Dr John Macquarrie
(1919-2007) was a Scottish theologian and philosopher. Originally ordained
to the Presbyterian ministry, he became an Anglican in 1962. In 1965 he was
ordained to the priesthood. He is best known as a key existential theologian. Among
his many works are Principles of Christian Theology (1966), Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (1991)
and Mary for All Christians (1991) Macquarrie
was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford from 1970
until his retirement in 1986. He was a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. The
following is an extract from To be a Priest,
pp. 147-153, edited by Robert E. Terwilliger and Urban T. Holmes, Seabury
Press, New York, 1975. Macquarrie's words are still relevant today, especially
that so many people now seem to regard the priesthood primarily in terms of
roles and functions.
We live in the age of functional
man. That is to say, a man or woman is considered in terms of what he or she
does. A man, for example, is a train driver or a bank clerk. Of course, no one
is a driver or a clerk all the time. But then we speak of roles, and this too
is a functional term. When the bank clerk comes home at night, he lays aside
his working role and takes up the roles of husband and father. What we seem
afraid to do is ever to come to the person himself, the person who in some
sense remains identical through the many roles and functions, the person who
not only does things but is someone. Perhaps indeed we have come to doubt
whether there is a personal reality, for in the depersonalized world of today
we act much of the time as if people were nothing but the sums or aggregates of
changing functions and roles. Gabriel Marcel has said that one of the diseases
of our time is the loss of the ontological sense. Man has become so absorbed in
what he does that he no longer has any sense of who he is.
There is, of course, some truth in
the idea of functional man. It is through our deeds and decisions that we
become persons, and what we do makes us who we are. But the human reality is
not exhausted by the functions which any individual performs.
Surely the Christian minister in
particular is more than his functions. We can list his various roles and
functions-he is servant, proclaimer, priest; he preaches, baptizes, presides at
the Eucharist; he does many things besides. But it makes sense to ask: Who is
it that appears in these roles and performs these functions? Daniel Day
Williams made the point when he wrote: "Vocation is more than a role; it
is a life dedicated and a responsibility assumed. No one should be playing a
role at the point where ultimate things are at stake."(1)
If ministry were merely a role or a
collection of functions, then there might seem to be no need for a distinctive
ordained ministry in the Church, and this idea has an appeal in our egalitarian
age. The Church would consist, so to speak, of modular Christians, any one of
whom might be fitted into the appropriate functional slot. Certainly, everyone
recognizes that some functions need training and preparation and that not
everyone could get up and preach. But is presidency at the Eucharist, for
instance, merely performing the function of reciting certain words and doing
certain acts, so that any Christian who is literate and has had a little
practice could do this as well as anyone else? Or is there more to it? Is there
a deeper connection between ministry and presiding at the Eucharist than can be
expressed by terms like "role" and "function"? Or again,
can this particular function be separated and considered in isolation from that
whole constellation of functions which constitute the work of an ordained
minister?
I think there is much more to
ministry and priesthood than the fulfilling of roles and functions. R.C.Moberly
expressed the matter thuss:
"There are not only priestly
functions or priestly prerogatives; there is also a priestly spirit and a
priestly heart-more vital to the true reality of priesthood than any mere
performance of priestly functions. Now this priestly spirit is not the
exclusive possession of the ordained ministry; it is the spirit of the priestly
Church. But those who are ordained 'priests' are bound to be eminently leaders
and representatives of this priestliness of spirit, and they have assigned to
them an external sphere and professional duties which constitute a special
opportunity, and a charisma of grace which constitutes a special call and a
special capacity for its exercise. Such opportunity and call are inseparable
from the oversight of the Christian community to Godward, and they are as wide
as is the life of the Christian body. Leadership in eucharistic worship, truly
understood, is its highest typical expression . . . but eucharistic leadership,
truly understood, involves many corollaries of spirit and life." (2)
It is not meant that the ordained
minister is somehow better or more inward or more spiritual than his lay
brothers and sisters. But within the order and economy of the Church he is
distinct, for he has received a special call, accepted a special
responsibility, and been given in ordination a special grace to strengthen him.
When we remember that ministry is a grace or gift bestowed by Christ, we shall
not be in danger of thinking that the ordained ministry is a superior caste in
the Church. The ordained ministry owes everything to Christ-it is indeed
Christ's ministry embodied in a certain way. This is recognized by the Church's
teaching that the validity of a sacrament does not depend on the personal
worthiness of the priest. Christ himself is the true minister or every
sacrament, and the unworthiness of the human agent cannot void Christ's
bestowal of grace. Of course, this was never intended to suggest that the
minister's worthiness or unworthiness is a matter of indifference! Effectual
priesthood demands not just the doing of the priestly act but being a priest in
union with the great high priest, Jesus Christ. The traditional word used by
theologians to designate the peculiar being or status of the ordained priest,
that which underlies and unites his various roles and functions and finds
expression in them, is the word "character." This is not a popular
word at the present time. To those whose minds are pragmatic, empirical,
analytic, the idea of character may seem just a mystification. They feel safer
in dealing with functional man.
