Going Parachurch: Ordination?
Posted on December 1 2009. Comments: 13
Posted by:
Arthur Davis
Christian ministers talk a lot about ‘pastoral ministry’ (running a local church) and often call it ‘the ministry’. This is the established ministry path in every denomination, and denominational trainers may even present it as definitive. However, as I explored elsewhere, parachurch and mission do not require denominational endorsement. Still, denominations do provide for many forms of ministry and mission. Might it be possible to find some kind of place for parachurch work within these?
As 2009 approached, I began exploring ordination in the Anglican Church, and then began its ‘Year of Discernment’ program in Melbourne. I viewed ordination pragmatically; my interest in ordination was for what ministry doors it might open. I had never planned to pursue local church leadership, but I wondered if my parachurch path might fit in with the Anglican diaconate.
Anglicans have a ‘threefold order’ of ministry: in addition to bishops and priests, they’ve got deacons, who form the diaconate. Commentators identify two dimensions of the diaconate. Firstly, a deacon is servant, a broad role using Acts 6 as its prototype, with three angles: a deacon serves others, symbolises service to others, and enables others to be servants themselves. Secondly, the deacon is bridge, connecting their local church and surrounding society, and activating other Christians for missio
In this dimension of bridge and missional activator, the diaconate sounds like it might have a real connection with parachurch work. This is certainly true in some cases; for example, becoming a deacon is a really good way of doing chaplaincy in Australian schools or hospitals. However, there are two problems.
Firstly, the diaconate is highly generalised. A deacon should be prepared for everything from charity to mission. As one source puts it, a deacon has ‘a heart for the dispossessed and the poor, a strong need to deliver the Church’s grace-filled ministry to those outside, and a strong impulse to keep the Church alive to the realities of secular people’. The diaconate may well be distinctive but it doesn't have the built-in specialisation required in parachurch ministry.
Secondly, the diaconate is institutionally constrained. Here is an example of the vows deacons make. Deacons (1) operate in obedience to a bishop and priest and (2) are ordained to a parish. Even after a deacon completes their curacy, their ministry remains defined in connection to some parish or other -- in other words, a deacon is not just integrated in a local church but their ministry is tied to it at the bidding of a bishop and a priest. If a deacon is to go further afield, it is only with their permission.
In practice, an Anglican deacon may be unhinged for mission in their local area but will always remain at least theoretically subservient to a particular local church and its institution. While Anglican ordination can therefore accommodate parachurch work such as chaplaincy, it does not clearly provide for ministers to be unhinged for mission. For this reason, I pulled out of the Year of Discernment. In the next post I'll explore some other models.
This post was part 2 in a series of three at Cyberpunk + Blue Twin go back to uni.
Comments
Tuesday, 01 December 2009
Andrew Bowles says:
Sorry, to follow up my previous comment, I want to say that I’m not criticising you in particular. What I see often is two attitudes to serving in the church that are bad in different ways. Those who are comfortable with denominations have a temptation to view them as offering resources (a salary, a house, ministerial prestige) that they want. This is my temptation, and you just have to listen to prospective curates to know what this is about. Those who are uncomfortable with denominations and institutions tend to be tempted to view them as offering opportunities that they would like (working in particular schools, missionary organisations, etc.). The analogy would be proposing marriage to a woman. Some will do it because she is rich and they want her money, others because her father owns the company and he will give them a job. The true lover asks only for her in herself.
Lord, have mercy.
Wednesday, 02 December 2009
Arthur Davis says:
Yeah, I can well appreciate the non-pragmatic angle on ordination—insofar as ordained ministers are appointed as shepherds/leaders/overseers in the Body.
I like your critique of our motivations for ordination.
For me as a parachurch minister, though, I see denominations as ministry networks much like any other. So what’s important to me is not ordination per se, but being “ordained” (appointed) by the right people, denominational or otherwise. In my case, that means my mission org (CMS) and my supporters and senders (my base churches, friends, etc). Those are the ones I’m accountable to in ministry. More on this on my blog to follow.
In terms of how a denomination can endorse missions… A denomination could certainly ordain missionaries for mission, but what’s important is that the missionaries are unhinged from the institution—ie, the missionaries will be in relationship with the denomination, but will not answer to it and be controlled by its structures, insofar as their work takes them outside the orbit of the denomination.
Friday, 04 December 2009
Andrew Malone says:
I don’t think it’s entirely impossible to be ordained by one diocese to serve in another. But I’ve only seen it done a couple of times—and probably on the presumption that you’re moving to another compatible (sc. Anglican) ministry. So it might be worth pushing a little harder on a couple of doors.
For what it’s worth, I think Andrew’s original critique is probably fair: that you (Arthur) are seeking the company letterhead in order to open fruitful doors of your own choosing. This isn’t a personal complaint, just an observation; my own temptations towards ordination would be fuelled by precisely the same motives.
I’m really pleased that you’ve found and cited some of the liturgy involved. While some of the promises made by deacons and priests are fairly general (i.e. commitment to God’s church), a few of them are just too specific. I, for one, am not yet ready to sign up exclusively to one parish (or, in some ways, even to a single diocese or denomination). Nor does it matter what church leaders and peers tell me these vows mean ‘in practice’; I’d need to be comfortable with the actual promises I’m making.
Keeping thinking and praying!
Friday, 04 December 2009
Tim Foster says:
Hi Arthur, thanks for your post. It is great to hear your reflections given that you have been thinking so hard about this.
