Theology
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008
Ecclesiology: Exploring Some Recent Models
by Kevin Moroney
The International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC) is a gathering of Anglican liturgical scholars and specialists who, beginning in the 1980’s, perceived the need to meet and discuss matters of mutual concern for Anglican liturgical life. This article is concerned with two essays that were published in a collection titled Equipping the Saints: Ordination in Anglicanism Today [1], which are related to the IALC Berkeley Statement on Ordination.
The first article is Baptismal Ecclesiology: Uncovering a Paradigm by Louis Weil and the second is A Baptismal Ecclesiology – Some Questions by Paul Gibson. In the first, Dr. Weil articulates what is included in an understanding of Baptismal Ecclesiology. He states that it can be used to describe the early Church’s self understanding before the emergence of a hierarchical ecclesiology following the Constantinian settlement. Thus Baptismal Ecclesiology can be seen as a recovery of the understanding that ordained ministry is set within the ministry of the whole people of God; all the baptized are called to actively participate in the ministry of the Church and thus any sense that ordination elevates the clergy above the laity is eliminated.
Theologically, this is very comfortable ground for Episcopalians. The 1979 Prayer Book can even be seen as an early expression of this recovery of a Baptismal Ecclesiology. In our churches, communion is offered to all the baptized and ministry is the work of the entire baptized community.
However, in his essay Paul Gibson raises a concern about Baptismal Ecclesiology. He writes ‘I do find myself asking if the equality established by baptism can carry the full freight of a theology of ministry and order. It is not that it is wrong, but whether it is partial …’ He notes that the descriptions of baptism in the Book of Acts vary from the ecclesial (3000 baptized in Acts 2), to the very personal (the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8). Thus, he concludes, baptism was not always initiation into a larger body but was often a personal act of commitment and conversion. Gibson suggests that a theology of ministry and order should instead be built on a Eucharistic Ecclesiology. He points out that there is little evidence that baptism was central to Jesus’ ministry, while table ministry was indispensable. The table requires that there are those who serve and those who are served. Through table ministry Jesus dined with sinners in order that they might turn towards God and embrace higher standards. Baptism, he claims, is the door, but the table is where structure and order are defined.
Both of these articles contain important points. Neither author is arguing whether the ministry of all the baptized is a sound theological principle. The question raised by Gibson is whether a full theology of ministry is carried by baptism. Weil does clarify that when he speaks of baptismal ecclesiology, it is presumed to include both baptism and eucharist. Similarly, Gibson added in a footnote that ‘If the IALC had defined baptism as the water rite and the eucharist combined – which I believe is the proper definition of Christian Initiation – there would be no need for the rest of this paper.’ So it would seem that an Initiation Ecclesiology is actually what emerges from their writings.
To begin my own reflection, allow me to say that the authors of these two articles are far more knowledgeable in these matters than I am. However, the question I would like to raise is whether, even with an ecclesiology that includes baptism and eucharist, are we continuing to mistake a part, or parts, for the whole? There seems to be an assumption that the fullness of the Church’s life and ministry, i.e., ecclesiology, is carried by the theological principles of Christian initiation. However, shouldn’t our ecclesiology have more to say about orders of ministry than that there are servers and the served? The challenge, it seems to me, is to find a metaphor that theologically carries the total ministry of the Church. Something that includes not only the door and the table, but also the frame, the siding and the roof: the entire structure.
I suggest the consideration of an Incarnational Ecclesiology. This model assumes that everything we need to know about the Church and its ministry can be identified in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. This includes baptism and eucharist, but also includes preaching, teaching, calling, healing, etc. Furthermore, Incarnational Ecclesiology draws on the Pauline language of the body of Christ, for just as Jesus was God incarnate, so the Church, in all its ministries, is called to be Christ’s body in the world (albeit through our human frailties). Orders of ministry can then be seen as emanating from the body analogy: ‘Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1 Cor. 12:27-28a).’
This model, it seems to me, is more comprehensive than either a Baptismal or Eucharistic Ecclesiology, and grounds our understanding of the Church as being an expression of God’s self revelation in Christ.
1 Ronald L. Dowling and David R. Holeton, eds. Equipping the Saints: Ordination in Anglicanism Today. Papers from the Sixth International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (Dublin: Columba Press, 2006), ISBN: 1 85607 543 5.
Kevin Moroney is Associate Rector and Director of Adult Education at St. David’s Church in Wayne. He previously served as Lecturer in Liturgy at the Church of Ireland Theological College, and is a doctoral candidate in liturgy at The Milltown Institute in Dublin, Ireland.