Baptism, Universal Priesthood and Ordained Ministry Points for Reflection Program regarding church sustainability – Lutheran World Federation Rev. Martin Junge Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean Lutheran World Federation Lima, August 2008 1. An intriguing experience Years ago, I had a very revealing experience regarding the subject that occupies us this morning. Baptism, Universal Priesthood, and Ordained Ministry. We were working in a group of pastors and priests planning activities for a neighborhood ecumenical organization. The time passed more quickly than we thought and the moment soon came in which I had to decide whether to stay in that meeting and miss my previous commitment to meet with a group of women and later confirmation classes, or leave the ecumenical meeting to attend to my pastoral responsibilities. - ―I am sorry,‖ I said to my colleagues, ―but I really should be leaving as I have a women’s bible study and confirmation classes later this afternoon.‖ The Catholic priest looked at me and in a friendly tone told me: - “What? You have to do that personally? Don’t you have groups of laypeople that take on those tasks? I have all the activities in the hands of the community leaders. My role is to work with them and read masses. Their role is to work with the parish and with their groups.” and then, with a tone that reflected solidarity and caution at the same time, he added: - How surprising, Martín! You with the rich theology of the universal priesthood of all believers…with communities so pastor-dependent…it seems contradictory to me.” That priest colleague left me thinking. On the way to my congregation I mentally went over the situation of the other congregations of my church, thinking that perhaps I was making a mistake in my attitude, monopolizing activities and leadership, making myself indispensable, taking over space… But from what I knew of my church, the situation was similar in other congregations as well. The pastoral presence in the groups, the catechesis—up to the point that I had always seen that as the role of the pastor. But if that is the established practice, then where is the concept of the universal priesthood of all believers expressed? Not only in a theology, but also as a practice in the Lutheran church? What do we affirm in concrete terms when we energetically uphold in our written confessions the priesthood of all people? 2. We go to the sources. The theology of the universal priesthood of all believers according to the writings of Martin Luther Luther, as always, is forceful in his argumentation, in the use of his words and in the clarity of his thought. Listen to these sentences:
1
“We are all ordained priests by means of baptism, as Saint Peter says in 1 Peter 2:9 “You are a royal priesthood” And later: “Whoever comes out of Baptism can glorify himself in already being ordained as a priest, bishop or Pope, although it is not appropriate for each one to exercise this office”. In very concrete terms he illustrates: “In case of necessity, each one can celebrate Baptism and can absolve, which would not be possible if we were not priests” And with indisputable polemic, he attacks: “…it was invented that the Pope, bishops, bishops, priests and monks be called the spiritual estate; princes, lords, artisans and farmers of the secular estate. This is an invention and a refined fraud. But no one should be intimidated for this cause and for the following reason: all Christians are truly the spiritual estate and there is no difference between them, since it is not exclusively the strength of the office” Regarding this office he writes: “…each city elects from the community a pious and learned Christian, commending him to the charge of the parish and sustaining him with the resources of the community, giving him the liberty of marrying or not.” And later supports: “I want to speak about the pastoral estate, that was instituted by God and that ought to govern a community with preaching and sacraments, dwell in the midst of it and maintain a temporary place.” 3.The ordination of the universal priesthood by means of baptism So was Luther: creative, untimely, and a true firework of intuition and theological knowledge. But please note: the quotes comes from different books that were written in distinct moments. In fact, Luther never sat down to write a treatment of ―Baptism, Universal Priesthood, and Ordained Ministry.