C of E to set up Heresy Tribunals?
Alasdair Baxter
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 22/12/2003) [Daily Telegraph]
The Church of England is preparing to crack down on heresy and sloppy
worship among clerics by forcing them to take an unequivocal public
oath to uphold Church law.
Under the proposals, new heresy courts, headed by bishops and advised
by panels of theologians, would hear cases in which priests were
alleged to have erred on doctrine, ritual or ceremonial. Members of
the clergy who denied the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation
or who proclaim atheistic beliefs from the pulpit could face charges,
as could those who failed to wear appropriate robes during services.
The proposals, drawn up by a working party of the House of Bishops,
also include the rewriting of the ordination service, so that clerics
would have to make a declaration of assent to the Canons.
Clerics have to make vague promises to agree to Church discipline and
authority when they become priests. But they do not always make a
specific pledge to adhere to Canon law, the detailed rules that govern
their behaviour.
The proposals reflect concern that the clergy is failing to fulfil the
Church's minimum requirements, such as wearing proper vestments in
church or holding a certain number of daily services.
Some bishops also want to rid the Church of its reputation for
believing "everything and nothing".
Traditionalists believe that that if clerics are properly trained in
the Canons and are obliged to swear an oath to uphold them, there will
be fewer breaches. They also want every new priest to be given a copy
of the law to underline how seriously it is taken by the Church
authorities.
Liberals fear that the plans, which are due to be debated by the
General Synod next summer, will lead to witch-hunts. The Sea of Faith
group, whose members believe that the Bible is little more than a
collection of myths, numbers dozens of Anglican clerics among its
sympathisers.
The working party, headed by the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Rev Peter
Forster, has listed offences for which the punishments could include
unfrocking, suspension from a living or a series of reprimands. The
tribunals would be presided over by a bench of three bishops, two
members of the clergy and two lay people. They would be chaired by an
independent lawyer and advised by a panel of theologians selected to
reflect a range of opinions.
If approved by the House of Bishops, the tribunals would replace the
costly system of consistory courts, which are so unwieldy that they
have never been used to try doctrinal matters. The bishops have made
clear that discipline over doctrine would be "rare and exceptional"
but that there needed to be "boundaries of permissibility".
In medieval times, heresies were rife. What constitutes heresy today
is far more contentious. During the row over women priests, for
example, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey,
described as heretical the idea that only a male could represent
Christ at the altar, a statement that would condemn hundreds of
traditionalist clerics.
On the other hand, many conservative Anglicans would have liked the
former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, to have been
disciplined over his public expressions of doubt about the virgin
birth and the resurrection.
In 1993, the then Bishop of Chichester sacked a parish priest, the Rev
Anthony Freeman, for writing a book denying the existence of God. A
recent survey of 2,000 of the Church's 10,000 clerics found that a
third doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection and that
only half were convinced by the truth of the virgin birth.
The 39 Articles, one of the Church's foundation documents, makes
liberal use of the idea of heresy but does not define it. Church
spokesmen say they are content with the Oxford English Dictionary's
definition: "opinion or doctrine contrary to the orthodox doctrine of
the Christian Church".
The last heresy trial in England was of the Rev A Gorman in 1847, who
was accused by the Bishop of Exeter of being unsound on the doctrine
of "baptismal regeneration".
Gorman did not agree that at baptism a person was cleansed of original
sin and born again into Christ.
Since then, clergy and bishops have been able to deviate from
traditional doctrine with little fear of punishment.
In the 16th century scores of Christians were burned at the stake for
heresy. One of the most prominent was Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop
of Canterbury from 1533, who was condemned under Mary Tudor and burned
at the stake in Oxford in 1556.
At the moment, heretics can be dealt with only under the virtually
unworkable 1963 disciplinary code, which has effectively prevented any
trials from taking place. If the new proposals are approved by the
House of Bishops and the Synod, they will create a far more usable
system.
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Jet Wood
says...
> new heresy courts ... would hear cases in which priests were
> alleged to have erred on ... ceremonial
Well, that's keeping everything in perspective nicely, isn't it.
"But m'lud, when the defendant bowed to the altar, his head did not
descend the legal minimum four inches, and he started to bow when his
feet were more than thirty feet from the altar."
John Dwyer
news:aa3fuvkj9tpt790nf...@4ax.com...
> Sceptic priests could face trial by heresy courts
> By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
> (Filed: 22/12/2003) [Daily Telegraph]
>
>
> The Church of England is preparing to crack down on heresy and sloppy
> worship among clerics by forcing them to take an unequivocal public
> oath to uphold Church law.
>
> Under the proposals, new heresy courts, headed by bishops and advised
> by panels of theologians, would hear cases in which priests were
> alleged to have erred on doctrine, ritual or ceremonial. Members of
> the clergy who denied the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation
> or who proclaim atheistic beliefs from the pulpit could face charges,
> as could those who failed to wear appropriate robes during services.
snip
Is any substantiation for the above published on any Anglican website? I
would like to read material officially published.
John Dwyer
Pete Broadbent
It's a confidential draft report thus far, which is being discussed by the
House of Bishops in January. It's actually a hang-over from the previous
work on the Clergy Discipline Measure. When Synod revised the old
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, we separated out the stuff whereby
clergy are disciplined for causing public scandal (choirboys, money, crimes
in secular courts, etc.) from the stuff which dealt with belief. This is
therefore the second tranche which was left over. The old EJM was rarely
used, and pretty unwieldy. It's not really likely that the new Measures will
be used much either.
The nub of the drafting relates to adherence to the "laws ecclesiastical"
(the Canons) and "professing,advocating or promoting beliefs which are
incompatible with the doctrine of the CofE.."
So Jonathan Petre has merely tabloidised what the report says, but they
won't be "heresy courts" [pejorative], nor do I anticipate anyone returning
to the old battles on ceremonial [scaremongering]. It might cause some
difficulty for members of the Sea of Faith, but I wouldn't shed any tears
for them...
--
Pete Broadbent
Peter Beale
> "But m'lud, when the defendant bowed to the altar, his head did not
> descend the legal minimum four inches, and he started to bow when his
> feet were more than thirty feet from the altar."
In fact "altar" has not appeared in official Anglican formularies as a description
of the communion table since the first Edwardine BCP of 1549.
--
Peter Beale
Peter Beale
> Members of
> the clergy who denied the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation
> or who proclaim atheistic beliefs from the pulpit could face charges,
> as could those who failed to wear appropriate robes during services.
Wow - failing to wear appropriate robes during services. They should be burned
at the stake without further ado. Far more heinous than denying the Trinity or
the incarnation.
--
Peter Beale
Dave Goode
> Wow - failing to wear appropriate robes during services. They should be
> burned at the stake without further ado. Far more heinous than denying the
> Trinity or the incarnation.
Rather than sniping and sneering at a new thread why don't you deliver on
your promise from the Anglo-catholicism thread and provide your evidence in
full?
