Final from Why Priests

This is the final extract from Why Priests. I hope you have enjoyed the little snippets.

How does the apostolic ideal image of a Church leader look, as lived by Paul? Paul enjoyed an amazing authority and influence in his churches, which stemmed from his human abilities, but above all from the apostolic mandate given him. He never hesitated to bring his authority powerfully into play. But it is characteristic of the Spirit of Christ which moved Paul that the apostle does not expand or develop his authority or give it the form of a sacral juridical relationship. On the contrary, he repeatedly limited his authority voluntarily because he was convinced that his churches do not belong to him but to the Lord and are therefore free in the Spirit: called to freedom and not slaves to men. Paul sees very clearly that his churches are immature in many ways and that they make mistakes. In spite of this, he never behaves toward them as if he, the prudent teacher, must first educate them to freedom. On the contrary, he takes this freedom for granted as a given; he respects it, fights for it, so that his congregations will follow him not out of compulsion but in freedom. Of course, where there is question of abandoning Christ and his gospel for another gospel, he must threaten to curse and excommunicate. He actually carried this out in the case of an individual—a temporary exclusion from the congregation aimed at achieving an improvement—but never did it to a congregation, even when the infidelities were very serious. He is as restrained as possible in the use of his authority: instead of a command a personal appeal, instead of a prohibition an appeal to one's own good judgment and sense of responsibility, instead of compulsion an effort to win over, instead of the imperative the hortative, instead of the you form the we form, instead of punishment the word of forgiveness, instead of suppressing freedom the invitation to freedom.

And so Paul never misused his power to establish the domination of men over men. On the contrary, in matters of Church discipline he refrains from making an authoritative decision where he could very well have done so. In moral questions too, where the Lord and his word are not at stake, he prefers to leave his congregations their freedom and not put any pressure on them. And even in cases where the decision is obvious to him, he avoids unilateral measures and gets the congregation involved. He holds back even where he clearly has received authority to intervene vigorously; he expressly begs his congregation that he not have to make use of it. Even where he has a right, he does not want to exercise it.

Paul thus never confronts his congregations as lord, nor as priest. It is not the apostle who is the lord. Jesus is the Lord, and this Lord sets the norm for his churches and for Paul himself. He can never treat his Christians simply as children but always as “brothers,” whom he serves in patience, frankness and love. His desire to be faithful to the Lord in his ministry—and not a mere concern with etiquette or human civility—is the reason why he is always ready to refrain from using his authority. It is precisely in this way that he uses it not to tear down but to build up.

Nor did Paul want to be a superman. He was well aware of his humanity and fragility and made no claim to infallibility. It is equally important that his counterpart in the New Testament too, Peter, is always described as on who errs, makes mistakes, fails. And it looks almost scandalous the way each of the three classical texts for the preeminence of Peter is accompanied by an extraordinarily sharp counterpoint: to the three lofty promises correspond three profound lapses. All of this served as both warning and encouragement alike to today's Church leader.—Why Priests?, pages 110-111

Activism

The responsibility of the congregation leader is thus also a responsibility for society in general. This is not to say that in the spirit of clericalism he interferes in everything, even where he is not at all competent; but that he does involve himself and his community in those important questions of society where the Christian message itself, not partisanship of any kind, unambiguously requires it. This is less frequently the case than those people think who, following their (right or left) party line, want to bring the Church into the debate on the day's social and political questions, turn the Church itself into a political party and offer a specifically Christian “answer” to everything that comes up. But it is the case much more often than is supposed by those who would prefer to see the Church and its leaders once again confined to the sacristy, cult, private devotion and the realm of the subjective. The Church then, for all its inward unity, is not an encapsulated cult organization, screened off from the world. It is an open Church, aware of its obligations to the public at large and the other Christian churches—but also to the unchurched Christians, to the church of those who profess no church, to mankind generally. And it is the congregational leader who has the public responsibility—although it is shared by all especially in this matter—for seeing that the Church is and remains such a community of committed love.—Why Priests?, pages 106-107

Church leader as bureaucrat? No way!