‖ Instead he was writing and preaching in the middle of such situations presenting themselves in that fascinating process of the Reformation. At that time, Christianity suddenly found itself confronted with unforeseen spaces to think and construct the concept of church (our phrase for the first dimension of the Sustainability Program!), to reorient itself inside the social, political, and religious processes that were living in the twilight of the Middles Ages, and to redefine the theological matrices that ordered its tasks. The theology of the Universal Priesthood of all believers also effectively generates itself in this dynamic process and continues gaining body out of the necessity of responding to specific and concrete situations that come out of the Reformation process. It is not merely an expression of theological wordplay that Luther elaborates and tacks on for the pleasure of developing his
2
thought. Instead, it is a response to pastoral, ecclesiastical, and theological challenges that the Christian church was facing in the process of the Reformation. In the quality of its response, the Theology of the Universal Priesthood of all believers reflects a strong criticism of the mode in which the Western Christian church had organized itself and the world. This is to say it responds to a reality that in Luther´s perception was unsustainable and unsatisfactory from a pastoral and theological standpoint. Luther’s critique: -Christianity’s division between a spiritual estate (clerical, i.e. monks, priests, bishops, etc.) and a secular estate (shoemakers, doctors, farmers) -The prerogative of the spiritual estate (concentrated in the authority of the Pope) to interpret the Scriptures With his fundamental critique aimed at the exclusive authority of the Pope (and by extension the estates subordinated to him), the process of the Reformation was seen to be confronting, however, the question that came as a logical consequence of this critique: if the exclusive authority and prerogative of spiritual matters were not situated within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church with its focal point as the Pope, where then is it found? Where then is the authority and the power in Christianity and who holds it? In practical terms, who interprets the Scriptures, who confers authority for someone to act as pastor in a community, who has the right of the word in the community to preach and administer the sacraments? In his response to these questions, Luther repositions Baptism as the constitutive factor of the spiritual estate. By the strength of baptism, each baptized person is part of the spiritual estate. By the strength of baptism, he or she is a priest or priestess and, by the strength of baptism, holds authority in the spiritual state. By definition then, baptism constitutes itself in the act of ordination into the spiritual estate and the empowerment of the people of God with priestly authority. Spiritual power, in Luther’s concept is not concentrated like a treasure that is shared by the placing on of hands. Instead it is in the sacrament of baptism and is communicated by means of the baptismal act where the baptized person is incorporated into the body of Christ and invested with the spiritual gifts that the Holy Spirit wants to give. It becomes important then to go deeper still into this line of thought. Through Baptism, people are incorporated into the new covenant of the people of God and are transformed and empowered by the gifts of the Spirit as an instrument of the loving purpose of God for all creation. With this emphasis, Luther strongly intertwines his theology of the Universal Priesthood of all Believer with the ―missio Dei‖ (the mission of God) which is particularly expressed in the work and merit of Christ. Through baptism and by means of spiritual gifts, each person participates in that mission which finds its origin in God and becomes flesh in the world in Christ. Despite their imperfections and brokenness, the people of God are called to announce and live the reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment as manifestations of the Kingdom. The Universal Priesthood of all believers acquires its meaning and reason for being in the participation of the communion of the saints (baptized people) in the mission of God. Without this context, the concept of the universal priesthood and ordained ministry is (as we will see further on) empty of its original purpose and intentionality.
