Deacon John Mark McMonagle
The call to ministry is a way to describe a man or women’s restlessness about their own spirituality that culminates in a commitment to a religious life that leads others to a similar religious life. This rather sterile definition can be applied to any religion, sect or cult. This restlessness for spirituality is on one hand innate to all people groups and as such requires interpreters of feelings, mysteries and difficult questions on life and the afterlife. On the other hand, this restlessness has resulted in non-religious or pseudo-religious beliefs and philosophies that lead people to proclaim themselves spiritual leaders of a particular group, or proclaimed so by others.
Such is the case with witchdoctors and shamans, druids and psychics. One can add to this psychologists and psychiatrists, but with caution. ‘Socrates was, and wished to be, iatros tes yuces (iatros tes psuches), a healer of the soul. These Greek syllables have been recast to form the word ‘psychiatrist’…. A scientific psychiatry indifferent to religion and philosophy (as) a new and strange phenomenon.’[1] But, is it? McNeill was looking at a distinction between science and religion that does not reflect the impact of ‘modernity’ on the idea of the soul or spirituality. This being an aside, it is perfectly logical that science would discard any notion of soul under the designation of homunculus, or some such thing, as a superstition. This is unfortunate because this leads to closing doors to study of the invisible, which is not the sphere of scientific inquiry.
What then is the call to ministry? As a Christian, I am not easily persuaded that the comparative religion approach to ministry is in any way sufficient in describing the person of the minister. It is helpful to understand that the Christian minister views the world and man, as a species, vastly different than the tribal medicine man, cultic mystagogue or pedantic religionist. The Christian minister is about the revelation of God to mankind, to humanity, as a representative of God with a role, a trust and a commission.
The papal encyclical, ‘Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests,’ describes the priesthood (as separate from the priesthood of all believers) as it ‘renders tangible the actual work of Christ, the Head, and gives witness to the fact that Christ has not separated Himself from his Church; rather He continues to vivify her through his everlasting priesthood.’[2] As can be readily seen, this is not the commentary of a hinterland druid. Instead, there is here a supposition of terminology (of course) and of an understanding of the spiritual nature of ministry that is highly defined in theological terms. Going yet further, and in this writer’s opinion accurate, the encyclical places on the minister a unique relationship with God: ‘Through the sacramental ordination conferred by the imposition of hands and the consecratory prayers of the Bishop, “a specific ontological bond which unites the priest to Christ, High Priest and Good Shepherd” is established.’[3] This reflects the dogma of Apostolic Succession and thusly, Tradition.
Apostolic Succession is the belief that the Apostles selected successors to their ministry that were of sound doctrine and purity to bear the ‘Keys of the Kingdom’, and therefore establish a physical transference of apostolicity from one generation to the next ad adventus secundus. This transfer, or succession, also hosts the pure teaching and practice of the Church from the instruction of Jesus in the midst of the Apostles, which is the Corpus that is dogma, liturgics and life of the True Church.
Apostolic Succession is seen by Protestantism as an unnecessary apparatus in that the so-called ‘Tradition’ of the Church is sufficiently contained in the Bible. Though the Catholic and Oriental Churches would not deny the monolithic place of Scripture within the Church, they would say in response that Tradition keeps the interpretation and application of Scripture from misinterpretation and misappropriation. For Protestantism, generally speaking, this is a non-argument. What has this all to do with ministry and the call to ministry? Everything in almost everyway.
One’s view of the Church determines how one will serve that Church. If someone understands the Church to be a loose body of individuals who gather together and fellowship over coffee, without doctrinal orientation but with acknowledgement of some important biblical teachings, which are shared after music is sung, then the work of ministry is minimal over the souls of the congregation. A minister of a church that believes this way may not accept any notion of a formal priesthood. However, a minister in a group of people who believe that what was given to their forebears is to be handled with respect and reverence, then his outworking of the pastoral calling will reflect a very different kind of practice. I know ministers in both types of settings.
In like manner, the differences in determining how one receives a call to ministry will be evidenced in its own particular way. In one setting an earnest desire to ‘care for people’ may be the motivating factor in believing that someone is called to the ministry; whereas, the observation of the life and quality of behavior by another congregation may cause that congregation to request an individual to be ordained (as in the case of Cyprian of Carthage). Some also have an intense desire to preach the word of God. Hence, the call to ministry is elusive in that it doesn’t come to everybody the same way.