Dave
--
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
http://www.breviary.info/
Tim Rowe
<pete.br...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>to the old battles on ceremonial [scaremongering]. It might cause some
>difficulty for members of the Sea of Faith, but I wouldn't shed any tears
>for them...
It might cause some problems for the evangelicals, too. When I
belonged to a very evangelical Anglican church it was constantly being
challenged over it's refusal to comply with canon law when they
considered it conflicted with the Bible, though as the bishop was
sympathetic those challenges never got far.
Simon Crouch
news:memo.2003122...@pjbeale.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.1a51d87c6...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
>
cwy...@hotmail.com.-.but.your.message.will.automatically.be.deleted.unless.i
t.includes.the.word"Jet"in.the.subject (Jet Wood) wrote:
>
> > "But m'lud, when the defendant bowed to the altar, his head did not
> > descend the legal minimum four inches, and he started to bow when his
> > feet were more than thirty feet from the altar."
>
> In fact "altar" has not appeared in official Anglican formularies as a
description
> of the communion table since the first Edwardine BCP of 1549.
Indeed, but one has to remember the judgement of the "Court of
Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved" in the case "St Stephen's Walbrook". I quote
the Bishop of Chichester's judgement:
"It is clear...that a doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice which is not
that of a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary can lawfully be held in the
Church of England and consequently that the holy table can lawfully and
properly be called an altar".
all the best,
Simon.
Peter Beale
> Rather than sniping and sneering at a new thread why don't you
> deliver on your promise from the Anglo-catholicism thread and provide your
> evidence in full?
Happy Christmas to you too. Do you have to be so grumpy (as well as impatient)?
--
Peter Beale
Ken Down
<l...@london.com> wrote:
> The Church of England is preparing to crack down on heresy and sloppy
> worship among clerics by forcing them to take an unequivocal public
> oath to uphold Church law.
Hmmm. On the one hand I approve of ensuring that the clergy do believe basic
Christian doctrine and uphold basic Christian practice. On the other hand I
not only oppose anything that restricts free enquiry, I also foresee great
potential for witch-hunts and abuse of the system to get rid of people who
make the system uncomfortable.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Dave Goode
>> Rather than sniping and sneering at a new thread why don't you
>> deliver on your promise from the Anglo-catholicism thread and provide
>> your evidence in full?
>
> Happy Christmas to you too. Do you have to be so grumpy (as well as
> impatient)?
And to you. That depends. Unfortunately you haven't provided your evidence:
all you've provided is a link to a page offering to sell me a copy of the
results of a self-conducted survey by a pressure group.
Will you be providing your evidence? You did say you were able to furnish us
with the questions, the answers and the qualifications of respondents to
their answers. Mr Grumpy wants his promised evidence.
Pete Broadbent
Would love some chapter and verse on where canon law conflicts with
scripture. Being Anglican tends to mean being Anglican in good conscience,
and coping with canon law (or finding ways round and through it). But I'm
not aware of instances where anyone sensible would challenge an evangelical
Anglican parish over adherence to canon law - nor where any evangelical
Anglican with brains would find conflicts with scripture. (And don't go into
the daft stuff about what we wear in church, which some others on this
thread seem preoccupied with - it's not gospel stuff, and no serious canon
lawyer would worry about it - though a few very pompous bishops sometimes
do...)
--
Pete Broadbent
David Ould
I remember a slightly pompous archdeacon insisting upon robes for an event
at which he licensed someone. One wag suggested that we remind him we
believe in a priesthood of all believers and should we hand the robes out at
the door? I, for my part, wore a nice ecclesiastical purple shirt.
As it happens the clergy were all robed. As Peter says it's not gospel stuff
and if the archdeacon or bishop insist on it it's not going to destroy the
gospel overnight.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Steve Cleary
<ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>Pete Broadbent wrote:
>> conflicts with scripture. (And don't go into the daft stuff about
>> what we wear in church, which some others on this thread seem
>> preoccupied with - it's not gospel stuff, and no serious canon lawyer
>> would worry about it - though a few very pompous bishops sometimes
>> do...)
>
>I remember a slightly pompous archdeacon insisting upon robes for an event
>at which he licensed someone. One wag suggested that we remind him we
>believe in a priesthood of all believers and should we hand the robes out at
>the door? I, for my part, wore a nice ecclesiastical purple shirt.
>
>As it happens the clergy were all robed.
I remember going to a licensing (BTW, why do Anglicans licence?) and
receiving an invitation to bring whatever robes I thought appropriate
I did toy with the idea of coming in a dressing gown, but was
persuaded otherwise by my wife! All the other clergy robed up and
frankly looked like a bunch of old women, but then again, maybe you
should meet some of them <g>. Myself (Baptist) and a Pentecostal
minister friend duly joined the procession plainly dressed and looked
as if we had wandered in from the street and got lost. I do wonder
what the point of it was, but then I suppose some people feel some
sort of need to wear fancy dress.
Steve Cleary
David Ould
The license is the bishop's permission to preach, i think. Perhaps Pete will
correct me.
I don't understand the robing myself. Actually, I understand the principles,
I just don't agree with them.
But, as evangelicals in the CofE we don't think it's make or break. There
are little rebellions, such as wearing a stole at ordination.
One friend of mine, who measures 6'4", was asked to wear robes at college
chapel while training for ordination. He objected in principle but wore a
cassock. He chose the smallest one that he could fit into and went to chapel
every day with the hem swinging around his knees displaying thick hiking
boots and socks with colourful laces.
After a while the college insisted that he stop and should wear simply a
long surplice. So, he found the thinnest one possible and wore garish neon
coloured t-shirts underneath. After a while they conceded and let him wear a
shirt and trousers.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Michael J Davis
<nosp...@nks.co.uk> writes
>
>I remember going to a licensing (BTW, why do Anglicans licence?)
Because if they sold it, there might be a second-hand market, of course!
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Gareth McCaughan
> One friend of mine, who measures 6'4", was asked to wear robes at college
> chapel while training for ordination. He objected in principle but wore a
> cassock. He chose the smallest one that he could fit into and went to chapel
> every day with the hem swinging around his knees displaying thick hiking
> boots and socks with colourful laces.
>
> After a while the college insisted that he stop and should wear simply a
> long surplice. So, he found the thinnest one possible and wore garish neon
> coloured t-shirts underneath. After a while they conceded and let him wear a
> shirt and trousers.
So, in defence of the principle that it doesn't matter what
you wear when serving as a minister, he refused to wear what
someone else asked him to and sabotaged things until they
gave in? There seems to be a bit of irony here.
Or do you really mean that he considers wearing robes to be
in itself sinful? If so, why? Because of Deuteronomy 22:5? :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Tim Rowe
<pete.br...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Would love some chapter and verse on where canon law conflicts with
>scripture.
I was careful to say "where they considered", as I was aware that any
of the points of dispute would be contentious. One recurring issue was
the church's refusal to baptise infants unless they were confident
that the parents intended to bring them up in the Christian faith. I
understand that they were not entitled so to refuse. From time to time
there would be an official complaint, the bishop would remind the
church that they were not entitled to refuse, and the vicar would
remind the bishop that he was well aware of that but was refusing
anyway. The bishop would then direct the parents to another church
with a more relaxed attitude and everybody went away feeling
vindicated.