3
It is important to mention, although briefly, that for Luther, the universal priesthood was not to be practiced exclusively in the environment of the institutional church or even exclusively in the secular environment. Instead, this priesthood lives in all environments and the relationships of each person: family, neighbors, work relationships, the public sphere… all those spaces where the baptized person has the calling to live his or her Baptism. But also as part of a church community, as a member of a church, each baptized person is called to lives his or her baptism. Even as baptism incorporates the totality of the person in the body of Christ, similarly the universal priesthood appropriates the totality of the dimensions of peoples’ lives as a space to express that baptism. The Universal Priesthood of all Believers is lived in the church and in society. This expansive understanding of the concept of the Universal Priesthood is drawn out clearly in the terms that Martin Luther outlined in his writing for this priesthood: -To live the Universal Priesthood is to share material goods; -To live the Universal Priesthood is to practice the secular profession as a priest; -To live the Universal Priesthood is to practice the right and the duty of proclaiming the Word; -To live the Universal Priesthood is to practice mutual consolation and mutual annunciation of the forgiveness of sins. -To live the Universal Priesthood is to practice intercession on behalf of the brothers and sisters; -To live the Universal Priesthood is to discern and judge doctrines. Here it is clear that both the intent to reduce the Universal Priesthood of all Believers only to the church environment and the inverse intent to exclude the exercise of the priesthood of the church environment and only to direct it to the secular environment do not correspond to the original amplitude of the theological concept developed by the reformer. 4. The universal priesthood of all believers and special ministry From the time of Luther’s cited texts onward, it is evident however that the re-conceptualization of the priesthood as a result of one’s baptism did not bring Luther to disqualify the reason for there being a special ministry within the universal priesthood and with that a special ordination to this ministry. Even as Luther is vehement in criticizing the legitimization, the concentration of power and the hierarchy of this order, he is also clear in defending its necessity and function within the people of God. Luther rejected the idea that the ordained ministry was distinguished by their supposed spiritual superiority or their supposed metaphysical capacity to effect the transubstantiation of the bread and wine in body and blood of Jesus Christ. But Luther did not leave room for doubts regarding the necessity of a differentiation in the scope of the people of God regarding the special function of the ordained person. The ordained person is charged with the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments—tasks which belong to the whole people of God but to which ordained Christians (now both women and men) dedicate themselves in exclusive form and for which they have been duly called by the community and church. Luther’s argumentation to this end has two distinct divisions. On the one hand, Luther argues from a very practical perspective, fed in part by painful lived experiences in the heart of the process of the Reform. Indeed it was clear early on for Luther that the concept of ―everyone is in charge‖ easily fell into ―no one does it.‖ On the other hand, Luther also recognized that without a 4
commonly agreed upon and accepted order, the universal priesthood could itself break down in experiences of abuse of power and of oppression, now of another nature: it would impose itself as the strongest, most loquacious, most renowned in society, the most sagacious… The ordained ministry thus acquires a function that makes participation, interaction, and mutual responsibility possible in the ministry that belongs to all baptized persons. But for Luther, the ordained or special ministry is more than a practical fix for the ordered exercise of those functions that at the root belong to the whole community. As can be extracted from the quotes, Luther also argues maintaining that the ordained ministry is divinely instituted, an order created by God. Its authority is rooted in Christ himself, who marks this ministry within the role that He himself lived in his ministry: diaconal work and service. To be ordained, then, signifies being set apart for service in the Christian community. The authority of ordained ministry, hence, does not refer to a status, but to that service. The ordained minister is within the congregation since he or she participates in the only ministry of the church. The minister is at the front of the congregation since in the name of God he or she proclaims the Gospel and celebrates the Sacraments. The minister comes from the universal priesthood and is elected by the community; the ministry that he or she assumes however is instituted by God. In this sense, the functionality of the ordained ministry already cannot be explained exclusively as a delegation of a task of all the people duly called. Its functionality also is explained from the argument of the continuity of the apostleship in the Christian church, the representation of Christ in the midst of the church and the unity of the body of Christ. In practical terms, the universal priesthood of all believers, on the one hand, and the ordained ministry, on the other hand, are not exclusive options, but interrelated and interdependent expressions, which furthermore constitute, in theory, a delicate equilibrium of power in the spiritual estate of which, we reiterate, all baptized persons are a part. The universal priesthood and its power, including that of discernment of the Scripture and doctrine, is a counterbalance to a possible domination and abuse of power from the (ordained) ministry. There is no greater example than the extraordinary creativity of those ―ministers, apostles, prophets, etc.