Bože! independent catholic ideas, identity & theology

Bože!
"The Collar" – Security Risk & Witness

Fr. Chris over at Even the Devils Believe and my partner pointed me in the direction of the following two reports in the Telegraph, and on the BBC.

I found that reading the media reports annoyed me – aside from reporting errors – the Telegraph for example asserts that the author of the report Nick Tolson, claims that “there would be no attacks on clergy if they heeded the advice” when in fact Mr. Tolson clearly and repeatedly states the opposite – that there is nothing that can totally eliminate the risk, but there are wise steps one can take to greatly reduce the probability of being attacked because you are viewed as an easy target (i.e. a clergy person). There was the assumption in these reports that we are somehow a class exempt from the daily experiences of the society around us. There was no acknowledgement for example of the fact that, at least here in the UK, we live in an increasingly un-civil society, and that the natural corrolary of this is a rise in violence generally – let alone a breakdown in unspoken taboos of an earlier era. It may merely be the case that the effect on clergy is what I think biologists and ecologists call “an indicator species” – pointing to the general trend, or effect of a particular set of circumstances.

If you have not already done so I do recommend reading the material, and the report itself which is in PDF format here. While there are a number of suggestions that do not apply in our OC/IC context – others are good tips to be aware of.

The value of our clergy wearing “the collar” is, I think an interesting conversation and one worth having. One thing I did find in reading the media reports that did ruffle my feathers is the impression that clergy can somehow hold their office at some point in the day, and not in others, and that this “switch” is signaled by the absence or presence of “the collar”. I have seen many good clergy use the symbolism of “the collar” for fantastic purposes in ministry – but never have I witnessed them doing so to say “I’m off duty” or “priestly time is up for today – come back another time”; to my mind the phrase “you are a priest forever” means just that. It means that we have to be creative in the ways in which we live out priesthood – finding ways to be a priest in the most unexpected settings and situations.

Some have argued that wearing the collar makes them more conscious of their duty – they’re under a greater degree of scrutiny because of it. I can see how this would work. But I can also see how this is a pitfall – setting a bad example to others who are not ordained, suggesting that it is somehow possible for all baptised people to become anonymous, and hide or shirk from their religious duty as believers precisely because there is nothing overtly signalling to observers that they are “Christian” and therfore have a particular set of ideals, values, and expected behaviours. In baptism, we are all “clothed according to the rank of Melkizedek” (St. Proklos Hom. 1.3) we should therefore not require the aid of a particular item of clothing to fulfill our religious duty! Perhaps we all ought to imagine ourselves wearing a collar so as to cultivate a better sense of identity as believers in Christ clothed according to the rank of Melkizedek.

Others have argued that wearing “the collar” is an act of witness. True – but I wonder, witness to what? I confess I’ve struggled with this particular argument for years. When I see clergy in public often it is not an example I want to follow; cold, aloof, sanctimonius, cowerdly, afraid, untouchable – these are the “first impressions” that are often conveyed. If you think I’m exaggertaing then let three examples sit with you for a moment. Here in the UK you very rarely see Anglican or Roman clergy on public transport – the place where the people are. When you do, they huddle together and scowel at their fellow man. You do however, see orthodox clergy. On the few occasions when I’ve worn “the collar” on public transport – even on a very crowded train, I get nearly a metre of space around me in any direction, and my fellow passengers cautiously, suspiciously, watch me from out of the corner of their eye (I don’t think I’m that ugly – but maybe its because I smile?). Finally, I was in Liverpool last year, at a church function, so I was wearing “the collar” and among the comments of passers by one has stuck with me: “You NEVER see them out in public.” The collar is only an effective “witness” if the countenance, speech, and actions of the one wearing it follow through. It does not speak for itself – it must be interpreted, and many people interpret it in a negative light.

What is more we OC/IC folk have an image problem in relation to “the collar” – there are too many of our “clergy” who wear it to display, and assert their “status” rather than to serve. So when we do wear it for all the right reasons, in all the right settings, we find that it is not uncommon that we have to be a true witness to our tradition, and correct the bad example of those who have come before us.

I wonder if the collar ought to be seen as a tool of witness – should we not instead cultivate a culture in our OC/IC communities of everyone’s participation in living the Gospel, and therefore that we are all, as baptised believers, a witness to the teaching and example of Christ? If I assert that “the collar” is a tool of witness does this not suggest that only I an ordained person can truely be an effective confessor of the faith?