David Ould
> David Ould wrote:
>
>> One friend of mine, who measures 6'4", was asked to wear robes at
>> college chapel while training for ordination. He objected in
>> principle but wore a cassock. He chose the smallest one that he
>> could fit into and went to chapel every day with the hem swinging
>> around his knees displaying thick hiking boots and socks with
>> colourful laces.
>>
>> After a while the college insisted that he stop and should wear
>> simply a long surplice. So, he found the thinnest one possible and
>> wore garish neon coloured t-shirts underneath. After a while they
>> conceded and let him wear a shirt and trousers.
>
> So, in defence of the principle that it doesn't matter what
> you wear when serving as a minister, he refused to wear what
> someone else asked him to and sabotaged things until they
> gave in? There seems to be a bit of irony here.
>
No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful distinction
between clergy and laity and point towards a "priesthood" idea. As you will
know evangelicals reject such a model. The principle is that robes are
unnecessary and unhelpful.
> Or do you really mean that he considers wearing robes to be
> in itself sinful? If so, why? Because of Deuteronomy 22:5? :-)
Yes, that and the hats in church thing.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Dave Goode
> Or do you really mean that he considers wearing robes to be
> in itself sinful? If so, why? Because of Deuteronomy 22:5? :-)
And, if so, how do you square that with Canon B8?
'3 At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice
or alb with scarf or stole. When a stole is worn other customary vestments
may be added. The epistoler and gospeller (if any) may wear surplice or alb
to which other customary vestments may be added.
'4 At Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays the minister shall normally wear
a surplice or alb with scarf or stole.
'5 At the Occasional Offices the minister shall wear surplice or alb with
scarf or stole.'
Of course, being the CofE, there is a 'get out' clause, B8.2, with
disgareements referred to the diocesan bishop for final decision ;-)
However, the above is the canonical norm.
Angela Rayner
I think it's fun. You at least get to know who the priest is (or whether
there are several) and what role they're playing in the Mass (deacon,
celebrant etc). It enables you to identify altar servers and acolytes and
people who have long spiky poles for sorting out trouble in the
congregation. It means Bishops can't hide. It occasionally means you get
men in the congregation with fantastic hats. I like the way it sets
people apart for certain roles. It's important to me that there is an
office of ministerial priesthood that is different from the priesthood of
all believers and that the priests are recognised as priests. It's
important, after all, that we can identify those who should be doing the
washing up ;-). Dress also has a function for driving home the season or
special day celebrated or commemorated. Maybe it's an aesthetic thing,
but it is also good to have the church matching. I find it satisfying to
note that the fall matches the chasuble, which matches the altar cover,
which matches the priest's service book, which matches the burse and
veil...
It's much more interesting than the "dress the men in corduroy trousers
and smart/casual shirts" that some churches employ. That's still a
uniform and it displays middle-class pretensions[1] far more than sticking
a giant tunicle on somebody so that you can't see they're wearing rags
underneath...
Peace,
[1] Not that there aren't middle-class pretensions in having everything
in church matching... :-)
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"We are neither liberal nor conservative. We are hopeful... We are not
interested in pleasing. Our project is to recover a sense of adventure by
helping the church recover what it means to be a truthful people..."
"Resident Aliens" - S. Hauerwas and W. Willimon
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> So, in defence of the principle that it doesn't matter what
>> you wear when serving as a minister, he refused to wear what
>> someone else asked him to and sabotaged things until they
>> gave in? There seems to be a bit of irony here.
[David:]
> No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful distinction
> between clergy and laity and point towards a "priesthood" idea. As you will
> know evangelicals reject such a model. The principle is that robes are
> unnecessary and unhelpful.
I too[1] reject any model that says that "priests" are somehow
special people, but I don't see why it does any harm for them
to wear robes. I also don't see why it does any harm for them
not to.
[1] meaning: "as well as you"; I'm not meaning to imply
that I'm not an evangelical, though I'm sure you don't
consider me one anyway :-) and I'm undecided about
whether the term fits well enough to be appropriate.
Especially for leading services in a theological college,
where it seems pretty certain that no one there is going
to be betrayed into a wrong view of "priesthood" (or, if
you and I are wrong about it, graciously led into a right
view of it) by the fact that someone wears robes.
Ken Down
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> So, in defence of the principle that it doesn't matter what
> you wear when serving as a minister, he refused to wear what
> someone else asked him to and sabotaged things until they
> gave in? There seems to be a bit of irony here.
We've just watched a video about some frightful twins who ended up in
Australia and on their first day in school were introduced to a group of
girls who called themselves the Nonconformists or the Independants or
something. A bunch of similar looking girls, wearing identical clothes and
sporting identical hair-dos.
Patrick Herring
| Gareth McCaughan wrote:
| > David Ould wrote:
| >
| >> One friend of mine, who measures 6'4", was asked to wear robes at
| >> college chapel while training for ordination. He objected in
| >> principle but wore a cassock. He chose the smallest one that he
| >> could fit into and went to chapel every day with the hem swinging
| >> around his knees displaying thick hiking boots and socks with
| >> colourful laces.
| >>
| >> After a while the college insisted that he stop and should wear
| >> simply a long surplice. So, he found the thinnest one possible and
| >> wore garish neon coloured t-shirts underneath. After a while they
| >> conceded and let him wear a shirt and trousers.
| >
| > So, in defence of the principle that it doesn't matter what
| > you wear when serving as a minister, he refused to wear what
| > someone else asked him to and sabotaged things until they
| > gave in? There seems to be a bit of irony here.
| >
|
| No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful distinction
| between clergy and laity and point towards a "priesthood" idea. As you will
| know evangelicals reject such a model.
Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
| The principle is that robes are unnecessary and unhelpful.
They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk
David Ould
>>
>> No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful
>> distinction between clergy and laity and point towards a
>> "priesthood" idea. As you will know evangelicals reject such a model.
>
> Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
> the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
>
It would only be odd if one believed there was a seperate priesthood.
>> The principle is that robes are unnecessary and unhelpful.
>
> They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
> keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
No man does that except the Lord Jesus Christ or the church as a whole to
unbelievers. There is no need for a man in the church to represent God to
others in the church. That role is taken by Jesus Christ.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Alasdair Baxter
wrote:
>Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
>the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
What is the difference between a priest and a minister in the Anglican
tradition?
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Alasdair Baxter
<ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>No man does that except the Lord Jesus Christ or the church as a whole to
>unbelievers. There is no need for a man in the church to represent God to
>others in the church. That role is taken by Jesus Christ.
There are some people who believe (I am not one of them) that a duly
ordained priest is a duly appointed representative of God on earth
with power to absolve people of their sins. This view seems to be
confirmed by the canon which states that only a duly ordained priest
can pronounce the absolution at an Anglican communion service.