On the basis of the constants which, according to the New Testament message, must be preserved amid all the variables, the Church's ministry of leadership can be described as follows. No matter what kind of congregation he has, the congregational leader must, in virtue of a personal vocation—which, however, is subject to examination—permanently lead the Christian congregation (which always shares in the responsibility for this) in the spirit of the Christian message. He does this by stimulating, coordinating and integrating the manifold gifts and activities of his congregation in various ways according to time and place, exercising his own ministry as one ministry in the midst of others.

...Nothing would be more mistaken than to regard the Church leader as a kind of functionary, a bureaucrat and manager of the Church, however much office work and management may be linked with Church leadership in modern society and the Church. These can only be auxiliary functions...—Why Priests?, page 102

<idle musing>
If you can get past all the modifiers, this is an excellent observation. Unfortunately, many pastors end up as CEOs instead of "stimulating, coordinating and integrating the manifold gifts and activities of his congregation." Of course, I would quibble with "his" congregation—it had better be God's! And, I still think it is a bit too hierarchical (not heretical!).
</idle musing>

Blind obedience?

The supreme norm for the exercise of authority in Christ's Church must be the New Testament message against the horizon of each new individual and social situation. If a particular minster in a particular case quite clearly does not serve according to this norm, then he cannot expect submission on this occasion, but instead needs criticism and in serious cases, resistance. Blind obedience is incompatible with the dignity and freedom of a rational man and a Christian. Blind obedience can, as the recent past ha made drastically evident, lead to crime. God alone can expect absolute obedience, ecclesiastical authority never more than conditional obedience—and even that only when it corresponds in its precepts to the will of God expressed in the Christian message.—Why Priests?, pages 97-98

<idle musing>
"God alone can expect absolute obedience"—Amen!
</idle musing>

A Calling is the requirement

Any ministry of leadership in Christ's Church, ordained or not, thus presupposes at the deepest level a calling by the Spirit of God and of Jesus Christ, who breathes where he will and calls whom he will and whose willing instruments both senders and sent are permitted to be.—Why Priests?, page 86

...it must be said that charism in the strict sense, i.e., a calling from God in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, stands by itself and does not flow from the institution. It is a free calling to a free ministry in the Church, which the Church leadership can suppress or even worse extinguish only at its own expense. A thoroughgoing direct or indirect “bureaucratizing” of a charism contradicts the New Testament. As the New Testament shows, a charism has no need at all of prior legitimation by a Church institution. On the contrary, there are in fact institutions and representations of institutions who have nothing charismatic about them: for instance, ordained Church functionaries who carry out their ministry mechanically and show no sign of a genuine calling of of the Spirit of Christ.—Why Priests?, page 87

<idle musing>
The sad part is that he is correct about the last part; too many are doing things they are not called to do—and not just in the "ordained" ministry. Have you ever been guilted into doing something "for the Lord"? If so, you are probably a victim of what he is talking about.
</idle musing>

The purpose of leadership

The Church's ministry of leadership is meant essentially not to be an autocratic authority absorbing all other functions, but one ministry in the midst of a multiplicity of other charisms and functions: a stimulating, coordinating and integrating ministry to the congregation and the other ministries, whether these are permanent (catechists, administrators, social welfare workers, various auxiliary ministries, theologians) or not (groups for making visits, various acts of individual initiative, etc.).

An approach of this kind avoids an accumulation of competencies, which is irresponsible in this age of specialization, and allows for a fresh differentiation of functions. The head or leader of the Church does not need to be a professional theologian, trained psychological counselor, financial expert and educationist as well, since these functions are not linked with priestly or episcopal ordination. (For instance, the theologians in the Eastern churches, now as in the early Church, are mostly laymen). However good it may be, no academic training can prepare a person adequately for all these functions; even talents that are well above average cannot meet simultaneously all the increasingly specialized demands.—Why Priests?, page 83

