Shortly after I retired in 1996, the vicar of a mission (a "local priest") in an outlying town asked if I would celebrate and preach one Sunday when I was going to be in the neighborhood. I agreed.

On the evening before the service I was invited to a small dinner party. The persons present were all members or former members of the mission. In the course of our conversation, the mission and its ministry came up. I was interested in how things were going as I had shared in preparing their vicar for ordination. The folk were enthusiastic about their vicar and generally happy with the parish. But they did joke a bit about the "mob" that seemed to be running things. This didn't really surprise me, though the term "mob" seemed a bit unusual. In virtually every congregation there is a group of people who are running things or are perceived to be running things.

The next morning at the church, as I was vesting, a woman introduced herself to me. She said proudly she was part of the "ministry of the baptized group." Naively, I responded, "I thought all baptized persons were part of the 'ministry of the baptized group'." Then she told me that the "ministry of the baptized group" was made up of those preparing for ordination under the local ministry canon. She did not differentiate between those preparing for ordination and those who were to be commissioned to special ministries within the congregation.

All at once the light came: "Ministry of the baptized" = "mob." I was disturbed because I felt this loose terminology was demeaning to those persons who were daily exercising their baptismal ministry without classes or certification of any kind. Also, the person's failure to distinguish between ordination and commissioning, lumping all under the heading of ordination, seemed to demean holy orders. Later when the opportunity arose, I expressed my concern with the vicar, who said she would work to be sure the wording would be more precise in the future.

Time passes. It is now in the early summer of last year. The vicar of that same mission asked if I could fill in for her, this time on two Sundays. Again I agreed. On the first of those two Sundays I met one of the Total Ministry ordinands. She was excited about her future and very voluble about how important the "ministry of the baptized group" had been for her. There was that phrase again drawing a line between a special group in the congregation and the rest, the benighted souls, who having been merely baptized were not a part of the "ministry of the baptized group." I asked when her big day was and she responded that all of the "ministry of the baptized group are being ordained" ... and she gave the date. A little nonplussed, I said, "all ordained?" A little flustered, she replied, "oh, I guess some are being commissioned." Once again the line between ordination and commissioning had been blurred in the mind of a person.

A few weeks later, I received a copy of a diocesan newsletter. There, under the heading "Transitions," I read the following: "At that time, the following will be commissioned for baptismal ministry ..." and there followed a list of names. I was theologically confused. I believe and I teach that we are all called to baptismal ministry by virtue of our baptism. Nothing else is necessary. Every baptized person is a baptismal minister.

I know that within the ministry of the baptized some persons are commissioned to specialized ministries. Baptized persons are commissioned as vestry persons, altar guild members, church school teachers, lay missionaries. But before and after their commissioning, these persons exercise the ministry of the baptized. Their very life is their ministry of the baptized. The wording of the announcement I received was demeaning to every person who, without benefit of a commission from a bishop, exercises his or her baptismal ministry. These persons take casseroles to grieving families, teach in Sunday schools, sing in choirs, quietly bear witness to the gospel of Christ wherever they work and play.

There was also an apparent blurring of the lines between ordination and commissioning. Both persons to whom I talked in that mission did not seem to understand the difference or, if there is a difference, that difference is apparently immaterial.

I have a very "high" view of holy orders. Nonetheless, the idea of providing priestly and diaconal ministries for congregations in small places, in isolated places, is one I firmly support. But what I see happening is the creation of a special group by which the ministry of the baptized is demeaned and ordination made something less than it ought to be. "Local priests," as they were once called, are becoming nothing but sacramentalists for which our church canons do not provide. At the same time, trained lay leaders are being lifted up to almost ordained status.

For some time I have been considering the Total Ministry program and its impact on Anglican ecclesiology. It occurs to me that my objections are quite basic and cut deeply to the heart of the program as I see it developing in my diocese. But only recently have I understood this. Let me wander around a couple of ideas.

I have been told by a Greek Orthodox priest that in times past, whether recent or long past I am not sure, his church in Greece practiced a kind of local ministry in some places. When the village priest died or became infirm, the congregation would nominate, with input from neighboring clergy and the bishop, one of their number to the bishop, one they perceived to be a holy person. That person would be sent to the bishop for training and ordination. The person would then return to the village and remain their priest until he died or became infirm. Then the procedure would start all over. Actually, the process of discernment probably began long before the incumbent priest died and included his input as well. The person chosen by the village would be perceived as having those qualities that showed him capable of being a priest.

The key word here is "being." When I first heard of the Total Ministry program, I wrongly assumed that this was what was being attempted. I have discovered my assumption was incorrect.

In the Total Ministry program, in spite of the fact that the person being ordained is called a priest and is ordained according to our rite for the ordering of priests, what is happening is that a person is being set apart as a "sacramentalist." The problem is, we have no such beast in the Episcopal Church; we have priests. Moreover, the priesthood has primarily to do with being, not function. A sacramentalist has little to do with being and everything to do with function.

Then along with the sacramentalist whom we ordain as a priest, we commission a number of others to functions. We commission catechists, preachers, educators, administrators, etc. This almost sounds like a form of presbyterian polity where ruling elders (lay persons) and teaching elders (clergy) are ordained. To go yet another step, I recently heard it suggested that the local priests/sacramentalists should not have seat, voice and vote in convention unless the same was afforded to the whole Total Ministry team. This sounds very much like priesthood by committee.

Like mainline protestantism, the Total Ministry program is reducing the priesthood to a series of functions and then dividing those functions among several persons, one of whom is ordained to function as a sacramentalist. No longer would a priest be seen as the outward and visible sign of the sacrificial ministry of the church, a state of being. The priest is now merely a functionary who says Mass, blesses and absolves. No longer is the priest the "person of the parish," from whence we get the good old Catholic and Anglican term "parson," who patterns his/her life so that he/she "may be a wholesome example to the people." What we get is "good old Joe" showing up to say Mass. After Mass, good old Joe takes off his alb and becomes one of the boys.

I believe we are in danger of losing our reformed catholic view of the priesthood, of the whole area of holy orders, diaconate, priesthood, episcopacy. It is time to look again at what we are trying to do and find a way to do it that does not violate our Anglican heritage. o

The Rev. Allan C. Parker is a retired priest who lives in Seattle, Wash.