David Ould
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:55:15 +0800, "David Ould"
> <ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>
>> No man does that except the Lord Jesus Christ or the church as a
>> whole to unbelievers. There is no need for a man in the church to
>> represent God to others in the church. That role is taken by Jesus
>> Christ.
>
> There are some people who believe (I am not one of them) that a duly
> ordained priest is a duly appointed representative of God on earth
> with power to absolve people of their sins. This view seems to be
> confirmed by the canon which states that only a duly ordained priest
> can pronounce the absolution at an Anglican communion service.
Sadly, Alasdair, I don't see it in the bible.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Gareth McCaughan
[David Ould:]
> | No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful distinction
> | between clergy and laity and point towards a "priesthood" idea. As you will
> | know evangelicals reject such a model.
[Patrick:]
> Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
> the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
>
> | The principle is that robes are unnecessary and unhelpful.
>
> They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
> keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
Is the alleged "represent God to us" angle found anywhere
in the New Testament? It might be a useful thing for a
Christian minister to do, but it doesn't seem to be
something envisaged by the very earliest church.
Assuming for the sake of argument that priests are supposed
to represent God to us, it seems to me that wearing robes
could then operate in two opposite ways. On the one hand,
as you say, they could help to keep the office separate
from the person. (Or, I think more accurately, to help us
distinguish between times when the person is performing[1]
that office and times when s/he isn't.) On the other, they
could enhance the sense of different-ness and (if we are
inclined to muddle the person and the office anyway, which
we'd have to be for the first effect to do any good) they
could thereby make us *more* likely to see the person as
something more than s/he is.
[1] That doesn't feel like the right word, but right now
I can't think what the right word is.
Alasdair Baxter
<ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>Sadly, Alasdair, I don't see it in the bible.
I entirely agree but the concept is essential to the theology of many
mainstream Christian churches. Were it otherwise, ordinary unordained
Christians could preside at Holy Communion and that would never do!
David Ould
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:51:42 +0800, "David Ould"
> <ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>
>> Sadly, Alasdair, I don't see it in the bible.
>
> I entirely agree but the concept is essential to the theology of many
> mainstream Christian churches. Were it otherwise, ordinary unordained
> Christians could preside at Holy Communion and that would never do!
why would it never do Alasdair? What's your reasoning? I"m interested
because lay presidency is something I'm thinking about too.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Steve Cleary
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:51:42 +0800, "David Ould"
><ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>
>>Sadly, Alasdair, I don't see it in the bible.
>
>I entirely agree but the concept is essential to the theology of many
>mainstream Christian churches. Were it otherwise, ordinary unordained
>Christians could preside at Holy Communion and that would never do!
Why?
Steve Cleary
Gareth McCaughan
> Alasdair Baxter wrote:
...
>> I entirely agree but the concept is essential to the theology of many
>> mainstream Christian churches. Were it otherwise, ordinary unordained
>> Christians could preside at Holy Communion and that would never do!
>
>
> why would it never do Alasdair? What's your reasoning? I"m interested
> because lay presidency is something I'm thinking about too.
I assumed he was using the rhetorical device known as irony :-).
But lay presidency and all-that-stuff is an interesting enough
topic that I'm about to start a new thread about it.
Robert Marshall
>
> Tim Rowe wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:51:51 +0000 (UTC), "Pete Broadbent"
>> <pete.br...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> to the old battles on ceremonial [scaremongering]. It might cause
>>> some difficulty for members of the Sea of Faith, but I wouldn't
>>> shed any tears for them...
>>
>> It might cause some problems for the evangelicals, too. When I
>> belonged to a very evangelical Anglican church it was constantly
>> being challenged over it's refusal to comply with canon law when
>> they considered it conflicted with the Bible, though as the bishop
>> was sympathetic those challenges never got far.
>
> Would love some chapter and verse on where canon law conflicts with
> scripture.
Does canon law prohibit rebaptism [1](or rather the clergy doing it)?
Most of a evangelical church around here seceded over this a number or
years ago, but I can't remember whether he was pushed or went of his
own accord
Robert
[1] Yes I know infant/adult baptism arguments, but readings of
scripture could in this case conflict with canon law
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich
Robert Marshall
> The old EJM was rarely used, and pretty unwieldy.
My wife takes exception to that (and so will my mother)
Robert (Marshall)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
Indeed. The idea that some form of "ordination" is necessary in order
to preside at communion is profoundly non-Scriptural, and something
that (along with infant baptism) is utterly impossible to justify from
an evangelical perspective.
Mark
PS: It has occurred to me that some may see a contradiction between
this comment and those in my response to Gareth's post on ordained
presidency at the eucharist. To which I can only point out that this
represents the difference between a) polemic and discussion, and b) a
full bottle of Burgundy and an empty one.
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Throw your arms around the world at Christmas Time"
Michael J Davis
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> writes
>Assuming for the sake of argument that priests are supposed
>to represent God to us, it seems to me that wearing robes
>could then operate in two opposite ways. On the one hand,
>as you say, they could help to keep the office separate
>from the person. (Or, I think more accurately, to help us
>distinguish between times when the person is performing[1]
>that office and times when s/he isn't.) On the other, they
>could enhance the sense of different-ness and (if we are
>inclined to muddle the person and the office anyway, which
>we'd have to be for the first effect to do any good) they
>could thereby make us *more* likely to see the person as
>something more than s/he is.
>
> [1] That doesn't feel like the right word, but right now
> I can't think what the right word is.
>
Dave Goode
> Does canon law prohibit rebaptism [1](or rather the clergy doing it)?
All the canons concerning baptism presuppose there is only one valid
baptism. However, in one very specific circumstance a minister may
conditionally baptize if he has doubts about the previous baptism.
'If the minister is doubtful about the baptism of a candidate for
confirmation he shall conditionally baptize him in accordance with the form
of service authorized by Canon B1 before presenting him to the bishop to be
confirmed.'[1]
If his doubts were correct, this would be a baptism, not a rebaptism. If his
doubts were incorrect and the previous baptism valid, this would not be a
rebaptism as it would have no effect because the previous was valid and
'baptism happens once for all time and, by its very nature, cannot be
repeated'[2].
> Most of a evangelical church around here seceded over this a number or
> years ago, but I can't remember whether he was pushed or went of his
> own accord
What happened? Were they insisting on rebaptizing adults who were baptized
as infants?
Dave
[1] Canon B27.5
[2] Ecclesiastical Law, Hill, 2nd ed, para 5.13, p125.
Patrick Herring
| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| >>
| >> No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful
| >> distinction between clergy and laity and point towards a
| >> "priesthood" idea. As you will know evangelicals reject such a model.
| >
| > Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
| > the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
| >
|
| It would only be odd if one believed there was a seperate priesthood.
Which is (currently) believed in the CofE.