Clothing is a mark – it communicates an enormous amount of silent information about the wearer – its use in this fashion, both consciously and unconsciously has not changed in centuries, though the styles used certainly have. Unfortunately there is no escaping the fact that to wear “the collar” makes a very loud statement about the status and position of the individual wearing it; today it seems that that statement is both unwelcome, and can be mis-interpreted (even when we think we are making a totally different comment).

Because clothing is a mark – “the collar” does facilitate ministry in difficult situations – I’ve expereinced it over and over again, that “the collar” gains me access to places, people, and situations that are instantly barred to others. This means that I’m able to be of use, to help in ways that others are not. This fact cannot be denied, but does it justify entirely the use of the collar? Protestant ministers don’t seem to have a difficulty – though I do know that some, who normally would not, will wear a collar at times for this very reason.

Do I feel more or less safe when wearing a collar – to be honest I don’t notice a difference. I do find that wearing a collar makes me more self consicous and sometimes I wonder if it may actually affect my ability to be of service in a negative way – this could merely be a matter of personal style – because of my theology of baptism and the priesthood.

15/10/2007 | Filed under OC/IC Issues, Theology of Ordained Service.

  • Chris T.

    If I assert that “the collar” is a tool of witness does this not suggest that only I an ordained person can truely be an effective confessor of the faith?

    I don’t think that follows at all. As a priest, I am called to very specific ministries, and I am equipped in spiritual and more mundane ways to do so — spiritually by the special grace given me at ordination by the Holy Spirit, which lets me confect the Eucharist and celebrate other Sacraments, and in more mundane ways by my education, the working of my hands, ears, brain, etc., and by the collar I wear. It’s a tool of evangelism that is appropriate to deacons, priests, and bishops.

    Lay people are called to different ministries (though we all share many ministries, of course), and are equipped to fulfill those ministries. The fact that I have my “kit” and they have theirs doesn’t mean that what I do is true and what they do isn’t. It just means we have different calls and slightly different ways of doing things.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Chris,

    While I don’t disagree with you – but I’ve repeatedly witnessed on the ground how people defer to the collar as the only authentic representative of the faith – thus prompting my “devil’s advocate” question. It does seem, that while your answer is intellecutally spot on – theory is not realised in practice – it is more than a small number of people who DO perceive and respond to the collar in a manner that suggests that clergy are the only ones who authentically/fully bear witness to the faith. I don’t like it – never have – but I do think that the symoblism of the collar is one that our OC/IC community would greatly benefit from exploring – and this is part of the result of that symoblism.

  • John Plummer

    Alexis I really appreciated this thoughtful post. I can see both sides of the issue, but, frankly, I find that I am much more effective with no collar – as the assumptions and projections it brings tend to get in the way. Does it matter if anyone knows whether I am a priest or not, as long as I am living out my commitment to service?

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Thanks John,

    I admit – I do not often wear a collar for reasons similar to yours. What is more, I think that you’ve hit on something well worth further discussion – Does it matter if anyone knows whether I’m a priest or not as long as I’m living, practicing, my commitment to service?

    My immediate thoughts are drawn to the teaching that we ought to pray in secret, and to give such that our right hand does not know what the left is doing, as well as the admonition against the scribes and pharisees who proudly wear their tassels and expect to be given the seat of honour at table. Hmmmm .. .. ..

  • Lyngine

    From a laity perspective, yes it matters that we know whether or not you are a priest. The symbol matters a great deal *if* used in service and humility (yes, this can be rare). To be a visible symbol can carry great moral weight, and used appropriately can make both small and large differences. In terms of current events, one of the most powerful images in the past month has been the the monks marching through the streets of Burma—that they were identifiable as monks and religious figures and all that symbolizes was hugely important. I’m not sure I would too quickly dismiss that responsibility. On a smaller scale, for laity to see someone who is clearly a priest/bishop act in love, humility, and service is hugely powerful. To hear someone in a position of religious authority say “I am at your disposal” to a someone and mean it absolutely– completely floors me.

    It’s not that I, as laity, can’t do some of these things. And yes, I can reach those to whom religious garb is problematic and who may be reluctant to speak to a priest. And yes, I am also called to public witness. BUT there are times when the same action performed by someone in a collar and all that symbolizes can have a much greater impact on hearts and minds of those we serve. Yes, there are a lot of people in the OC/IC movement who like to dress up in clericals and not do much else and yes the negative projections that people bring to seeing one in a collar can interfere. I’m not saying this isn’t complicated and that there aren’t times when the collar interferes. BUT I wouldn’t so quickly dismiss the power of the specific symbols of ordained life and all that can mean to one’s calling and service.

