Friday, May 01, 2009
A problematic ontology of ministry: employment - and gender
I recently asked couple of questions on Twitter and Facebook:- What is it to be clergy in non-church employ?
- Is our ministry ontologically different?
Before we go into any detail, I'd note that I've done little or no reading in this area, and that this brief essay is the result only of some thinking and discussions I've had. If you have some thoughts about further reading, I'd be interested to hear them.
How "part-timers" are seen
Yesterday we had a CME (Continuing Ministerial Education) seminar, just with some of the SSM curates in the diocese, and we had some interesting stories. We considered three constituencies: congregations, clergy and diocese. Some members of our congregation "get" it - some, indeed, welcome it, but the main questions (of a negative nature, at least) that arose within the congregational context seemed to relate to the amount of time that a non-full-time member of clergy can give to the church. From the stories we shared, there seemed to be little questioning of the legitimacy of the idea of self-supporting clergy. Indeed, some congregations seem to welcome the shared perspective which they may feel that "working" member of clergy can deliver in preaching and pastoral situations.Although most of the interactions that we had experienced from clergy colleagues were positive, there were reports that some clergy colleagues see us as not committing ourselves to ministry to the extent that they do. Resentments that self-supporting clergy "cherry-pick" the best services and jobs within a team were backed up with one report of a member of clergy saying that "you lot haven't had to give up on a career like we have". Still, however, there seemed to be little suggestion over the legitimacy of self-supporting ministry, though suggestions of lack of commitment suggest lingering questions around a life which is defined by ministry.
In many ways, we, as group, didn't feel convinced that the diocese really knows how to deal with us in all contexts. The stories around how deanery and diocesan synods, chapter meetings, training events and the rest are routinely scheduled with little or no thought for those who work full or even part-time were greeted with resignation and recognition by all. Despite the growing reliance by all Church of England dioceses, self-supporting ministers don't seem to feature highly in the thoughts of many of them. This is, surely, partly because the needs and offerings of SSMs are - in some ways, at least - more diverse than those of the "typical" parish priest or curate.
None of this is new: my father has been an NSM for around 40 years, and I've heard similar stories from him over the years.What is it to be clergy in non-church employ? Is our ministry ontologically different? A word about that word: "ontologically". I'm using sense 2 of dictionary.com's definition of ontologically: Of or relating to essence or the nature of being. In other words, what I mean by the question "is our ministry ontologically different?" is "is there something about the nature of our ministry (that of clergy not employed by the church) that is different to that of those who are in the full-time employ of the church that exists because of that difference?"
A couple of clarifications here:
- there's a big (and fascinating) question that's not unrelated about the nature of the ministry of those who are not ordained. I'm going to duck this question because I don't want to be diverted from this question, and not because I don't think it's important. Maybe another time.
- although I've not been entirely clear above, what I'm really talking about is those who not "full-time" clergy: they have other responsibilities and activities which take up much of their time.
I think there's a problem with it, however - not with the answer, which I believe to be right - but in the theology that supports it. First let me note that I very much like the theory of ministry presented by Steven Croft in Ministry in Three Dimensions: A Theological Foundation for Local Church Leadership. The fundamental basis for his argument is that all ordained ministry is based on three qualities: diakonos (loosely: service), presbyteros (loosely: leadership) and episkope (loosely: oversight). That these three qualities provide the basis for the three generally accepted ordained orders (deacon, priest (or presbyters) and bishops (episcopals)) is no surprise, and acts as the starting point for his argument. But he is keen to point out that members of each order must possess each of the three qualities, though the amount to which they will be required will vary from person to person, from role to role, and from situation to situation - and through time. I don't think that this is particularly contentious theology, and I've certainly found it very helpful in my journey through discernment, to ordination, through my deacon's year, and in preparing for my ordination to the priesthood in June, God willing.