The Church's ministry of leadership is meant essentially not to be a ministry under the arbitrary control of men, but one which can be understood as putting into effect a mandate fro the Lord of the congregation and as a free gift of the Spirit: a ministry arising out of a calling from God in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, a calling which must be examined by the community, a calling which finds expression in an inner compulsion, an inner awareness of competence and of being impelled toward practical ministry. There is a part that men—the congregation and the existing congregational leadership (the latter perhaps to be regionally superordinated)—can and should play in the concrete calling of a person to ministry in the Church; but not even the Church leadership can give a vocation to someone who does not already have one.—Why Priests?, page 85

Wednesday's thought

Full participation of women in the Church's life, on the basis of equal rights, is something that belongs to a suitably renewed Church today. this means not only including women as coresponsible in the different advisory and decision-making bodies, but also the admission of women to all the Church's special ministries and to ordination. (But we should no more speak of a priesthood of women [priestesses] than of a priesthood of men). Sociocultural reason have been advanced against the ordination of women for a territorial and perhaps even more for a non-territorial ministry of leadership, but no decisive theological reason have been presented.—Why Priests?, page 81

Living Sacrifice

Because of this sacrifice of Christ [on the cross], the congregation too is invited to sacrifice. Not merely exterior offerings, but the dedication of the person himself is expected of the congregation; not material sacrifice but spiritual sacrifices of praise, thanks, faith, obedience, love: a praise and thank offering of dedication which does not remain limited to the liturgical assembly but must be a daily sacrifice in secular everyday life.

The congregation therefore does not offer a second sacrifice of reconciliation over and above that of Jesus; but it does offer praise and thanks for the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ in which it has been given a share through the Eucharistic celebration. For this reason the one who presides at the Eucharistic celebration must not be considered a sacrificial priest. Such a view contradicts the New Testament in general and the Letter to the Hebrews in particular.—Why Priests?, pages 68-69

<idle musing>
This is vitally important. We must live a daily sacrifice of praise; it cannot be limited to liturgical gatherings. It must be a part of who we are; our very core of being must be given over as a living sacrifice of praise.

The second paragraph explains why Küng isn't well liked by the Vatican! But, it is an important point to remember—yes, even by Protestants.
</idle musing>

Augustine's problem becomes dogma

Interesting observation in Why Priests as Küng traces the development of the priesthood in church history:

Augustine is the one who "invented" the indelible sacramental character out of embarrassment over the Donatists, to whom he had to prove that baptism (and ordination) could not be repeated and that baptism by heretics was valid. He was the first to use the word "character" to mean a certain something that was different from the Holy Spirit, different from baptism (and ordination), and also different from the "grace" which was given ("created grace"), without being able to justify this something from scripture or previous tradition...

...Thus what had begun as an unpretentious idea and the emergency solution to an eminent theologian's problem became more than a thousand years later a dogma of the Church, protected by the threat of excommunication. Since then the sacramental character has been interpreted to be a real accidental entity adhering to the soul, more exactly as a supernatural quality physically inhering in the soul; but no one has succeeded in proving from Scripture or ancient tradition so much as the existence of such a character, different from the Spirit, baptism or ordination and from the "grace" communicated.—Why Priests, pages 64-65

<idle musing>
Isn't that about right? Traditions harden into dogmas that no one dares to question. I'm not singling out the Roman tradition here; it happens in all traditions. This is Calvin's 500th year; think about the Reformed tradition and how it has become dogma—if you doubt me, ask Peter Enns :(

Sometimes it takes longer than others, but tradition always manages to supplant God. I believe that is why God starts something new every generation or two. Not that the previous moves are wrong; they just get too fossilized to move freely with the Spirit of God.
</idle musing>

Canonical hierarchy?