I must admit to some personal ambivalence on this. In a discussion
group I used to go to there was a NSM priest who clearly wasn't quite
separate enough from the idea that the priesthood was there to "own
the power", in some sense, whose brow I'm afraid I took some delight
in furrowing by occasionally dropping in references to the priesthood
of all believers.
| >> The principle is that robes are unnecessary and unhelpful.
| >
| > They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
| > keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
|
| No man does that except the Lord Jesus Christ or the church as a whole to
| unbelievers. There is no need for a man in the church to represent God to
| others in the church. That role is taken by Jesus Christ.
The need for a visible representative is ours not God's.
Patrick Herring
....
| Indeed. The idea that some form of "ordination" is necessary in order
| to preside at communion is profoundly non-Scriptural, and something
| that (along with infant baptism) is utterly impossible to justify from
| an evangelical perspective.
In the CofE it comes from the (scriptural) commissioning of the
disciples at the Last Supper, together with the view that the
disciples stood at the start of a chain of authorisation to do
likewise. The other scriptural basis is that Jesus chose the disciples
so the Church must discern whether God has chosen the ordinand. I'm
not entirely convinced either way but I don't see a /profound/
non-Scripturality.
Patrick Herring
| On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:35:30 GMT, p...@anweald.co.uk (Patrick Herring)
| wrote:
|
| >Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
| >the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
|
| What is the difference between a priest and a minister in the Anglican
| tradition?
There aren't any ministers in the Anglican tradition, AIUI, unless you
count deacons (servants of the church). I would say the main
difference is that a priest can inter alia represent Jesus to the
people, again AIUI, but I also understand that there are many threads
to that piece of ecclesiastical cloth. Everything else, near enough, a
priest does is also done by ministers in e.g. the Methodist church.
Patrick Herring
| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| [David Ould:]
| > | No, the actual issue is that robes make a false and unhelpful distinction
| > | between clergy and laity and point towards a "priesthood" idea. As you will
| > | know evangelicals reject such a model.
|
| [Patrick:]
| > Odd for someone who sees priests as ministers only to be training for
| > the priesthood (I assume that's what you're describing).
| >
| > | The principle is that robes are unnecessary and unhelpful.
| >
| > They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
| > keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
|
| Is the alleged "represent God to us" angle found anywhere
| in the New Testament? It might be a useful thing for a
| Christian minister to do, but it doesn't seem to be
| something envisaged by the very earliest church.
Dunno. I take it to be a development of the slightly later than
earliest church <g>. It's clearly implicit in the Eucharist that
someone has to say Jesus' part.
We know that there were disputes as to status and authority based on
closeness to Jesus, which to my mind is completely upside-down.
Perhaps the idea of a set aside class being the only people who were
allowed to represent Jesus was simply a political solution to a human
problem, that of people needing authority and to avoid responsibility.
| Assuming for the sake of argument that priests are supposed
| to represent God to us, it seems to me that wearing robes
| could then operate in two opposite ways. On the one hand,
| as you say, they could help to keep the office separate
| from the person. (Or, I think more accurately, to help us
| distinguish between times when the person is performing[1]
| that office and times when s/he isn't.) On the other, they
| could enhance the sense of different-ness and (if we are
| inclined to muddle the person and the office anyway, which
| we'd have to be for the first effect to do any good) they
| could thereby make us *more* likely to see the person as
| something more than s/he is.
You mean "only /that/ person gets to put on /that/ robe so they must
be special in themselves"? Yes, I agree.
OTOH it may be like dress-codes in business - the prime benefit is
that you can take the suit off when you get home. The priest can take
the robe off after the service without having to shoulder the burden
of "being God" all the time.
Jet Wood
nosp...@nks.co.uk says...
It would make at least some of the congregation question their
preconceptions, and that's something they may not be practiced in.
;-)/2
Alasdair Baxter
wrote:
>OTOH it may be like dress-codes in business - the prime benefit is
>that you can take the suit off when you get home. The priest can take
>the robe off after the service without having to shoulder the burden
>of "being God" all the time.
What about the clerical collar? I know it is becoming less
fashionable these days to wear the collar all the time but many clergy
persons still do.
Robert Marshall
> Robert Marshall wrote:
>
>> Most of a evangelical church around here seceded over this a number
>> or years ago, but I can't remember whether he was pushed or went of
>> his own accord
>
> What happened? Were they insisting on rebaptizing adults who were
> baptized as infants?
>
Yes - well encouraging rather than insisting
Robert
Pete Broadbent
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Dave Goode wrote:
>
>> Robert Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Most of a evangelical church around here seceded over this a number
>>> or years ago, but I can't remember whether he was pushed or went of
>>> his own accord
>>
>> What happened? Were they insisting on rebaptizing adults who were
>> baptized as infants?
>>
>
> Yes - well encouraging rather than insisting
Well, given the CofE position, held in good faith by evangelicals in the
CofE, that there is only one baptism - a position that scripture would make
clear! - they can hardly be Anglican, can they? But there is a work-round,
which I have used on many occasions - full immersion [the correct and
preferred mode (!)] with renewal of baptismal vows. Meets the pastoral need
of those requiring subjective feelings to surround their baptismal promises
while not reneging on the objectivity of baptism. Doesn't help the
crypto-baptists in our CofE midst, but they have other places to worship if
they don't like it - and on this occasion clearly they found them!
--
Pete Broadbent
Gareth McCaughan
> | > They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
> | > keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
> |
> | Is the alleged "represent God to us" angle found anywhere
> | in the New Testament? It might be a useful thing for a
> | Christian minister to do, but it doesn't seem to be
> | something envisaged by the very earliest church.
>
> Dunno. I take it to be a development of the slightly later than
> earliest church <g>. It's clearly implicit in the Eucharist that
> someone has to say Jesus' part.
I don't think saying Jesus's part has much to do with
representing God to us, even though Jesus was God.
> We know that there were disputes as to status and authority based on
> closeness to Jesus, which to my mind is completely upside-down.
He clearly thought so too :-).
> Perhaps the idea of a set aside class being the only people who were
> allowed to represent Jesus was simply a political solution to a human
> problem, that of people needing authority and to avoid responsibility.
Perhaps.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
...
> (Or, I think more accurately, to help us
>> distinguish between times when the person is performing[1]
>> that office and times when s/he isn't.)
...
>> [1] That doesn't feel like the right word, but right now
>> I can't think what the right word is.
>
> Enacting ?
It's better than "performing", anyway. I think.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's simply a Biblical model for appointed leadership, though, which
is found in pretty much every denomination. But there is no sggestion
in Scripture that any kind of ontological change takes place in those
so appointed, or that such appointment is necessary for things like
communion to be valid.
Mark
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Gareth McCaughan <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>|
>| Is the alleged "represent God to us" angle found anywhere
>| in the New Testament? It might be a useful thing for a
>| Christian minister to do, but it doesn't seem to be
>| something envisaged by the very earliest church.
>
>Dunno. I take it to be a development of the slightly later than
>earliest church <g>. It's clearly implicit in the Eucharist that
>someone has to say Jesus' part.
Is it that implicit? I don't think it is. Obviously, Jesus was the
first to preside at what we now call the eucharist, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that any subsequent president is representing Jesus,
any more than those present at subsequent eucharists are representing
the apostles.