Now I do not deny that the
traditional doctrine of a priestly character was often described in categories
which nowadays we judge to have been too metaphysical and impersonal for
describing the kind of phenomenon which is here in question. To some extent,
this may excuse the impatience with the idea of character found in some modern
writers on ministry. Anthony Harvey, for instance, brusquely dismisses the idea
of character as something that "can find no place" in his account of
ministry.(3)
But it cannot be so quickly
dismissed, nor is a merely functional approach adequate in the least. The
contemporary theologian has got to find more up-to-date and personal categories
in which to express the abiding truth in the idea of priestly character.
In its literal sense, the Greek
word charakter signified the distinctive mark made by a seal
or die or similar instrument. The word is used only once in the New Testament,
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Jesus Christ is said to be "the
express image of God's person" or, alternatively translated, "the
very stamp of his nature" (Hebrews 1:3). In modern usage, the word
"character" has developed a great many meanings, but for our purpose
we shall take our clues mainly from ethical usage, for there is a close
parallel between the ethical idea of character and the theological idea.
The parallel emerges right away,
because just as we have seen that there are two views of the ministry standing
in some tension, the functional view concerned primarily with what the minister
does and the ontological view concerned with who he is, so there have long been
two types of ethical theory, the one understanding morality chiefly in terms of
rules, commandments, acts, overt behavior, the other understanding the moral
life more in terms of virtue and the formation of moral persons or even
communities. It is no accident that the morality of command and act has, in the
specific area of Christian ethics, flourished chiefly among Protestants, while
Catholic moral theologians have been preoccupied with the ethics of virtue. Likewise,
many Protestant theologians tend to view ministry in a functional way, while
such ideas as priestly character and formation have dominated Catholic
thinking.
But although the two approaches have
often been in tension, my own view is that in both ethics and theology they are
finally complementary The merely functional approach is superficial and fails
to do justice the personal reality, but it is not canceled out by the
ontological understanding of the matter; rather, it is given depth and cohesion.
How then does a modern ethicist
think of character? Clearly, character is not a thing or a special faculty. It
is more like a pattern, traceable in a person's behavior and showing elements
of directionality and consistency. Stanley Hauerwas, author of one of the best
recent studies of the subject, writes: "The clearest example of character
is one in which a life is dominated by one all-consuming purpose or
direction."(4) This would be an extreme case, and there can be strong
characters where there are many purposes and interests, provided these are
brought into unity by an "ultimate concern" (to borrow Tillich's
useful expression) giving, as it were, a recognizable set to the agent's
policies.
But although character is a pattern
discernible in action and built up in action, it is not just an adjective or
product of action. On the contrary, character produces some actions rather than
others, for it is constituted by the value judgments and priorities of the agent,
and is hardly to be distinguished from the agent himself.
It is clear that character cannot be
acquired in a moment. It needs formation, and that may take a long time. Once
character has been formed, it introduces a pattern of stability and reliability
into life, but this does not mean an end to growth. Character deepens and
develops in the face of new problems.
Where does character come from?
Obviously it has several sources. There is the given genetic inheritance of
every individual, his innate propensities, capacities, weaknesses. This is the
raw material of character. Within limits, it determines what it is possible for
one to become. But this raw material is plastic and has many possibilities
inherent in it. Next, there is everything that happens to a person from
outside. There are the accidents of his own history, and these may have good or
bad influence. There is the impact of his culture, and none of us can help
absorbing many of the beliefs and value judgments of contemporary society. There
is the important factor of education, the systematic training of mind and
spirit. These three influences that come from outside we may call the passive
elements in character formation. But there is also an active factor. To some
extent, each one of us chooses to be the kind of person that he or she is. We
strive to realize an ideal self of our own choosing. Finally, to the factors
already mentioned, the Christian would add divine grace. He believes that the
attainment of character is not just an accident of birth or environment or the
fruit of unaided human struggle, but that prayer, the sacraments, and life in
the Christian community are of supreme importance.
The foregoing discussion relates to
character in general from the standpoint of ethical theory. What light does it
throw on the theological concept of priestly character? We shall answer this
question by considering the steps by which one enters the ordained ministry.
These can be understood as steps in the formation of special types of
character.
First there is vocation, the calling
of God. Priesthood is a gift, it is not something we choose for ourselves. When
a priest is asked: "What made you decide to enter the ministry?" he
may very likely reply that he hardly knows. He may only be able to say that at
some time he felt a calling. The call to the ministry is a special case or an
extension of the mystery of election, which all Christians have known to some
extent. It is that inner constraint, that claim of God, that fascination with
Christ which lays hold upon one and draws one on, perhaps at first unwillingly.