We continue our way through Why Priests again today. Küng goes through an exegetical study of the New Testament, looking at the passages related to church governance. Here is his conclusion:

The decline into an institutional ministry cannot be said to be normative; nor can the change with respect to the origin, as such, be called apostasy. The New Testament data shows [sic] that there are various models of congregational order and leadership in the New Testament which cannot be reduced to one another, even though they were combined with one another in the course of time. The New Testament therefore does not allow us to canonize one congregational structure alone. This does not mean simply one more difficulty for the Church. On the contrary, it gives it the freedom to move with the times and to be capable of new developments and modifications of Church ministry for the good of men and the congregations. The individual New Testament models need not be imitated, but the crucial New Testament elements must be preserved and put to the test under completely different conditions, so long as we still want to claim to be Christian.—Why Priests, pages 49-50

<idle musing>
I would probably argue more strongly for a New Testament style organization, but the fact that he doesn't want to canonize the traditions that have since developed is encouraging. I suspect my main disagreement is over what is considered crucial :)
</idle musing>

Leadership, not priesthood

More from Why Priests:

But it is even more striking that the New Testament not only makes no use of expressions appropriate to office, but that in connection with congregational functions it also avoids the word "priest" in the sense of sacrificial priest (hiereus, sacerdos), which is the meaning the term has in the history of religions, and avoids all sacral-cultic titles, preferring to describe functions by using terms from the profane area. No doubt this is connected with the fact that Jesus, himself a layman, had only once in all his parables introduced the figure of the priest (Lk. 10:31), and there it is a warning example. The word priest is used for Jewish and pagan dignitaries but never for people with ministries in the Church. Only in a later New Testament period is Jesus himself, the risen and exalted one, understood as priest, but in a way that completely overthrows the Old Testament priesthood. Jesus is the only remaining high priest (deputy, mediator); through the sacrifice of his life, which occurred once and for all, the entire Old Testament priesthood is fulfilled and abolished (Hebrews). From the dissolution of the special priesthood by the priesthood of the one, new and eternal priest there follows—as a further reflection by the congregation (1 Peter, Revelations [sic!])—the universal priesthood of all believers, which has as its concrete content the immediate access of everyone to God, spiritual sacrifices, the proclamation of the word, the carrying out of baptism, the Eucharist, and the forgiveness of sins, and mutual intercession for one another. From a New Testament point of view, therefore, the term "priest" should be dropped as a specific and exclusive term to identify people who have ministries in the Church, since, according to the New Testament view, all believers are "priests."—Why Priests, pages 41-42.

<idle musing>
No wonder Küng is not a favorite at the Vatican! This is a liberating statement for all beleivers, though, whether they are Roman, Protestant, or Orthodox. We all have instant access to God, through the blood of our high priest, Jesus Christ. Praise God for that!
</idle musing>

Ministry, not office

"Although various functions are mentioned in the New Testament, the problem of a Church office is never explicitly dealt with. Church 'office' is not a biblical concept. It came later after reflection and is not without its own difficulties. Evidently the secular words for 'office' were deliberately and consistently avoided in the New Testament in connection with Church functions. They express a relation of domination...

"Of course there is authority in the Church. But authority is only legitimate when it is based on service and not on power, prior rights and privileges from which the obligation of service is then considered to flow. We would therefore do better, if we want to speak in a precise theological fashion, to speak about Church ministry rather than about Church office. To be sure, it is not the word that counts but the way it is understood; talk about Church 'ministry' can also be misused to hide the realities if the exercise of domination in the Church is not abandoned at the same time...

"Power can be used well or badly. Even in the Church power cannot simply be abolished. But it can be used, when effectively channeled, to carry out functions that serve the common welfare. The unavoidable use of power is one thing; the use of it by individuals or groups to dominate is quite another. In the latter case it is a matter of retaining a privileged position or increasing one's own power. Power can be used responsibly in the Church only in terms of service and is to be evaluated according to its quality as service; such power which comes from service is genuine (and primarily inner) authority. The opposition is therefore not between power and service but between the use of power to dominate and its use to serve."—Why Priests, pages 39-40

Fraternity

"As advocate of Jesus Christ, the Church can never have a patriarchal authority structure as its government. Here only one is the holy Father, God himself; all members of the Church are his adult sons and daughters and they must not be reduced to the status of minors. In this society men may set up only truly fraternal and not paternalistic authority. Only one is lord and master, Jesus Christ himself; all members of the Church are brothers and sisters. In this community the supreme norm is therefore not the patriarch, but the will of God, which, according to the message of Jesus Christ, is directed to men's welfare—indeed, the welfare of all men...No one in the Church has the right to substitute for this brotherhood a clerical system's paternalism and cult of persons and thus continue strenghthening the rule of men over men."—Why Priests, pages 32-33.
<idle musing>
Would that this were the way the church actually functioned! Lord, make it so!
</idle musing>