    -lyngene

  • Chris T.

    Does it matter if anyone knows whether I’m a priest or not as long as I’m living, practicing, my commitment to service?

    As someone who has done on-the-spot pastoral and sacramental care for people who have grabbed me because they saw the collar, yes, it does matter.

    As for the previous question about the collar being a tool for evangelism — in practice, the collar does quite well. Sure, there are abuses — but nothing I’ve experienced suggests to me that that’s the majority. Meeting with occasional abuses does not overturn all the good reasons for wearing a collar and having that be part of the specific kind of work clergy do that is different from the work of laypeople.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Thanks Chris & Lyngine for sharing your thoughts on this. As I said – I think it is well worth the discussion, largely because the collar is one of those inherited symbols I’ve talked about in previous posts – if we don’t consciously explore the symoblism, its value and function in our context then I think we do ourselves a great disservice.

    You are both right the symbolism of the collar is both powerful, and when, as I’ve said earlier if the countenance, speech, and actions of the one wearing it do not follow through and embody the symbol it will take on a meaning counter to that which it is designed to convey.

    I should point out in all fairness to our own, that the difficulties of expressing and interpreting the symbolism of the collar are not exclusive to our OC/IC context – all the sacramental churches have the problem. For us, though, I think it is one that is just that little bit more difficult to overcome because we don’t have the massive weight of “institution” standing behind us which can cover many of the blemishes we’ve raised.

    This is not in itself a bad thing – I actually believe that it creates a challenge to us all, laity & clergy alike to stand up and be counted as OC/IC belivers – to be actively engaged in the mission, vision & values of our tradition and community. It does however, mean that to serve in an ordained capacity in our context is sometimes that much more difficult because of those who have gone before, who have not exemplified the best qualities of our tradition.

  • John Plummer

    I think part of the issue here may relate to the variable nature of one’s vocation. Priesthood – and Christian vocation in general – takes many different forms. Some people may be called to a life of public witness or evangelism (inspiring ourselves and others to the kind of life displayed in Jesus, not converting people to a religion). Others may have a priestly ministry which is less immediately identifiable as such, although nonetheless effective. As Greg Tillett remarked during a recent symposium, it is not *what* we do, but how and why we do whatever we do, which makes for priestly activity.

    Also, here again, the issue of community comes up. Who is our community? Who do we serve? By whom are we served? For some, community may be constituted by a defined religious body. For others, community is simply the people in our lives, whoever they are. A priest whom I know lives above her business, and celebrates mass each morning for her clients and employees – although they have no idea she is doing that. Does that make her hidden work less effective? Not in my book.

    People’s expectations can be odd. An RC priest told me about being berated by a parishioner in a supermarket for daring to go out shopping without his collar. She wanted him labeled and defined (and thus, in some sense, controlled) at every moment. Yet Christianity was around for a good while before clerical garb developed. Jesus and the apostles were certainly not wearing any special identifying outfits or using any titles.

    This is a long and too-quickly-written comment, but my point is: I think each ordained person has to work out for herself the issue of clerical garb. What are my circumstances, my social environment, my culture? What is the nature of my priestly vocation? Why would I want people to be able to (or not to be able to) immediately identify me as ordained? Is this about me or others? Etc etc. We will each have our own discernment.

  • Lyngine

    Amen, John.

    Yes, it does depend on a lot of factors. My first comment was in response to the idea that visibility *never* matters. The part that’s I didn’t include in that first comment is that it doesn’t matter *all* the time.

    A second idea I didn’t include is that when a priest choses to remove his/her collar is just as important a witness as when he/she chooses to wear it. And many times, removing one’s collar can be just as powerful a statement of Christian witness and community as wearing one. Whether one wears a collar or choses not to very much depend on context and what one wants to communicate and to whom.

    I think your questions are absolutely spot on, and answered honestly by any ordained individual would be very enlightening. Ironically, I find that simply observing over time when an OC/IC/ISM priest chooses to wear or not wear a collar and under what circumstances can be amazingly revealing to others about how that individual understands their vocation.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Lyngine,

    your point about a priest choosing to remove the collar as a statement of witness is something I’ve seen in a number of different contexts to great affect.

    I think you & John are both spot on when pointing out the appraisal of context as to wearing or not wearing the collar.