‖ of certain contemporary religious groups to create and undo doctrine and Christian practices, making us realize the usefulness and necessity of such a counterbalance located with sufficient authority in the people of God. The universal priesthood corrects the potential danger of a spiritual coup on the part of an elite cleric, already being self-proclaimed, or effectively ordained. In the same way, the ordained ministry is constituted in counterbalance to a possible manipulation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the part of the community, endowing it with an authority that originates itself greater than its own confines and connects it with the whole body of Christ. The solitude of Christ on the cross ought to have served as sufficient warning to those who very quickly wanted to apply the principle of the ―vox populi—vox Dei‖ – the voice of the people is the voice of God—to the mission of the church. Contemporary expressions of a myriad of endorsed groups which clamor for new ways of feeling, controlling, and assuring their salvation (almost always personal), speak to us today of the utility of this counterbalance located further on than the scope of control of a particular community. It is within the field of strength that opens itself as a result of this important differentiation, but at the same time interrelation between universal priesthood and ordained ministry that the Lutheran 5
churches ought to look for an adequate expression of their vocation of participating in the mission of God. 5. Between actions and speech‌how long is the reach? Let me now return to the start of my presentation where I referred to the valuable comment made by my brother priest in Santiago. We have traced a route by in the first place rereading what Luther actually said with respect to the Universal Priesthood of all Believers. Later we analyzed the content of this doctrine, the place out of which it emerged and the other aspects that were accumulating with time. It is undoubtedly evident that his emphasis: all people, by the strength of Baptism, are integrated into the unique ministry of the church which is to announce and to live the surprising grace of God and the proximity of His Kingdom in its specific context. At the same time, the differentiation of this doctrine was also evident, including the complexity that results from the fact that Luther does not renounce the notion of ordained ministry and the divine origin of its authority. On the contrary, Luther adds this notion to the doctrine of the universal priesthood and brings together both terms in a powerful dialectic relationship. How do Lutheran member churches of the Lutheran World Federation live this dialectic tension? How do they express both realities—the universal priesthood and ordained ministry? How do they interact? It would be an act of unpardonable pride if I assumed the right to describe these realities that from my limited perspective are very diverse, dependent upon the contexts of the churches and of the lived church processes. But instead of describing these realities, I believe I am in a place to conclude my presentation with some observations and questions that have emerged as much from my own experiences as the pastor of my church in Chile as from my actual work as Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean in the LWF. Out of innumerable contacts, visits, dialogues, readings of documents, plans and projects emerge several common themes including challenges and projections as well as questions and question marks that in actuality I would formulate like this: a) Baptism: Ordination to the universal priesthood? I perceive an observation and inquietude in some, that so many of the forms of liturgy, the texts that are used for preaching, and that same preaching in the celebration of Baptism continue greatly emphasizing this sacrament as an act of the remission of sin, moderately as an act of incorporation into the body of Christ, and very marginally as an act of ordination to the priesthood that all believers share. Apparently, Baptism would not be having this dimension of empowerment and vocation to take part in the mission of God as Luther clearly still interpreted it. b) Mission: A matter for pastors! I have heard of the diagnosis that some churches make of the problem which essentially means that the delegation of the function of preaching and administration of sacraments in the person of the pastor means in practice the total abdication of any responsibility in the mission of God on the part of baptized persons. This is particularly the case in those churches where the membership does not attribute a missional dimension to the church. In its concept, the mission of the church would be 6
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
responding to the demands of its members by certain religious services. Its reason for being would not be the participation in the mission of God. As a consequence, the universal priesthood and the ordained ministry that are interpreted from this concept imply a marked passivity. The ―life jacket‖ of the universal priesthood: There is a certain tendency in churches to rescue the universal priesthood and use it as an appeal to its members to assume it as a response strategy to the pressing necessities of pastoral coverage, many times emerging as a result of economic problems in the churches. The empowerment and training of laypeople would point in these cases to a replacement or substitute of the function of the ordained ministry in the church. Help! We have a pastor!: Some churches have seen themselves or currently see themselves facing a significant problem when –after great efforts—they have achieved forming a pastor and he or she asks for ordination to the ministry, or installation in a community. I have learned that this problem has at least two issues: the economic implication that derives from the ordination and a certain fear that