Page 22 - 3.faith-ministry

22

ordained becoming involved in activity that had hitherto been the preserve of the

clergy. Egan argues however that this simply fails to ‘recognise and fully affirm the
mission of all God’s people in and to the world in which they live’ (1995:58). Osborne

concurs and he is critical of the Church for too often placing value on conformity
38
rather than adaptation when dealing with such ecclesial issues (2006:109) . He
outlines that pastoral concerns should be the driving force of development and
change in the ecclesial or ministerial order (2006:139). What is therefore required is a

new structure for ministry that is flexible enough to recognise new charisms as they
emerge, but is also consistent and stable enough to discern these charisms of
service within particular communities (Rinere 2003:79-82).

b) Who is the minister?

If Vatican II represents the Church coming to terms with the secular order and in
doing so redefining its sense of mission, then Egan proposes that the ‘primary

instruments of this mission are the women and men immersed in the ordinary
39
circumstances of life’ (1995:59) . This is because baptism rather than ordination is
conceived as the ‘primary sacrament of ministry’ (Wood 2003:257). From this
perspective it would appear that the laity can be mandated to share in the ministry of
the Church and O’Meara sees this as a return to an earlier model in which the

Church was constituted as a series of ‘communities of ministers’ without such
clerical-lay distinctions (1999:76-79). He proposes that contemporary ministry could

be viewed in the same manner as a series of ‘concentric circles’ where the
‘distinctions and differences (in ministry) are initiated by baptism, commissioning, and

ordination but are ultimately based upon a unifying goal of ministry’ (1999:157-158).
The expansion of ministry can therefore be understood not as an upheaval but rather

as a reversal and renewal of the ecclesial structure (1999:164) that ‘is a mission that
all members of the community must share’ (Egan 1995:60).

38 Osborne states: “While the foundation for understanding every ministry as flowing from baptism and
confirmation is theoretically acknowledged, the church’s central leadership appears more comfortable with
stressing the hierarchical nature of the church and checking developments that lay down or deemphasise the role
of the hierarchy than in taking risks from listening carefully to the experience of the people of God” (2006:177).
39
Egan cites Karl Rahner in identifying the laity as the “true lights” of the Church (1995:59).