    One thing you pointed out directly, and I think John by description is how the choice to wear or not to wear the collar can be very revealing as to how the individual (and perhaps even his or her community) percieves the mechanics of their vocation.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi John,

    I agree in large part with your post.

    There is a part of me however, (and here I openly confess I’m playing devil’s advocate again) that wonders if it is not the case that because priesthood is ostensibly, historically, a public office if it does justice to the function of that office if no-one knows I’m a priest?

    You’ve also made a very interesting point – one which would have never struck me at least – and that is the idea that the collar creates a possible control situation whereby individuals claim ownership or control over a clergy person – that is an interesting dynamic.

    Finally, I concurr that it is up to the individual clergy person as to whether or not to wear the collar – for many of the reasons we’ve raised thus far in this rather fun discussion – I’ve seen on at least one occasion a jurisdiction (now defunct) which as part of its 180 canons dictated the attair of its clergy – I could not believe what I was reading.

  • John Plummer

    Alexis -
    Is priesthood always a public office? I’ll give you that historically that has been the case most of the time….. but what about monastic priests (e.g. Carthusians) with no public ministry? Or hermit priests in the desert or on Mt Athos? I also think that we should not be afraid to think outside the box in terms of the forms vocation might take in our contemporary situation.

    On the control issue – I think sometimes the desire to see clery always in a collar can be part of the “priest is not a real person, and is not entitled to a real life” distortion.

    Another sidebar – At least around here, most Protestant clergy do not wear any kind of clerical garb, and they are the most public and vocal clergy we have in Nashville…. for better or worse!

  • John Plummer

    One more follow-up to my post which is waiting for your approval -

    Some years ago, a wise Trappist friend was discussing his monastic priestly vocation with me. He pointed out that in our modern world, we want everything to be practical and efficient and productive – including ministry. God, on the other hand, is not practical in any way that corresponds to human understanding. Thus, odd, impractical (even “wasteful”) forms of vocation – without public ministry or even clear usefulness of any kind – can witness to God’s extravagant mystery, which we do not need to understand, but only to live within.

  • Chris T.

    There is a part of me however, (and here I openly confess I’m playing devil’s advocate again) that wonders if it is not the case that because priesthood is ostensibly, historically, a public office if it does justice to the function of that office if no-one knows I’m a priest?

    Priests can obviously model that office in ways beyond just the collar, but this is nevertheless pretty much where I am at. People who are put off by collars aren’t afraid of the collar itself, they’re afraid of clergy. So taking off the collar may get around that, but it’s not always the best move.

    And as far as reaching those people, that’s not always the clergy’s responsibility. As Lyngine points out, that can be the work of lay-people, too. One of my favorite quotes on this is from Gene Robinson in Going to Heaven, the biography that was written about him. He says something about how candidates for orders need to take their discernment very seriously, because being ordained a deacon or priest seriously restricts your ministry. As a lay-person, you can do almost anything. As a priest, you are called to minister in very specific ways — and there may be some people you personally can’t reach as a result of how you’re called to do ministry. I think it’s a very negative kind of clericalism that expects priests to be priests and be everything lay-people are at the same time. Leave the ministry of the laity to the lay-people — it’s their (indispensable) calling.

  • Tim Cravens

    And the ministry of bishops is even more restricted than that of priests . . .

    I think that each clergyperson has to figure this out for himself or herself. I agree with John that there are hidden, largely solitary priestly ministries, and not all priests are called to a public ministry. And others, who are called to be pastors of communities, are called to a more public role. What may be appropriate for one priest in one situation may not be appropriate for another priest or in a different situation.

    I do keep coming back to a comment I read many years ago in an Episcopalian publication about the imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday and whether or not one should keep them on after the service, and the author said that perhaps those who want to keep them on might ought not to, and vice versa. Some might wish to wear them to be seen by others, while others might want to take them off out of fear of having their faith known publicly.

    While that is an overly simplistic test to apply to clerical garb, I do think that it would be good for clergy to ask themselves about their motivation for wearing — or not wearing — a clerical collar (or other garb). Much of this discussion (which is a good one — thanks, Chris, for starting it, and Alexis for continuing it) has focused on the effect of wearing the collar on others, and I think that is certainly important, but I also think that the priest’s attitudes toward wearing or not wearing the collar is very important, and it is extremely important for a priest to understand his or her motivations. There are both healthy and unhealthy reasons to wear and not to wear a collar, and as with every aspect of ministry, self-awareness is key. And these motivations probably have a stronger effect on one’s ministry than the actual wearing or not wearing the collar.