I would question both your main points.
First, the diaconate is broad, as you say. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be a deacon and speacialise (say in youth ministry). It is an order that is about getting out of the concerns of the local congregation and evangelising and caring in the community. I think more should be made of this order.
I agree that the diaconate is institutionally contrained, and that might rule it out for you for the moment. However, it shoudln’t be! A person is not ordained to a parish, but to the ministry of the church, which is not necesserilly parochial. However, in practice, what you say is right, you need to work in a parish initially, and that is the context that most systems are focussed on.
My point is that this doesn’t have to be the case. It would be great for a diocese to partner more closely with its missionary organisations, and raise up, train, ordain and send missionaries. That’s excatly what it used to do as far as I can tell.
Saturday, 05 December 2009
Arthur Davis says:
AM—Yes, Andrew’s original critique is on the money. What’s driving me is “What do I need to do parachurch?”
Tim—Thanks for your comments and counter-observations. You’re quite right that it doesn’t have to be as stark as I’ve put it. I’m talking about lowest common denominators. A deacon can specialise, but the diaconate doesn’t have built-in specialisation. That is, can someone become a deacon with the guarantee of a specific missionary task having their undivided attention? Perhaps—but that’s at the behest of the institutional structures. That’s my point: it’s only a perhaps, rather than a given. Likewise, the possibility of non-parochial focus may arise, but is there a guarantee of that? The diaconate has built-in institutional commitments rather than a missionary unhinged-ness—and those two things are in some sense mutually exclusive.
My thinking is this. Given that ministry/mission doesn’t need to be hinged to a denomination, I don’t need pursue mission within those bounds. What I do need is capital-C Church connection (the organic Body), which means local church relationships and various levels of accountability according to where I’m ministering.
Saturday, 05 December 2009
Tamie says:
Hi everyone!
I suspect that one issue at stake here is how optimistic you are about the potential of institutions to change and to change for the better.
On one hand, you can look at what ‘might be’ in, say, the Anglican church, and work for a change in the diaconate. On the other, you may feel that trying to turn such a large ship simply takes away from actually doing mission.
There are two angles to this as I see it. Firstly, you have to decide whether any institution by its nature excludes risk taking - whether institutions generally even have the potential for outward focus. Then you have to think practically - if it’s theoretically possible, can it be done with this institution at this time? Pragmatically, I guess if you think you can bring change, the long term benefits outweigh the short, but if you’re not convinced that you can, it will appear as a waste of time and resources.
Monday, 07 December 2009
Andrew Malone says:
Looks like Tamie’s comments might be getting closer to some of the core concerns: Do you trust a particular institution to rightly serve the wider Christian community? Or will you sign up, only to find them pulling rank and directing you against your will? Hard call, and probably impossible to answer.
While I’m here: I’ve not before heard the language of ‘unhinged’ used in this context. It means something quite different to my generation and geographical context! Does it have a particular widespread heritage I don’t know about, or just an Arthurism?
Tuesday, 08 December 2009
Arthur Davis says:
I know “unhinged” as an Andrew Reidism… 
Tuesday, 08 December 2009
Arthur Davis says:
(What’s up with that emoticon?!)
Tuesday, 08 December 2009
Tim Foster says:
Ahhh, now we are getting closer to your core concerns - ‘institutions’.
How does one defend institutions without sounding like an outmoded, sold out, has been? I imagine it’s too late anyway.
I am all for new things and working outside institutions. I understand Tamie’s point that it is better to put your energy into new things than turning around institutions. And I lament the slowness of institutions to change and their unwillingness to take risks.
I say go for it!
One of the reasons that evangelicalism has grown and thrived as a movement has been its capacity to create institutions. One of the reasons is that institutions can change the world and endure. Any movement that doesn’t institutionalise is condemned to last less than a generation. More than that, most movements instiutionalise quickly because it is difficult to sustain an organisation organically once more than a few people are involved.
Tuesday, 08 December 2009
Arthur Davis says:
Yep, this is what Tamie and I are thinking: we’re not so much concerned about escaping institutions as working out whether our institutions need to be denominations. Like you say, if missions movements are to endure, they need to organise, which makes them institutional—and our own connections, CMS and IFES, are prime examples. And needless to say, missions organisations can be just as prone to being anti-missional as any denominational institution!
Speaking of changing the world, we’ve found Steve Addison’s book Movements that change the world, just released, to be an excellent practitioner’s manual for parachurch and missions. I’ve got the library’s copy for the time being. 
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Arthur Davis says:
The rest of the series is here:
http://arthurandtamie.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/going-parachurch-3-apostles/
http://arthurandtamie.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/going-parachurch-4-wrap-up/
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
Tuesday, 01 December 2009
Andrew Bowles says:
I viewed ordination pragmatically; my interest in ordination was for what ministry doors it might open.’
Speaking as an ordinand, I think this is not how the ordination procedure is meant to be viewed. We offer ourselves to the church to discern whether we are called to a particular ministry. To view ordination as a ladder to some benefit (money, ministry opportunities, job security), I would actually regard as a temptation to be resisted. Of course we all struggle with our motivations.
In regards to the point of your post, I do think it would be good for the church to consistently recognise evangelistic/missioner workers as free-moving elements (or ‘orders’) within the diocesan structure. If this is actually a possibility, perhaps someone can enlighten me.