Yesterday I posted a musing on Facebook about walking into the guest/extended library/sewing/and miscellaneous grab bag room to iron a shirt, and found myself staring at my framed diplomas and ordination certificates (yes, there are two, Unitarian Universalist and Soto Zen) leaning against the bookshelf. After twenty-five years, as of today, there will be no office to hang them up in. The moment was nostalgia, and, a bit of a looking forward.
Then a colleague whom I quite respect responded “Once a minister, always a minister.” She added in, in case I didn’t get it, “You can’t be un-ordained.”
That set up a cascade of thoughts, mostly coherent.The first of those thoughts was, “Well, yes you can be un-ordained.” Both of these traditions have mechanisms for un-ordaining people for cause. In the west it’s called de-frocking.
My next thought was about the range of opinion about what ordination is, and why would we even pose the idea that one cannot be un-ordained. After all there are plenty of ex-librarians, ex-bartenders, ex-cops out there. I suspect it is a grand mix of how we identify with what it is we do and the history of ordination.
In the West in the Christian church there are two major views on this, and I find with some twists and turns they’re a pretty summary of how most people in most cultures deal with their technicians of the sacred.
The first view is that ordination is a special mark on the soul, that by the act of ordination one becomes “a priest forever.” This is tied up in the Catholic and Orthodox myth, also shared by many Anglicans, and even some Lutherans, of apostolic succession. Here that technician is charged with standing between the unseen world and our visible one. As it relates to ordination this view is called “ontological.” That is the actual being of the person who is ordained has been changed.
Here I speak of myth not in that sense of “an unfounded or false notion,” which remains secondary at good old Merriam-Webster, but, rather, “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” For me, and how I use it in my writing is that a myth is a story that tells us something about ourselves. In the best sense something true, although sometimes a lie, and most commonly, some mixture.
There is however, a visceral reaction to this view and all its complexities, which while about as old as the ontological view has particularly marked most of Reformation understanding of ordination. It is called “functional.” That is, we are what we do. There is no substantive difference between a minister and a congregant, beyond, that is, the specific tasks that one has been charged to do. Hopefully, prepared, and charged to do. But prepared or not the technician of the sacred comes from the people, does the tasks asked of her or him, and then returns to the people.
Me, when caught up in conversations among ministerial colleagues of various sorts, I’ve held this later view pretty consistently. Particularly as a Buddhist who doesn’t believe in some soul that can be marked. But also out of a visceral reaction to the ugly side of clericalism.
However. And. But. One of those words. It is messy.
I should acknowledge here I actually have other ordinations besides my UU and my Zen ones. At various points in my life I was made a cherag of the Universal Worship in the tradition established by the Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan, and I have several ordinations within the independent sacramental tradition. While I don’t do the things these ordinations are about, they are also part of my formation both as a pilgrim on the great journey, and my work as one of those technicians of the spirit.
Also, I guess this long time and obvious obsession speaks to something about me from, well, from just about forever. That said, mostly, I see myself as a UU minister and as a Zen priest. I made my living as a UU minister for the past twenty-five years. It and its obligations consumed much of my life, and within my heart shaped much of who I am. And the Zen thing, well, it has larded through everything I do, and I mean everything for the past, well beginning to look at fifty years. There has not been a time in my adult life from my late teens when the teachings and practices of Zen have not been near the heart of it all.
So, I should also hold up that Zen part. For Japanese Soto what ordination means is complicated by the collapsing of Dharma transmission into ordination. Throughout Zen’s history these have been two different things. Ordination was originally into the monastic life, and with that one may also take on various clerical obligations. But, Dharma transmission was something else, and much rarer. It was an acknowledgment of the deepest mastery of the path. Throughout East Asia this division between monastic ordination available to nearly anyone, and Dharma transmission reserved for a rare number of people, continues. Except in Japan. In Japan while ordination has monastic elements it is today more like ministry as that is understood in the west. The ordained for the most part function as temple priests. Dharma transmission, which throughout the history of Zen was reserved as a mark of spiritual mastery in Japanese Soto becomes an early stage rank passed through by everyone who becomes a temple priest. And the myth of Dharma transmission carries forward in ways vaguely similar to the Western idea of apostolic succession, certainly similar in the sense that it is supposed to be more than what some might call “mere” function. Although what exactly is far from clear.
As I believe I said earlier, the world is messy. No doubt. And things are rarely reducible to simple assertions, certainly not the matters of the human heart.
So, all this said, in what sense am I as of today an “ex-minister?” Well, for one thing, I remain a Zen priest. Although with some twists. I come out of a reformation going on within Japanese Soto, that has arisen out of an awareness of a problem when “everyone” gets Dharma transmission. (This is not a criticism of the primary practice of Soto – with its attention to every action as the manifestation of the Buddha – but only with how the teachers, the guides, are acknowledged) My primary focus as a person of Zen within this reformed perspective is the cultivation of and transmission of koan introspection. While Dharma transmission within the Soto lineages that have re-introduced koan introspection remains more common than say in Rinzai, it is an attempt to introduce the spirit of that more ancient understanding. In order to teach one must have had some kind of awakening as evidenced through an ability to pass through the curriculum. Hardly foolproof. These are the workings of human beings, not brought through the intervention of deities. But, coming together as a package that includes the practices, an ethical framework, and a literature of wisdom perspectives deeply investigated, has transformed my life. And I continue to work in that field, cultivating it, and others on this way.
And, even on the UU part, I will continue to have some functions. Sponsored by the minister at the church in Long Beach, their board have formally covenanted with me to be affiliated as a “community minister” among them starting in August. A not particularly clearly defined position, but mostly for me being on call for pastoral emergencies as the minister needs me, together with some preaching. As part of an informal quid pro quo, they allow our Blue Cliff Zen Sangha to meet at the church. Also, I already have an invitation to preach at another UU church in September, and have been contacted by yet another about my availability.
So, as far as functional goes, that continues. For some uncertain amount of time, yet.
But. I do find myself thinking about that ontological thing, as well. And the true part mixed up with the false. The false is easy. No soul. No mark. But I think about the true part.
The true part is there is a bundle of conditions that exists within time and space, marked out for convenience sake as something going on between my birth and my death, and which one can think of as “my” and “I.” There is no abiding substance to this. Of course. The universe is a continues play of causes and effects, all entertained, everything touching everything else. And, for mysterious reason some little bits and pieces come to awareness for a moment. Like all those who can read these words. Like me. As fragile as a butterfly’s wing. But as real as real is.
And, for a very large part of my life the experiences that have shaped my identity have circled around ministry. Mostly the parish ministry of Unitarian Universalism, and the spiritual practice and leadership ministry of Zen Buddhism. Both are a big part of the complex of events, the causes and conditions that will continue forward for some uncertain period of time as “James.” So, in that sense, yes, my ministry can’t actually be undone. Or, at least, not undone until the whole mess comes undone.
What it all will mean from today is going to be different than from what it was yesterday. Of course that’s always been true. But, a bit more true this time than any of those other times.
But, yes, not as an ex-minister.
But, more truly, as the continuation of this bundle of karma that is so grateful to be alive, and witness the world and what is.
Strange and mysterious.
This life, just so strange and mysterious.
And, for it all, I remain so deeply grateful.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In