    And, on a lighter note, I think the best venue for this discussion would be the Philadelphia bar called The Bishop’s Collar — Chris, perhaps next time you’re in Philly, you and Lyngine and I can go there (me in my bishop’s collar — my utterly shameless and completely inappropriate motivation being to get a free drink) to discuss these issues (and John and Alexis have another reason to visit!).

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Tim!

    You opened your comment saying that the ministry of bishops is more restricted than that of priests . . . Would you talk a little more about what you mean by this? My own understanding is the exact opposite since the preisthood is a ministry that, strictly speaking, flows from the episcopacy and is therefore more limited in scope.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Tim Chris & Lyngine –

    WE WANT PICTURES! ha ha ha . . . .oh hey, if you do it, give me a ring on the baltimore number so I can share the laugh if only for a few minutes . . . I’m imagining the caption for the photo – Tim holding his mobile phone up – Bp.s Tim & Alexis (on the phone but still in collar) Fr. Chris, & Lyngine at the Bishop’s Collar . . . HE HE HE.

    No no wait – gotta get John in on it too . . . hmmm CONFERENCE CALL! Tim rings me to let me know you’re there. I then call him back with John on the line too. . . . do American mobile phones have a speaker phone function (grin)?

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Tim wrote:

    “Much of this discussion (which is a good one — thanks, Chris, for starting it, and Alexis for continuing it) has focused on the effect of wearing the collar on others, and I think that is certainly important, but I also think that the priest’s attitudes toward wearing or not wearing the collar is very important, and it is extremely important for a priest to understand his or her motivations. There are both healthy and unhealthy reasons to wear and not to wear a collar, and as with every aspect of ministry, self-awareness is key. And these motivations probably have a stronger effect on one’s ministry than the actual wearing or not wearing the collar.”

    Amen! To that. . . . thus the effect carries over EVEN IF one is not wearing it at a given moment.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Sorry for the multiple mini-postings here but there’s soo much good stuff here and I’m trying to keep up without producing an inordinately long comment . . . .

    Tim (again – he he he) has made an interesting comment here:

    “while others might want to take them off out of fear of having their faith known publicly.”

    It’s interesting to me that we live in a time when there IS caution, hesitation, even fear in some places and instances of allowing others to know that not only are we a people of faith, but which faith it is we practice.

    I am aware of a number of OC/IC clergy for example – who don’t wear the collar at all for this very reason. The fear is not to discover that they are Christians, but to be discovered as OC/IC believers.

    I must confess that when I first came to the UK where there is a long and sometimes bitter history of OC/IC relations with the Anglican community where I was living, I was cautious about revealing that part of my faith and practice. Interestingly enough it was my partner who chastised me for doing it. I sometimes wonder if I inadvertently passed up opportunities to be both present, and a witenss for our tradition during this period of unusual caution on my part.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Chris,

    You made a really interesting observation here: “People who are put off by collars aren’t afraid of the collar itself, they’re afraid of clergy.” Would you talk a little bit more about this; what in your experience brought you to this observation?

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Chris has pointed to an interesting comment made by Gene Robinson: “He says something about how candidates for orders need to take their discernment very seriously, because being ordained a deacon or priest seriously restricts your ministry. As a lay-person, you can do almost anything. As a priest, you are called to minister in very specific ways — and there may be some people you personally can’t reach as a result of how you’re called to do ministry.”

    I think this is directly linked to Tim’s comment below about how the ministry of bishops is even more restricted (sorry I’m working backwards to catch up – but I’m still interested in your thoughts on this Tim).

    I’m working under a bit of time pressure here so my comments may not be as thought out as you might expect . . . I “think” I can see where this comment is coming from, both from personal experience and from hearing the stories of others – including a friend of my partner’s who’s a CofE bishop; indeed I’m wondering if Chris, you were alluding to this idea in the body of your comment. The “restrictiveness” comes about not because of the innate nature of the office (diaconate, priest, bishop) but because of the “social” expectations of the community. It is expected that someone with a “high” office ought to be distant, aloof, and conduct him/herself in a particular fashion. The knock on effect of this sometimes overwhelming attitude is that priests and bishops are hemmed in to a particular mould and mode of operation.

