Functional vs Ontological

Picking up on a question in an earlier post, here are a couple of thoughts on what exactly Anglican ordination is.

Basically, the views fall between two extremes. At the one end is the idea that ordination is purely functional such that getting ordained is a bit like getting, say, your pilot's licence. You need one to fly but it's no more than a mark of recognition that you've proven yourself able to fly, that you choose to be an active pilot and that the authorities are happy to accept you. There's no way in the world that just issuing a licence gives you your flying skills and there's no reason to hold a licence once your active flying career is over.

At the other extreme is the idea that when you're ordained, God affects an ontological change in the very nature of who you are. You become a different kind of person at the point of ordination. This is why when you stop working as a deacon, priest or bishop, you're still recognised as one in title and why some retired ministers still wear their clerical garb. They see themselves as part of a distinct and enduring group of believers even once they no longer have any official roles in the church.

I sit much closer to the first view than the second, however, I think the extreme position does go too far. The reality is that even if there's not an immediate supernatural transformation, there's certainly at least a social transformation that takes place when a person is ordained. There are appropriate whole-of-life expectations for ministers such that they cannot ever switch off from their role in the same way that a pilot can when they're not flying. And even once they've retired from a position, a failure to live up to their ordination vows can have significant impact on those that the clergy have previously ministered to in a way that a pilot's post-flight behaviour doesn't affect their previous passengers.

Like many arguments by extreme, while positions can be clarified by looking at the end-points, the reality can also be distorted by the terms of the analysis. Recognising this, it's also good to clarify the various ways that people use their language on this topic too, because while there are some significantly different views, there are also some that we might assume are more to one extreme than they really are. For comparison, consider the fact that ex-presidents of the US are still referred to as 'President'. This honourary use of the title in no way reflects anyone's beliefs about the reality - the US only has one president at a time - and given that so much is clear, the use of the title doesn't risk transmitting a dangerously distorted understanding of the Constitution. I suspect that some who attribute clerical titles to people who are no longer working for the church have a similar perspective on it.

It is worth noting that even when a retired minister does still carry their title, that doesn't automatically mean they can continue to perform specific ministerial duties. All clergy need a licence from their bishop or archbishop to be active in clerical ministry. So, while they still might be able to wear the collar, they cannot do things like perform weddings, preside at holy communion or ordain lay people (in the case of retired bishops) apart from a current licence. Any ontological change that occurred at ordination still needs permission to be functionally active.