>We know that there were disputes as to status and authority based on
>closeness to Jesus, which to my mind is completely upside-down.
>Perhaps the idea of a set aside class being the only people who were
>allowed to represent Jesus was simply a political solution to a human
>problem, that of people needing authority and to avoid responsibility.
I think that's very true. It's also one of the reasons why having a
separate class of people is the wrong solution - it's based on filling
a human need, rather than acting on God's wishes.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"The old is past, there's a new beginning"
Patrick Herring
| On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:01:36 GMT, p...@anweald.co.uk (Patrick Herring)
| wrote:
|
| >OTOH it may be like dress-codes in business - the prime benefit is
| >that you can take the suit off when you get home. The priest can take
| >the robe off after the service without having to shoulder the burden
| >of "being God" all the time.
|
| What about the clerical collar? I know it is becoming less
| fashionable these days to wear the collar all the time but many clergy
| persons still do.
I see the clerical collar as like a standby mode indicator - it
doesn't mean they're currently representing God but they could at any
moment be powered up into that mode if requested. Anyway, I bet they
don't sleep or shower in them.
Pete Broadbent
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:01:36 GMT, p...@anweald.co.uk (Patrick Herring)
> wrote:
>
>> OTOH it may be like dress-codes in business - the prime benefit is
>> that you can take the suit off when you get home. The priest can take
>> the robe off after the service without having to shoulder the burden
>> of "being God" all the time.
>
> What about the clerical collar? I know it is becoming less
> fashionable these days to wear the collar all the time but many clergy
> persons still do.
It's a pragmatic thing. It's an ID - the one way that a majority of the
population know you're a priest. It gets you into homes, hospitals, other
institututions. While we still have a public ministry (and we still do), we
need to be identifiable.
--
Pete Broadbent
Michael J Davis
Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Dave Goode wrote:
>
>> Robert Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Most of a evangelical church around here seceded over this a number
>>> or years ago, but I can't remember whether he was pushed or went of
>>> his own accord
>>
>> What happened? Were they insisting on rebaptizing adults who were
>> baptized as infants?
>
>Yes - well encouraging rather than insisting
"Splutter! splutter!! Who pushed me?"
"You slipped!"
"What? *Three* times?!"
M
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some things in life are too important
to be serious about
<><
Michael J Davis
<l...@london.com> writes
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:01:36 GMT, p...@anweald.co.uk (Patrick Herring)
>wrote:
>
>>OTOH it may be like dress-codes in business - the prime benefit is
>>that you can take the suit off when you get home. The priest can take
>>the robe off after the service without having to shoulder the burden
>>of "being God" all the time.
>
>What about the clerical collar? I know it is becoming less
>fashionable these days to wear the collar all the time but many clergy
>persons still do.
Ignoring the eucharistic discussion for a moment, the wearing of
distinctive dress, whether dog collar, tonsure or green shoes, has many
benefits. A minister may be trusted with personal confidences, spiritual
discernment and the gift of wisdom. Consequently both churchgoers and
members of the general public, can approach them to discuss their
emotional & spiritual needs.
Without that Christianity becomes even less visible within our
post-Christian society.
David Ould
Which is, to my mind, still a rationale for wearing a dog collar in certain
situations but not for robes.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Alasdair Baxter
<pete.br...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>It's a pragmatic thing. It's an ID - the one way that a majority of the
>population know you're a priest. It gets you into homes, hospitals, other
>institututions. While we still have a public ministry (and we still do), we
>need to be identifiable.
But it is not a particularly secure form of ID. Anyone can go into an
SPCK bookshop and buy a clerical collar. You don't have to produce a
Certificate of Ordination to get one and, unlike some uniforms, there
are no criminal sanctions for wearing one while not entitled.
Gareth McCaughan
[Patrick Herring:]
>> We know that there were disputes as to status and authority based on
>> closeness to Jesus, which to my mind is completely upside-down.
>> Perhaps the idea of a set aside class being the only people who were
>> allowed to represent Jesus was simply a political solution to a human
>> problem, that of people needing authority and to avoid responsibility.
[Mark Goodge:]
> I think that's very true. It's also one of the reasons why having a
> separate class of people is the wrong solution - it's based on filling
> a human need, rather than acting on God's wishes.
I think one of God's wishes is that our needs be fulfilled.
Peter Beale
> There aren't any ministers in the Anglican tradition, AIUI, unless you
> count deacons (servants of the church).
Patrick, this really won't do. Opening the BCP at Morning and Evening Prayer, we have e.g.
"And here it is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers
thereof, at all Times of their Ministration...."
"At the beginning of Morning Prayer the Minister shall read with a loud voice..."
"A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation after the Minister,..."
"Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice..."
"Note, that before every Lesson the Minister shall say, Here beginneth...."
"Then shall be sung or said the Apostles' Creed by the Minister and the people..."
"And after that, these prayers foloowing, all devoutly kneeling; the Minister
first pronouncing with a loud voice,"
"Then the Minister, Clerks, and people, shall say the Lord's Prayer with a loud voice".
The word is also used in the Communion Servicein the preface (referring to the same
person who is described as "the Curate"), the Ten Commandments (the same as "the
Priest"), the rubric about the notices ("And nothing shall be proclaimed...but by the
Minister"), the preambles to the first Exhortation, the General Confession, the distribution
of the bread and wine and what to do when all have communicated, and instructions on
disposal of the money given at the Offertory "as the Minister and Church-wardens shall
think fit."
Also in the services of Baptism, Marriage, Visitation of the Sick, Communion of the Sick,
Commination. And the Preface to the Ordinal refers to "these Orders of Ministers in Christ's
Church."
Article 26 is entitled "Of th Unworthiness of the Ministers...", and Article 36 "Of Consecration
of Bishops and Ministers".
So I think it might be said that ministers do have a place in the Anglican tradition, and not
just as deacons!
Much confusion has been caused by the English language having one word, priest,
which can describe either an elder/presbyter (the biblical office as understood in
post-Reformation Anglicanism) or a sacrifice-offering priest.
--
Peter Beale
Robert Marshall
>
> In message <m1hdzly...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk>, Robert
> Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Dave Goode wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of a evangelical church around here seceded over this a
>>>> number or years ago, but I can't remember whether he was pushed
>>>> or went of his own accord
>>>
>>> What happened? Were they insisting on rebaptizing adults who were
>>> baptized as infants?
>>
>>Yes - well encouraging rather than insisting
>
> "Splutter! splutter!! Who pushed me?"
>
ROTFL - ducks
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
Hmmmm. I think that depends on the need.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Calendar picture, frozen landscape"
Gareth McCaughan
>>> I think that's very true. It's also one of the reasons why having a
>>> separate class of people is the wrong solution - it's based on filling
>>> a human need, rather than acting on God's wishes.
>>
>> I think one of God's wishes is that our needs be fulfilled.
>
> Hmmmm. I think that depends on the need.
Can you give an example of something that's a need, rather
than just a want, and that God doesn't want to be fulfilled?