It is also important to be aware that not everybody who seeks the pastoral calling is doing so for the right reasons. In fact, that individual may be under a delusion that he or she has a special injunction to direct the lives of Christians when in reality this person has ulterior motives. Bishop Shahovskoy of the Russian Church Abroad wrote about these individuals[4]:
‘ I. Love of Money;
practical materialism; offering prayers or sacrament on the payment of a fee—which
is a sin and a perversion of God’s Kingdom.[5]
II. Pomp, show, theatricality… (The angel warned St.
Hermas concerning false shepherds by saying: ‘See Hermas, wherever there is
pomp, there is deceit’ i.e. falsity before God). The Orthodox rite is not pompous or theatrical; it is a reverent
and prayerful reality, calling unto God with voice, color and movement—the
surrender to God of all this world’s flesh.
Only through a heart aglow with love for God and man does Orthodox
symbolism find its right to truth and become a heavenly reality.
III. Fawning on the
rich and the powerful. A contemptuous
attitude to poor and humble people.
“Respect of persons.”
Timidity and false gentleness in denouncing the sins of the mighty ones
in this world. Rudeness and bad temper
with subordinate and defenseless people.[6]
IV. Preaching in church earthly values and attainments;
absorption in some side issue or work to the detriment of the direct
pastoral task of healing souls and bringing them to the One Shepherd. Lack of reverence in church.[7]
V. Seeking honor and
glory for oneself, vanity. Signs of atheism: “How can ye believe, which
receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that comes from God
only?” Indication of pastoral faith:
“he that seeketh his glory that sent him” (John 5, 44).
VI. Lack of care for the
human soul… “He that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the
sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees: and the
wolf catches them, and scatters the sheep” (John 10, 12-13).’
Paul, the Apostle, did warn that false teachers would come, just as Jesus did.
What is encouraging is the clarity and rightness about how this same writer describes a true pastoral calling which he calls a vocation. Some of the signs of vocation he describes are the following:
1.
‘A
deep sense of one’s unworthiness;
2.
A
sincere understanding of pastorship as sacrificial service and dedication of
one’s whole life to God;
3.
A
real spiritual experience of faith;
4.
Experience
in caring for the soul of another.
These are general
signs. The call to true pastorship
comes as a rule not only from the depths of the man’s conscience but also
through the help of those near him, who, inspired from above, persuade him to
enter the path of pastoral service.[8]’
In no way can the minister of the Gospel be equated with a shaman or philosopher or wizard. He is a man of God, called by God in a way that is recognizable to that man and to those in the congregation he is a part of. The enormity of the calling is as personal as it is public, for he who would serve the public body of Christ must know the God of his calling personally, or else he has nothing to represent. This is not the calling of a smoke and mirrors conjuror who leads away the simple; this is the calling of the iatros tes psuche of God to His people and nothing short of this can be called a minister of God.
10/20/2002
Word Count: 1510
[1] John T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls, (1951) p. viii.
[2] Congregation for the Clergy, (Roman Catholic Synod of 1993).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Archbishop John Shahovskoy, The Orthodox Pastor, (1966), pgs. 20-21.
[5] Even if the priest is not personally interested in acquiring material means through the Gifts of grace he must not allow this for his parishioners’ sake, so as to instill in them a clear sense of God’s mercy and of Divine gifts which cannot be bought or sold and are incommensurable with earthly values.
[6] It has a very painful effect on the laity when, because of some slight mistake, a higher cleric makes a rude reprimand to his subordinates during a church service. If a pastor does not spare the feelings of those at prayer, is he likely to care for their feelings outside the Church?
[7] A certain layman came once to a refugee church at the very beginning of the Liturgy and saw through the open south door of the sanctuary that the priest while robbing himself was comfortably talking to the reader on purely secular matters. The layman knew that the priest should put on his vestments prayerfully, and at once lost respect for this particular pastor not mindful of the holy things entrusted to him. If the priest during the service had preached an inspired sermon about the need for silence and reverence in church, could that layman have believed him? The Lord has said, however: “Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works” (Matt. 23,3).
[8] Ibid. pg. 33.