Being a bishop
But it raises a question: a big one, I think. "Is there something ontologically incompatible about being a bishop, and not full-time clergy?" Admittedly, as the role of bishop is currently figured, there is a great deal of time required for administration, visiting, etc. - and that's part of the oversight. But is that what oversight _needs_ to be about? And surely we should be figuring the bishop's role from first principles, rather than making the role fit what the job has become over the centuries? Why does this matter? Well, it doesn't matter to me - certainly at the moment! - in terms of preferment: I'm not even a priest yet, and thoughts of bishoprics are rather far off, and would be even if I were full-time. There are questions about how easy it is to become a bishop if one has not been a full-time priest, though: how can one "serve one's time" and move up the greasy pole? Well, _why_ should that be required? There are enough examples of brilliant bishops - and archbishops - who moved very quickly into their posts, without all the kerfuffle of parish incumbencies, becoming an archdeacon, a canon, a dean, etc.. And why do the diakonos, presbyteros and episkope exercised by those not in the church full-time not "count" towards the criteria required to become a bishop? Well, they're beginning to, I hope.But there's something deeper going on here: something more ontological. If the church is not ready to accept that someone who is not full-time can enter the order whose defining characteristic is episkope - oversight - and become a bishop, then that casts grave doubts over the legitimacy of the episkope that is exercised by all those in the _other_ orders who are, likewise, not full-time. How can we figure a legitimate, and fully accepted diaconate and priesthood? To be clear, what I'm saying is that it is difficult to base an ontological understanding of the theology of the orders of the diaconate and the priesthood if there is no corresponding ontological understanding for the episcopal order.
Gender
So far, this entry - or essay - has been about the issue of employment, but the more I thought about the issues being discussed, the more I realised that we can't ignore the issue of gender. In the Church of England, we have not only no self-supporting ministers who are bishops - that is, no self-supporting bishops - but we also have no women ministers who are bishops: we have no woman bishops. Now, many self-supporting ministers - including me - maintain the option to move to full-time ministry. Although the nature of our role as ministers seems somewhat compromised by what comes down to our employment status - if you accept the argument presented above - we have the option to change that.The same does not follow for women: the nature of the ontological problematic for them is more fundamental. For there is a corresponding problem about the legitimacy of woman deacons and woman priests if there are no woman bishops: the correspondence seems very close. Some members of the Church of England will accept that women can be priests and deacons, but cannot exercise "headship" (for which we can probably fairly safely substitute our word "episkope"), and therefore cannot become bishops. Others will not accept women and priests, but will accept them as deacons, whereas some will not accept them in any of the ordained orders. Given the argument above, I would argue that only the last set holds a consistent position, but a good deal of the work being done with regard to finding a settlement around the issue of woman bishops in the Church of England seems to centre around the group that will accept deacons and priests, but not bishops.
My view - and it's a strong one - is that the ministry of women is entirely legitimate, and I have no problems whatsoever with the ontological basis for it. More important, I don't believe that the lack of any woman bishops impacts on that legitimacy. However, the lack of the capability for there to be a woman bishop _does_ impact on the continued legitimacy of the ministry of women in the Church of England. Until we, as a church, can overcome this problem, ontological problems will remain, and will continue to allow doubts to remain about legitimacy.
A brief conclusion
I have no conclusion to offer, really, beyond to ask for more theological discussion around the ontology of ministry. We've avoided the question of non-ordained ministry, but even with a restricted scope, have identified what I believe to be two major - and growing - issues for ministry within the Church of England and the Anglican church as a whole. Part of the question, of course, revolves whether we accept in detail Croft's view of ministry in 3 dimensions, but whether we do or not, in the Anglican church we consider that there is a coherence between the 3 orders of ministry. This, then, casts concerns over how legitimate the church considers the ministry of self-supporting and woman ministers to be. I would stress that it does not matter whether this consideration is explicit or not: what matters is if the theology around which the ontology of ministry is based is coherent, and whether it introduces concerns over legitimacy.Labels: church, ministry, theology, women
I presume the way round the problem would be to decide that being ordained as a deacon only gives the person the serving aspect of ordination, then priesting sorts out a dose of leadership, with becoming a bishop adding the oversight aspect to a person. This assumes God gets it right and offers the right dose at the right time.
I shall think some more about this and look forward to reading other comments.
If I were to add a category into this mix it would be thopse who work for the church full-time and exercise elements of diakonos, presbyteros and episkope and yet are not/ have chosen not to be ordained. Steven Croft does deal with these questions well, and opens up a challenge to the Cof E, and to the Church Catholic!