    One of my reasons for not always wearing a collar is to confound this very situation – the result has been some great ministry opportunities and some very funny situations. Once visiting a congregation I took a cab, the driver was a rather rough looking biker type. When he arrived at the hotel the heavy metal music was blasting hard from the cab, and I was a bit . . . nervous to get in the car! We drove for some distance and at an intersection he began gesticulating wildly and swearing loudly out the window at neighbouring cars. Being a resident of DC during a time when it was the murder capital of the US I was praying hard & fast, convinced that we were about to get shot! The light changed and as we proceeded he asked what I was doing in town: “I’m visiting one of my congregations” I replied.

    “Oh shit! So you’re a preacher?”
    “A bishop actually”
    My driver went white – very VERY white.
    “Oh I’m so sorry, you should not have seen that. . .” he stuttered to recover himself . . . “they are friends of mine, I was only teasing them . . . I’m so sorry for the swearing and all . . .”

    I re-assured him that it was perfectly all-right, I live in the real world too, and we had a great conversation about faith, social expectations (including my own) for the rest of the journey.

    Oh and yes, he was a Christian (grin).

    I think that while it is the case that there is a pressure to restrict our activity as ordained clergy it is good for us to do what we can to confound that expectation, and liberate people’s thinking about the role we live out in the life of our OC/IC community.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    John wrote:

    “He pointed out that in our modern world, we want everything to be practical and efficient and productive – including ministry. God, on the other hand, is not practical in any way that corresponds to human understanding. Thus, odd, impractical (even “wasteful”) forms of vocation – without public ministry or even clear usefulness of any kind – can witness to God’s extravagant mystery, which we do not need to understand, but only to live within.”

    Thanks! This was wonderful!
    Amen! Amen! Amen!

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi John,

    You mentioned in passing on the issue of the social desire to control the clergy “I think sometimes the desire to see clergy always in a collar can be part of the “priest is not a real person, and is not entitled to a real life” distortion.”

    I think this in itself is a very interesting comment because it is a situation cultivated by “the church” and ecclesiastical culture over the past few hundred years. In part I think it is related to the asceticism forced upon clergy in other sacramental churches such as the Romans, as well as the canonical and ecclesiological attitudes in those traditions that seemingly, and in an earlier time actively, forced a divide between the laity and the ordained.

    It is one of those inherited attitudes that I think some clergy in our OC/IC community perpetuate, while many others consciously struggle to confound it. For my own part, I would very much like to see all of our clergy confound it – thus liberating the whole OC/IC community from this very unhealthy attitude.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    John,

    You’ve asked if I think priesthood is always a public office – I think I’m going to ask you to bear with me as I turn this one into a new post – it seems to be a really interesting under-current in this thread of discussion, one I think deserves its own space.

    But my short answer is YES Absolutely. You’ll see why in a little bit (grin).

  • John Plummer

    Alexis -
    I look forward to your post on the public office point – I am always enriched by your perspective.

    Re: the Gene Robinson bit, I wonder if the restriction is less true for us indie folks, although still there?? A mainstream priest who has chosen a particular career path with a prescribed form is going to be more limited (or focused) in the possible ways of her ministry. An unpaid indie priest or bp is going to have more freedom in the form that ministry takes – although there is still a particular “focusing” in the commitment to celebrating the sacraments, etc.

  • Tim Cravens

    The ministry of deacons and priests is limited by social expectations, as everyone has pointed out, but also by the fact that they are “official spokespeople” for the church (both the Church Universal and all particular church bodies of which they are a part – which could involve multiple affiliations: denomination, order, parish, diocese), for the Christian tradition, and for God in Christ in a way that laity are not. Anything a priest says or does reflects not only on her but also on the church, her bishop, the Christian tradition, the IC/OC/EIEIO movement, her particular jurisdiction, etc. – and, at the very least, if she has even a lick of sense (a provision which I realize leaves out many IC/OC/EIEIO clergy), she will realize that her actions and words have implications and effects they did not before her ordination.

    I don’t agree that our movement has it easier – if anything, the established roles and expectations make it easier for mainstream clergy. There is a lot more FREEDOM, but exercising that freedom wisely requires a lot of discernment and hard work, so I don’t equate more freedom with being easier.

    And the Internet has complicated things enormously, since the ability to forget prior acts of bad judgment is effectively eliminated.

