range of ministries, not just ordained ones. Second, I certainly think the article assumes those with lawful authority are mainly the ordained, and mainly bishops, although I think Cranmer reserves a certain role in episcopal calling for royal assent. In terms of my own view, ordained ministries require episcopal authority and in some measure congregational assent (and I would trace the roots of this back to Jesus and the calling of the twelve,Acts and the appointment of elders, and 2 Timothy and Paul’s “ordination” of him as represented in the text). So while I might not use the word “lawful” it’s not inconsistent with my views.
I think that forms of lay ministry vary in the degree of authority needed, and the holders of that authority, whether bishop, parish priest, congregational meeting, or more usually, varied combinations of all three, but it is not solely up to the individual to be convinced of her or his own ministry without that wider discernment and commissioning.
I note one small local group of Christians I know of, who claim to be a church, and whose leaders are a couple who could not persuade any of the other churches they were members of to do things their way, so they left to start their own, in order to have a fellowship that would respect their leadership. That’s what “lawful authority” is meant to save us from.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Doug, I note one man who set himself up as a preacher and healer despite having no formal authorisation, who gathered around himself twelve assistants whom he personally authorised to minister, and then over time a much larger number of followers who respected his leadership. The religious and political leaders, realising that that’s what “lawful authority” is meant to save us from, crucified him. Let’s not repeat their mistake.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Peter, although what you say may seem both obvious and right, I’m sure you don’t mean “lawful authority crucified Jesus, so the Bible teaches us that lawful authority is wrong.”
October 10th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Doug - thanks for this - re Peter’s point, he must mean lawful authority crucified Jesus - and some aspects of the use of lawful authority may indeed be ‘wrong’. This apparent contradiction is part of Paul’s long argument in Romans defending the holiness of the law, yet he counts the traditions as so much rubbish also. (Phil 3:9 JB)
Still, I acknowledge the work of lawful authorities as being part of our Godly economy today.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Doug, I do mean that lawful authority can be wrong. I include that of our own monarchy which is the authority referred to in the 39 Articles. Indeed it has admitted that it can be wrong, in cases like the wrongful imprisonments of supposed IRA bombers, and no doubt there are other cases not (yet) admitted. The authorities who crucified Jesus were lawful in some sense (although perhaps acting unlawfully in how the trial was conducted), but that does not imply that they were right to crucify him.
But I do not mean that lawful authority is always wrong and so should be ignored. Rather, I would say that there is an ongoing tension between God’s charismatic gifting of individuals and the right action of lawful authority in restricting people from taking leadership upon themselves. The lawful authorities should recognise God’s gifting, and those with God’s gifting should seek this recognition. Unfortunately this does not always happen.
I note by the way that in the Bible it is not just Jesus who became a leader by God’s charismatic calling independently of any human authorisation. Consider for example Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Paul. Of course most of these were called at times when there was no godly authority to submit to. Paul was recognised by the apostolic authorities, but only after he had begun his ministry, and his submission to them was always conditional as is clear from Galatians 2:6,9,11-14 and 1:8-9; to him God’s word is a higher authority than any human leaders.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I think this is exactly right. My point (and I guess you may stress the opposite point in tension) is that in the church, we should begin from presuming that lawful authority is both gifted and called by God to its role. (e.g. 1 Thess 5:12,13) I do not say that we should always end there.