Simon Crouch
news:c0ituv0ohu837l380...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:46:03 GMT, Patrick Herring put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >....
> >| Indeed. The idea that some form of "ordination" is necessary in order
> >| to preside at communion is profoundly non-Scriptural, and something
> >| that (along with infant baptism) is utterly impossible to justify from
> >| an evangelical perspective.
> >
> >In the CofE it comes from the (scriptural) commissioning of the
> >disciples at the Last Supper, together with the view that the
> >disciples stood at the start of a chain of authorisation to do
> >likewise. The other scriptural basis is that Jesus chose the disciples
> >so the Church must discern whether God has chosen the ordinand. I'm
> >not entirely convinced either way but I don't see a /profound/
> >non-Scripturality.
>
> That's simply a Biblical model for appointed leadership, though, which
> is found in pretty much every denomination. But there is no sggestion
> in Scripture that any kind of ontological change takes place in those
How would you read 2 Tim 1:6? "...the gift of God that is within you through
the laying on of my hands".
all the best,
Simon.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c0ituv0ohu837l380...@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:46:03 GMT, Patrick Herring put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> >....
>> >| Indeed. The idea that some form of "ordination" is necessary in order
>> >| to preside at communion is profoundly non-Scriptural, and something
>> >| that (along with infant baptism) is utterly impossible to justify from
>> >| an evangelical perspective.
>> >
>> >In the CofE it comes from the (scriptural) commissioning of the
>> >disciples at the Last Supper, together with the view that the
>> >disciples stood at the start of a chain of authorisation to do
>> >likewise. The other scriptural basis is that Jesus chose the disciples
>> >so the Church must discern whether God has chosen the ordinand. I'm
>> >not entirely convinced either way but I don't see a /profound/
>> >non-Scripturality.
>>
>> That's simply a Biblical model for appointed leadership, though, which
>> is found in pretty much every denomination. But there is no sggestion
>> in Scripture that any kind of ontological change takes place in those
>> so appointed, ...[snip]
>
>How would you read 2 Tim 1:6? "...the gift of God that is within you through
>the laying on of my hands".
It's an interesting turn of phrase. But I don't think that the "gift"
Paul is referring to is specifically one of leadership. It seems to me
that this is more likely to be referring to the same experience as
described in, for example, Acts 8:17.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"And what have you done?"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
That really depends on your definition of "need". In one sense, your
statement is correct. But, in that case, I would deny that the
situation described by Patrick in the article a few posts up the
thread is a genuine "need", as opposed to merely a desire. What I
meant by "human need" is, in this context, broadly a synonym for
"human want". After all, it clearly isn't the case that we "need" an
ordained clergy, in the stronger sense of the word "need", as many of
us manage to cope without thm perfectly adequately.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"A man under cover but you tore me apart"
Patrick Herring
Scripture does implicitly suggest an ontological difference in that
the disciples are distinct from the rest of the followers,
particularly at the Last Supper - why would that be if it wasn't going
to matter who presided at communions? The main difference is that
Jesus chose the disciples whereas the rest were primarily following
their own instincts, roughly. So we should perhaps assume that God had
a reason.
As to the validity of consecrating the communion elements I see it as
about not really knowing what goes on at all so we just have to
connect as much as possible with the original institution and hope we
haven't left out the bit that really matters.
Personally I would agree with your (implied) view that a formal
transmission of authority isn't what makes a communion valid or
effective or whatever (but it doesn't make it invalid etc either). Do
you have a view of what an ineffective communion might be, if there is
such a thing?
Patrick Herring
OK, fair point <g>. I was using the word "minister" in the current
sense as distinct from the current sense of "priest". I daresay the
BCP authors were keen not to be seen to be importing RCC terms too
much.
| Much confusion has been caused by the English language having one word, priest,
| which can describe either an elder/presbyter (the biblical office as understood in
| post-Reformation Anglicanism) or a sacrifice-offering priest.
I would say it's "minister" that has that confusion: "priest" has
always meant sacrifice-offering and sin-absolving as well as elder.
Patrick Herring
| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| > | > They do help when considering the "represent God to us" angle in
| > | > keeping that view separate from the actual person under the robes.
| > |
| > | Is the alleged "represent God to us" angle found anywhere
| > | in the New Testament? It might be a useful thing for a
| > | Christian minister to do, but it doesn't seem to be
| > | something envisaged by the very earliest church.
| >
| > Dunno. I take it to be a development of the slightly later than
| > earliest church <g>. It's clearly implicit in the Eucharist that
| > someone has to say Jesus' part.
|
| I don't think saying Jesus's part has much to do with
| representing God to us, even though Jesus was God.
Possibly: it depends perhaps on whether the communion prayer is just
reported speech. But I was making a wrong tack - see below.
It has just been pointed out to me that the original distinction I
made missed the point: I suggested that representing the people to God
and God to the people were two roles the priest filled where a (e.g.
Methodist) minister would be filling only the first role. In fact both
those roles are priestly: it's the third one - being an elder of the
church - which is common to priests and ministers. The first
representation is in being the person able to offer sacrifice to God -
i.e. presiding at communion - and the representing of God to the
people is in the absolution of sins, which ministers aren't commission
to do in a way that is intended to link back to Jesus' commissioning
of the disciples. Hmm, glad to be a little clearer even if I don't
know whether I agree with it.
Patrick Herring
| On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:01:36 GMT, Patrick Herring put finger to
| keyboard and typed:
|
| >Gareth McCaughan <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
| >|
| >| Is the alleged "represent God to us" angle found anywhere
| >| in the New Testament? It might be a useful thing for a
| >| Christian minister to do, but it doesn't seem to be
| >| something envisaged by the very earliest church.
| >
| >Dunno. I take it to be a development of the slightly later than
| >earliest church <g>. It's clearly implicit in the Eucharist that
| >someone has to say Jesus' part.
|
| Is it that implicit? I don't think it is. Obviously, Jesus was the
| first to preside at what we now call the eucharist, but that doesn't
| necessarily mean that any subsequent president is representing Jesus,
| any more than those present at subsequent eucharists are representing
| the apostles.
I need to read up more on what offering sacrifices to God means, but
this may be a red herring, ho ho: see my reply to Gareth.
| >We know that there were disputes as to status and authority based on
| >closeness to Jesus, which to my mind is completely upside-down.
| >Perhaps the idea of a set aside class being the only people who were
| >allowed to represent Jesus was simply a political solution to a human
| >problem, that of people needing authority and to avoid responsibility.
|
| I think that's very true. It's also one of the reasons why having a
| separate class of people is the wrong solution - it's based on filling
| a human need, rather than acting on God's wishes.
But human needs delimit what God can achieve at any particular moment;
there may have to be many odd & temporary social constructions to get
God's people moving. God's wishes are that we be perfect and fit for
heaven just anyway, so why don't we just do that and forget the whole
church/religion thing right now?