    The ministry of bishops is far more restricted because it’s not just the laity and unbelievers with whom we must deal, but the clergy. Many clergy bring to their relationship with their bishop (or even bishops not their own) much baggage about authority in general, their parents, prior church leaders, etc. and this makes the relationship delicate for the bishop to manage. Many progressives tend to see any exercise of authority at all as abusive and therefore a bishop is almost guaranteed to be seen as such. (My sense is that their conservative equivalents tend to suspect their bishops of heresy regardless of the bishop’s actual views – not that there aren’t lots of heretical bishops out there . . .) Also, a bishop sometimes must step in and make decisions that will be resented when a priest exercises bad judgment.

    Mainstream bishops have a little more control (at least in theory), given the fact that they have some control over their clergy’s paychecks – but in an all-volunteer church in a movement where, if someone doesn’t like what their bishop does they can easily find a new one (or become one), a bishop must always weigh the concerns of minimizing disruption to the community, stopping problematic clergy behavior and not erring on the side of too much leniency, not being overly authoritarian and therefore discouraging personal and ministerial growth in their priests, all the while upholding the essentials of the Christian faith and tradition as s/he understands it and working for the most edifying building up of their part of the body of Christ possible. All the while, as an IC/OC/EIEIO bishop, working to make a living and maintaining whatever shreds of a personal life as is possible. It’s not easy, there aren’t a lot of good models, and even the ones that are out there can’t provide a model for everything, as each individual and community is different, and what works in one situation may not work in another.

    As I sometimes joke, my primary consecrator failed to exercise full disclosure when he forgot to tell me that the mitre is a high hat because it has a lightning rod hidden inside. I won’t tell you his name, but his initials are John Plummer . . . ;-)

  • Chris T.

    When I was commenting about how ordination restricts one’s ministry, I wasn’t just talking about the social expectations, although that plays into it.

    The reality is, we all only have a finite amount of time and energy. As a priest, I have been called by my Christian brothers and sisters — and am re-called day after day — to celebrate the Sacraments for them, to teach them, and to help my bishop in his work to safeguard the treasures of the Christian faith.

    Sometimes, because of where people are in their lives, it’s difficult to reach them without straying too far from those things above that I am concretely called to do and was ordained to do. If that’s the case, that means it is not for me to reach that person. (The same goes for other things — if doing a certain kind of justice work or building a certain kind of community would draw me away from the core set of things I was ordained to do for my brothers and sisters, maybe I’m not really called to do that particular work or build that particular community.)

    Again, I think we steal ministries of lay-people, whose responsibilities are very different. They must use their gifts to the fullest to advance the work of the Kingdom — but they are not specifically ordained to do any specific kind of ministry. We do our lay-people a disservice if we ever put our specifically sacerdotal work at serious risk to do other stuff.

    (I hope the above doesn’t come across as saying we can’t be involved in justice work or community building or whatever — we absolutely can. But if we realize we’re stepping on others’ toes and failing at our own duties, we should stop and refocus.)

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Tim has made an interesting point here – “will realize that her actions and words have implications and effects they did not before her ordination.” – It’s interesting how after my ordination there were things that I would do differently, or not at all for this very reason.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    John & Tim,

    I think I agree with Tim more, on the question of it being easier or more challenging for OC/IC clergy.

    I agree with John, we do have more freedom. Our path in ministry is not as pre-determined as the paths of many of our “big tent” colleagues. I’ve often listened to my Anglican, RC and Orthodox clergy friends bewail the strictures of their situation, casting evnious glances at the flexibility we enjoy.

    This freedom however is a double edged sword. It means that because so much of what we do, or might choose to do, or seek to explore – either as a personal project or with our respective community – is non-established, uncharted, or on those occasions when it is a “known” quantity we are not faced wit the sometimes overwhelming amount of regulation, layers of circus hoops, “expectation” and community entropy that pre-determine the shape of the particular project. The slate is ostensibly blank which means that wereas our colleagues in the “big tent” community have the path neatly paved before them, we have to find the best route, find a quarry, cut the stone, lay the stone, . . . . in short our path means that we NEED to be more aware, and prepared to take the time to discern.

    Unfortunately because we live in an age of instant gratification – “discernment” does not easily fit into the plan. There are many of our co-religionists who because their path into the OC/IC community was paved with one road block after another in “big-tent” settings, abandon, or appear to abandon, the valuable step of discernment, and (with nothing but good intentions) jump head first over the precipice landing hard on jagged rock and foaming seas.

    On one hand this freedom we enjoy is a wonderful opportunity for breaking the mould, escaping the entropy of “what we have always done”, and experimenting with new ways of meeting the challenge of the Gospel.

