Rev. Weedon is right.
Oh, sometimes, passives can be fine--indeed, powerful in their humility. The Byzantine baptismal formula is, "The servant of God name is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here the passive confesses that the Triune God is the One who baptizes--that the priest is but his unworthy servant.
But sometimes passives can hide a lot of mischief--like when someone says the church is found "where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered," but does not address the pressing question of our day in the protestant community: whether layfolk, too, can rightly be the actors in the eucharist and absolution.
Are the sacraments rightly administered in a body where layfolk do them? If one answers "yes," then he should abandon any pretense that the administrators be "rightly called." If one answers "no," then he must either conclude that such bodies as allow the practice cannot be church--or that the term "church" has no visible referent beyond the level of the parish. (Remember, those who reject lay administration of sacraments are in pulpit and altar fellowship with those who practice it.)
If one says that "church" has no visible referent beyond the level of the parish, then let him drop all ecclesial pretense concerning trans-parish entities.
- Toward his own people, a man may function as minister; toward the broader group, he is a field-office manager.
- And what of the place where new minister/managers are trained? It is simply a professional school. If its function can be performed in other ways, more efficiently, let it be done. If skilled managers wish to set up a Parallel Leadership Institution, then by all means let them do so.
- Finally, if someone is deeply unhappy with the corporation he is in, then let him start a new one. As long as the view is held that "church" has no visible trans-parish referent, that's all he will have started: a new corporation.