The call to the ministry is an extension of election, the summons to a new
relationship. Already the experience of this calling has its ontological
consequence and has begun to shape the character of the one who is called; for
no one who has known such a call can ever be quite the same again.
Next, God's call elicits the human
response. Character is formed not only by what comes from outside but by our
own active pursuit of an ideal, and this is true of priestly character. It
requires the dedication and self-giving of the one who is called. We have seen
that character is formed when one is devoted to an "ultimate
concern." The coming of God's kingdom in the world, and the service of
that kingdom, become the focal interest of the Christian minister and give the
distinctive set to his character. There is also the negative side. To choose
one thing means to renounce other things. The ordination vows speak not only of
what is to be chosen and done, but also of "laying aside the study of the
world and the flesh." Sacrifice is a necessary element in the priestly
character. In consenting to become this kind of person and to let his character
be formed around the focus of serving God's kingdom, the priest must make
renunciations.
I think there are different
permissible interpretations of what this focusing and its accompanying
renunciations will mean in priesthood. The Church will always need some whose
intense dedication will lead them to celibacy and the severing of all ties that
might seem to them to be obstacles to their vocation. Others believe that the
priestly character can be formed in lives that are more diversified and cover a
broader segment of human interests, including marriage and the family. Still
others -and perhaps an increasing number-will combine priesthood with a secular
occupation. I believe that all these styles are possible, provided always that
there is that fundamental orientation toward the calling of God, the
orientation that is a major factor in the formation of the priestly character.
Priesthood is a lifelong vocation
and a lifelong commitment, and indeed it takes a lifetime for the full
flowering of priestly character. The formation of this character becomes an
irreversible process, and this is what is meant by the traditional language
about the "indelibility" of the character. But we live nowadays in a
time when many are unwilling to make lifelong commitments, whether in vocation
or marriage or other ways. Should there then be temporary ordinations? This
question must be answered in the negative. A temporary priesthood would be
conceivable only on a purely functional view; it is impossible on the deeper
conception which I am trying to expound. But what is possible is a temporary
commitment to particular forms or styles of ministry. I said the Church will
always need some ministers who will dedicate themselves with an exclusive
intensity that eschews all worldly ties. Surely there are in the Church today
young priests who might be willing to promise that for five years they would
not marry, they would live on a minimal wage, they would serve wherever the
Church needed them. Such a corps of utterly dedicated young priests could
become the shock troops of the Church and might accomplish much in evangelism
and renewal.
Vocation and response do not happen
just between an individual and God, but in the context of the Church, which
tests the calling of the individual, judges his fitness, and provides the
training he needs. It is this period of formation that is of vital importance
in the making of a priest, and though priestly character is ontological, it is
in no sense magical. This is no place to raise the vast questions relating to
the training of ministers, but whatever else is done, it is essential that
there should be formed a character marked by devotion to God and his kingdom,
openness and responsiveness to others, and inward strength of spirit.
I have still to mention something
else. Vocation, response, formation in the Church culminate in ordination, with
its gift of sacramental grace. God commits himself to his ministers, and this
is more important than their commitment to what is, from the human point of
view, an impossible vocation. Priests sin like other human beings, but God
keeps recalling them, electing them again to be his representatives in the
assembly of his people. And this process goes on in the years after ordination.
Character does not fall ready-made from heaven at ordination or any other time,
but it deepens through this life and beyond.
I have stressed priestly character
as a distinctive gift for those who are called to a distinctive ministry, but
finally I want to come back to the point that all this happens in the context
of the Church. The distinctive ministries are closely related with the general
ministry of the whole Church. Thus we have seen that calling to the priesthood
has affinity with the mystery of election that touches every Christian, and we
could also say that priestly character is a special development of the
character which originates in baptism. The general ministry of the Church and
the distinctive ordained ministry are closely related because they are both
modes of sharing in the ministry of Christ himself, but they are different modes
of sharing. There is distinction without separation within the indivisible body
of the Church, which will be all the stronger and better equipped for its
mission if we are careful neither to break up what is common to all ministry
nor to blur what is distinctive. For this ministry is Christ's gift to his
Church for the sanctifying of his people and, indeed, of the whole creation,
that he may present it blameless to the Father.
Notes
1. D. D. Williams, The Minister and
the Care of Souls (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), p. 103.
2. R. C. Moberly, Ministerial
Priesthood (London: John Murray, 1910), p. 261.
3. A.E. Harvey, Priest or President? (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1975,
pp 49-50.
4. S. Hauerwas,
Character and the Christian Life (San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University Press,
1975), p. 119.