    On the other hand, this life we have chosen is equally fraught with danger. We do not have the critical mass of “the Church” backing us up, both in terms of the overbearing nature of a nanny-institution, AND (I think sometimes more importantly) in terms of material and intellectual resources.

    Our OC/IC reputation as a whole has been damaged over the past 70 years because people did not exercise the gift of freedom our tradition offers wisely. I think we have all experienced the consequences of this at least once in our ministry.

    What is more – our big-tent colleagues do not, I sometimes think, understand and appreciate the value of this gift, and why it means so much to us – rather, because many before us have not used it wisely – they interpret it as us as individuals seeking to do whatever we bloody well please for our own personal gain, gratification or agenda. Granted there is an unfortunate number of our “co-religionists” who DO do this, but in my idealism I would like to think that taken as a whole, they are the minority. Just as Fundamentalists are a “minority” however, they make enough noise (becase they desire the attention and the power) to make the majority of outsiders think that ALL Christians/Muslims/Jews are Fundamentalists – our “big-tent” colleagues often treat ALL OC/IC folk with suspicion and disdain because of a minority.

    No, “freedom” does not mean easier. I would not say it necessarily means tha the path is automatically difficult, but it does require that we take the time to discern – knowing that we may be the only OC/IC person that others may have ever actually met (rather than hearing about the crazy heretical sects via third parites). This freedom challenges us to work against the grain of our instant gratification society. What is more in this freedom we find that we need to make friends among our own, we need to encourage one another, support one another, and even occasionally to call one another back from the edge of the precipice before its too late.

  • Alexis Tančibok

    Hi Chris,

    I think I’m understanding where you’re at; and I think I’m safe in saying that I agree with you.

    When I had a congregation in DC one of the things that I found so difficult was to “liberate” the laity from the baggage of their earlier experiences in other churches where they were constantly told “no” or “sit down, be quiet, we’ll take care of the rest”, or “the priest will take care of it” . . . .

    I don’t know that I would say that we “steal” the ministry of the laity – rather things have developed in such a way that the laity no longer “see” that they do have a specific ordained role in the life of the community – “to be Christ in the World”. Jesus fed the poor, he brought relief to the suffering, he broke the barriers of class, gender, economics, he was “present” – these are only a few things – but this is the principal ministry of the laity. Our priestly duty is the service of the cult. We are the keepers of the symbols, traditions, and cult of the “Body of Christ” – and if you happen to be a bishop then you’re added bonus is that you’re responsible for passing on the teaching.

    Yes, the laity have been “robbed” of their rightful role. Our OC heritage was built, in large part on the efforts of laity, theologians, and clergy to actively re-claim that valuable ministry. I think we need to continue building on this foundation, and constantly remind one another of the importance of the ministry of the “whole” body of Christ – and that means the laity. A community made up entirely of the ordained – is not representative of the body, is severely restricted, and does its members a great disservice.

  • Lyngine

    Some of this I’ve mentioned in other contexts, so hopefully this isn’t too repetitive.

    The charism of being laity goes beyond having the time and energy available that is not taken up by sacramental duties required in ordained life. The issue goes deeper and hits at the intrinsic nature of being laity. Because as laity, I hold no official power or authority within my local community and because it’s fairly common knowledge that I have no intention of ever seeking ordination–and therefore will never be in such a position, I am pretty much represent zero threat to folk who have had very negative past experiences with authority and clergy, which can be a large segment of people walking into OC/IC/ISM communities. This means I can be an easier person to approach about certain issues or to ask certain questions or if folk just need a little more encouragement to approach a priest about an issue. So people have another venue in which they make contact as they explore their faith. There is gift in being without overt power or authority in serving a community in which members have had past negative issues with power/authority. The gift lies precisely and intrinsically in the lack of the ordained status and the position that puts one in (as nicely described by Tim in an earlier comment). This also speaks to why someone ordained may want to remove one’s collar once in a while–it’s a constant symbol of authority and wearing it constantly can make it difficult to connect with those one serves.

    The other gift of the laity is that , in general, most are not so completely immersed in religious/church/jurisdictional life and so bring outside loves, passions, and issues into the community—such a necessary gift if we are to keep from becoming overly internally focused as a group.

    It’s not only that laity have some of their time freed up due to the lack of sacramental duties (though this is indeed true), the state of being laity itself holds/confers within it a particular charism that can complement that of priesthood within a worshiping community.

Pages
Other OC/IC Blogs
Recently Scrawled
Seek & Ye Shall Find (usually)
Holy Tweet!