If the Church is to survive the 21st century than it must broaden its vision of ministry.
Please God that we will soon see a Self Supporting ( Gay) Woman Bishop soon!
: 8:21 pm This also has a knock-on effect to functional questions. Why do we pay the people we pay? for what they do? simply to be there? to lead others? to sustain the core? As you point out there are are places where all these are done effectively by SSM's, so no crude simple answer is possible, as would have been the case when Archbishop Fisher tried to define what stipends were for in, I believe, 1948.
There always were greater ambiguities about this thnan many people think. The peasant clergy on £10 a year of the eighteenth century were often, effectively, self supporting. It's important to look behind the Victorian professionalisation of the clergy.
The progress people will make with these issues on the ground comes down largely to the quality of their relationships and mutual respect. The most fruitful working definitions come from strong, good, mutually accountable ones.
The important thing that comes out of it for me is about freedom. Although we naturally accept the discipline of the church, there's that sense that actually we don't have to. This gives us freedom to be prophetic because we don't owe our living to anyone. Likewise particularly for people like us who make our livings in the private sector - we're not client to the state either as we would be if we were for example teachers or doctors. So to me that's all about prophetic ministry.
Another consideration in terms of gender is that many female self-supporting ministers don't have a paid "day job". There's a danger there where they can end up doing pretty well as much work as a stipendiary minister - the risk of being a vicar "on the cheap". As full-time workers we set out our boundaries clearly - not so easy perhaps if you're apparently doing nothing when the vicar's busy at the Ladies' Bright Hour.
The action of full time employment here is clearly separated from the role as Church leaders. Their leadership of Christ’s family ran alongside the necessities of general life. As their responsibilities grew the church [either by acting individuals or congregations] enabled them to put down the ‘day job’ and focus on the work of the family of Christ. Indeed my understanding of ‘Stipend’ is a payment to allow a clergy person to be released from other work to fulfil, without distraction, a particular function in the church body.
The issue of payment therefore is about ‘release to serve the church’ in a particular function and perhaps not about ‘ordination’. As is so often the case ‘power’ is in the hands of those who control the words and those who can attend the meeting where decisions are made. Through the centuries this has been the people who are liberated from paid employment to serve the church. It is only in recent decades that this has been challenged.
If we take Crofts three phases: diakonos (loosely: service), presbyteros (loosely: leadership) and episkope (loosely: oversight), and look afresh at them for the worker priest through not an ecclesiastical window but a secular one we see the worker priest in an incarnational position. As Christ came into the world, so the worker priest lives in the world, fulfilling a servant’s role, teaching by word and example. By a very presence he/she calls those who are also members of Christ’s family to Christ’s standard, leading and overseeing, often in unofficial and informal ways, in the community and workplace. They are given this not because of a license from the Bishop or overarching authority, but by the open hearts of the people who their own lives touch.
The issue of ordained ministry and full time employment have to me become overly interlinked. The issue of stipend needs to be decided on the role that a person fulfils. Where that role requires them to be available at times when they would otherwise be in monetary employment, or for periods of time that make other employment impossible, a stipend is necessary. Our society has become expectant that a minister will be available at all time’s, day or night. I myself have taken funerals on Saturdays showing that this in not always necessary.
: 5:14 pm : 6:00 pm : 8:21 am You say:
the lack of the capability for there to be a woman bishop _does_ impact on the continued legitimacy of the ministry of women in the Church of England. Until we, as a church, can overcome this problem, ontological problems will remain, and will continue to allow doubts to remain about legitimacy.I actually believe it's the legitimacy and efficacy of the Church of England that is undermined if it fails to recognise those whom God is calling on the basis of their ontology (in this case gender).
I dislike 'SSM' as much as 'NSM' and have used the term worker-priest. I know this is not satisfactory and that my own work as a priest falls very far short of the achievements of the French WPs. More important than any of this, I think, are questions about work and faith. I have said a little about this at http://www.st-james-piccadilly.org/workfaith.html. Best wishes, Hugh
<< Home
blogs4god