an installation in communities till now without a pastor could discontinue processes of empowerment and community participation. With respect to the first ―problem‖ the question has come to me whether the number of members of a community and the assignment of a pastoral placement is always in equilibrium. With respect to the second, I ask if the pastoral formation (or vicarage) is giving tools to the pastors to exercise a leadership sufficiently participative, horizontal and cautious that offers space for the existing local gifts and talents and projects their growth. The church of the ―sticky hand‖: In many churches, there is a strong claim by laypeople who are very involved in the mission of the church that the church absorbs them each time in a whirlwind of more responsibilities and tasks, tiring those leaders, and leading them to frustration and even collapse. The church/community as belonging: I have also heard in some churches the finding of the inverse scenario, in the sense that people in positions of leadership, lay and pastoral, many times enter into a spiral of developing a sense of ownership regarding the task they are in charge of, the community, or the national church, that ultimately does not permit the emergence and the participation of new leadership. While some churches apparently have the problem of finding leaders that assume responsibility, there are others that apparently perceive the problem of not being able to reach a healthy alternation and dynamic in its leadership functions. ―The big problem is that we do not have leaders‖: This is an observation more personal. I have, on many occasions, heard the complaint of the lack of able and willing people to assume leadership in the church. Sometimes I have heard this lament in worktables surrounded by laypeople and pastors with a tremendous vocation for work and love for the church. This discrepancy has brought me to the question: What is the problem with those churches: not having leaders or not seeing their leaders? As a consequence, what would be the processes and strategies of identification of those leaders? Do our churches have a registry of abilities (spiritual gifts) and one of necessities for mission? The challenge of training continues: I see, for example through projects sent to the LWF, that many of the churches in the region are working on the problem of providing in regular and continuous input for the labor of their leaders, both pastors and laypeople. In the same way, many churches are struggling with the question of a recycling and 7
regeneration strategy for their leadership charts. This difficulty can strongly wear on the leaders and if repeated can end up wearing on and degrading the communities and groups. i) ―Pastor centrism,‖ What is its origin?: There are churches in our midst that are discovering that ―pastor centrism‖ or ―pastor-dependency‖ does not originate (exclusively) in a supposed attitude of comfort or laziness on the part of the community, but also from the manner in which pastors exercise their role in the community. Similar to the processes on the issue of gender, where strategies of empowerment of women soon reach a glass ceiling if they are not accompanied by strategies of discernment regarding new models (with gender in mind) for men, these churches are looking for those models for pastoral ministry that are capable of relating themselves and interacting with the phenomenon of a membership more conscious of its place and role and more empowered to exercise it. I want to reach the end of my presentation. I realize that some of these findings, observations and final questions are quite difficult. They touch very intimate cords regarding people and their vocation. Many leaders in our churches in Latin America have made the church their life’s project. All has been for the church; all has been given for the church. And now someone comes to raise questions that could be interpreted such that this devotion could be in question? Could it be that which has been done for decades with the greatest of love and dedication is today the root of some of the problems that the church is facing for the future? There is here a personal dimension that is necessary to incorporate into discernment about the real expression of universal priesthood and ordained ministry in our churches. It is the common inheritance in the Christian church that it looks for the dignity and respect of people. It is also clear – it being evident from the start of this presentation—that one of the lines at the back of the theme that I have tried to trace here is the theme of the power of the church. For Luther, the questions at the back of what he was looking for were: From where does the church’s power come? Who controls it? Who concedes it and how is it exercised in the ecclesiastical community? My final reference to the parallel that exists between the definition of the relationship between the universal priesthood and ordained ministry and the relationships of gender come from a continuity of perspective begun by Luther. It is well-known that the relationship of gender is ultimately a question of the forms in which men and women share power. In this sense, it appears to me that an exclusively theological take on the questions that emerge with respect to this complementary relationship and interaction between the universal priesthood and the ordained ministry would be naïve. Theology provides an inescapable template. But it appears to me that theology should be placed in dialogue with other disciplines, for example that of sociology or social psychology, sociology of religion and psychology of religion. To bring this necessary (but certainly difficult at times) dialogue together into its missiological context, the last question is how we can better organize ourselves to be faithful participants in the mission to which God incorporates us through Baptism! We have attained a direction that allows us a respectful and constructive take on the discernment that brings us together.
8