Equality

"On the basis of this freedom which it has received and made concrete, the Church may and should be a community of fundamentally equal people. To be sure, we do not mean by this an egalitarianism that would put the multiplicity of gifts and ministries all on the same level; we mean rather that all members, whatever their differences among themselves, have the same fundamental rights. As advocate of Jesus Christ, it can never be the Church of a class, race, caste or officials. It is through a free decision that individuals have joined the community of faith or remain in it. Those who are unequal should be brought together here in a solidarity of love: rich and poor, high and low, educated and uneducated, white and non-white, men and women."—Why Priests, pages 30-31

Freedom!

“Liberty is both a gift and a task for the Church. The Church may and should be a community of free people: as advocate of Jesus Christ it can never be an institution for domination or, still less, a Grand Inquisition. Its members are freed for freedom: liberated from slavery to the letter of the law, from the burden of guilt, from dread of death; liberated for life, for service, for love—people who are subject to God alone and therefore neither to anonymous powers not to other men. To be sure, faith in the crucified Christ cannot and is not meant to abolish law and power in society; the kingdom of complete freedom is yet to come. But this faith effectively subsumes law and power and completely relativizes them. Faith in the crucified Christ makes man become so free within the scheme of law that he is capable of renouncing a right for the sake of another person without recompense, and even of going two miles with someone who has made him go one. It lets him become so free in society's power struggle that he is capable of using power to his own disadvantage for the sake of another person, and so to give not only his coat but also his cloak. The Christian message, for instance, the words of the Sermon on the Mount, supported by Jesus' life and death, are not meant to set up any new law, to create any new juridical order. The are meant to free men from the law.”—Why Priests, page 29

<idle musing>
Yes! I like that, “It lets him become so free in society's power struggle that he is capable of using power to his own disadvantage for the sake of another person.” Nothing like turning power on its head! Power is for service, freedom is for service. But not out of obligation, out of love.
</idle musing>

The body of Christ

“Unlike the pagan or Jewish cult, the Christian needs no priest as mediator at the innermost part of the temple, with God himself. Rather , he is granted an ultimate immediacy to God which no ecclesiastical authority can destroy or even take away from him. No one has the power to judge, control or command decisions which fall within this innermost realm. To be sure, the Christian faith does not fall directly from heaven; it is passed on in the Church. But 'Church' means the whole believing community which, through the proclamation of the gospel—often done more by the humbler folk than by the hierarchs and theologians, more by deeds than by words—awakens faith in Jesus Christ, invites commitment in his Spirit, makes the Church present in the world through the Christian witness of daily life and thus carries on the cause of Jess Christ. It is after all everyone, not just a chosen few, to whom the proclamation of the Christian message in all the different kinds of congregation is entrusted; an individual and social life according to the gospel is required of all, and to all are entrusted baptism on [sic] the name of Jesus, the memorial, thanksgiving and covenant meal and the word of forgiveness of sins; the ministry of daily life and responsibility for their fellow men, for the congregation and for the world is given over to everyone—in all these basic functions a community of liberty, equality, fraternity.”—Why Priests, page 28

Equal opportunity employer

"...a Church which bears the name of Jesus Christ, hears his word and is sustained by his Spirit can never be identified with a particular class, caste, clique or authority. Like Jesus himself, his Church too addresses itself to the whole people and particularly to the underprivileged. The Church, then, is the whole community of believers in Christ, in which all may regard themselves as people of God, body of Christ, structure of the Spirit. The decisive criterion of this community is not a privilege of birth, state, race, or office. What is decisive is not whether someone has an 'office' in the Church or what office he has, but whether and to what extent he is purely and simply a 'believer': that is, one who believes, obeys, serves, loves, hopes."—Why Priests?, pages 27-28