Pete Broadbent
What is actually happening now is that, with peculiarly postmodern panache,
the CofE is offering services of choice, including explicit services of
choice with regard to the dress of ministers and others. I send a
pre-confirmation form to parishes before I go to confirm, asking what they
want me to wear. Catholic parishes tend to go for eucharistic vestments to
fit the decor; middle go for the cope; evangelicals and charismatics ask for
"no robes". I see nothing sinister in any of the options - each reflects a
different take on the liturgical and theological foundation of the CofE.
Robes are, in my view, "matters indifferent". What is required is cultural
*nous* and sensitivity.
And I would not want to sanction the conduct of an occasional office
without robes - expectations are still high that the priest will be
"properly" attired for such an event. Though that expectation will no doubt
change over the coming years.
But the logic of identity that enables you to understand the dog collar
should also help you understand robes!
--
Pete Broadbent
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>|
>| That's simply a Biblical model for appointed leadership, though, which
>| is found in pretty much every denomination. But there is no sggestion
>| in Scripture that any kind of ontological change takes place in those
>| so appointed, or that such appointment is necessary for things like
>| communion to be valid.
>
>Scripture does implicitly suggest an ontological difference in that
>the disciples are distinct from the rest of the followers,
>particularly at the Last Supper - why would that be if it wasn't going
>to matter who presided at communions? The main difference is that
>Jesus chose the disciples whereas the rest were primarily following
>their own instincts, roughly. So we should perhaps assume that God had
>a reason.
I don't think that amounts to an ontological difference, though. I've
got some things that I specifically chose, and other things that I've
just got, and there isn't any tangible difference between them in any
other respect.
>As to the validity of consecrating the communion elements I see it as
>about not really knowing what goes on at all so we just have to
>connect as much as possible with the original institution and hope we
>haven't left out the bit that really matters.
>
>Personally I would agree with your (implied) view that a formal
>transmission of authority isn't what makes a communion valid or
>effective or whatever (but it doesn't make it invalid etc either). Do
>you have a view of what an ineffective communion might be, if there is
>such a thing?
I don't think there is such a thing as an "ineffective" communion.
Gareth McCaughan
>>>>> I think that's very true. It's also one of the reasons why having a
>>>>> separate class of people is the wrong solution - it's based on filling
>>>>> a human need, rather than acting on God's wishes.
>>>>
>>>> I think one of God's wishes is that our needs be fulfilled.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. I think that depends on the need.
>>
>> Can you give an example of something that's a need, rather
>> than just a want, and that God doesn't want to be fulfilled?
>
> That really depends on your definition of "need". In one sense, your
> statement is correct. But, in that case, I would deny that the
> situation described by Patrick in the article a few posts up the
> thread is a genuine "need", as opposed to merely a desire. What I
> meant by "human need" is, in this context, broadly a synonym for
> "human want". After all, it clearly isn't the case that we "need" an
> ordained clergy, in the stronger sense of the word "need", as many of
> us manage to cope without thm perfectly adequately.
Right. As it happens, I don't think that basing our practice
on what people *want* is necessarily wrong either :-).
David Ould
>
> But the logic of identity that enables you to understand the dog
> collar should also help you understand robes!
I think the issue with robes is that they make too big a deal of the matter
when it comes to making a distinction.
But there's also the issue of the theology tied up in the robes. It's been a
evangelical tradition in the circles that I move in to conscientiously
object to things like stoles at ordination services. Often this would lead
to a mini "discussion" with the bishop along the lines of
Ordinand: I won't wear a stole
Bishop: Why not?
O: Because of the priestly overtones that it has
B: But it's really not that important, is it?
O: glad you agree, I won't be wearing it.
It is, I'm sure you'll agree, a matter of some objection to evangelicals to
be asked to wear vestments that symbolise a priestly function that they
reject.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Simon Crouch
Well, yes exactly. Surely "receiving the Holy Spirit" is about as radical an
ontological change as one could wish for? In the the case of Acts 8:17, the
change is that brought about during baptism; in the case of 2 Tim 1:6, that
brought about during commisioning.
all the best,
Simon.
Tony Gillam
> Gareth McCaughan <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I don't think saying Jesus's part has much to do with
>> representing God to us, even though Jesus was God.
>
> Possibly: it depends perhaps on whether the communion prayer is just
> reported speech. But I was making a wrong tack - see below.
>
> It has just been pointed out to me that the original distinction I
> made missed the point: I suggested that representing the people to God
> and God to the people were two roles the priest filled where a (e.g.
> Methodist) minister would be filling only the first role. In fact both
> those roles are priestly: it's the third one - being an elder of the
> church - which is common to priests and ministers. The first
> representation is in being the person able to offer sacrifice to God -
> i.e. presiding at communion - and the representing of God to the
> people is in the absolution of sins, which ministers aren't commission
> to do in a way that is intended to link back to Jesus' commissioning
> of the disciples. Hmm, glad to be a little clearer even if I don't
> know whether I agree with it.
If NTL will let me get a response in !! ( several previous posts have
failed to appear)
Does it not depend on what one understands goes on at a communion
service. I'm no Greek expert but ISTM that the origin "eucharistos" -
thanksgiving doesn't carry any connotations of sacrifice in it and
consequently the idea of priestly sacrifice is not relevant. As a dyed
in the wool non-conformist, I've always gone along with the idea that
anyone can preside over communion.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Peter Beale
> But there's also the issue of the theology tied up in the robes. It's
> been a
> evangelical tradition in the circles that I move in to conscientiously
> object to things like stoles at ordination services. Often this would
> lead
> to a mini "discussion" with the bishop along the lines of
>
> Ordinand: I won't wear a stole
> Bishop: Why not?
> O: Because of the priestly overtones that it has
> B: But it's really not that important, is it?
> O: glad you agree, I won't be wearing it.
Having refused to wear a stole at my ordinations 40 years ago, I am
pleased to read that there are some today who still have some understanding
of the principles at stake. But I would prefer "sacerdotal" to "priestly" -
after all, you are being ordained "priest". /Pace/ Patrick, I still believe
that to be the ambiguous word - far better to spell it out as presbyter, as
the Church of South India did.
--
Peter Beale
Peter Beale
> The first
> representation is in being the person able to offer sacrifice to God -
> i.e. presiding at communion
But the minister presiding at communion in the reformed Church of England
isn't (or shouldn't be) offering sacrifice to God. That's why there was such a
definite move to replace altars with tables, and removing sacrificial language
other than that of thanksgiving following reception.
--
Peter Beale
David Ould
>>> How would you read 2 Tim 1:6? "...the gift of God that is within
>>> you through the laying on of my hands".
>>
>> It's an interesting turn of phrase. But I don't think that the "gift"
>> Paul is referring to is specifically one of leadership. It seems to
>> me that this is more likely to be referring to the same experience as
>> described in, for example, Acts 8:17.
>>
>
> Well, yes exactly. Surely "receiving the Holy Spirit" is about as
> radical an ontological change as one could wish for? In the the case
> of Acts 8:17, the change is that brought about during baptism; in the
> case of 2 Tim 1:6, that brought about during commisioning.
I find it intriguing. My best guess would be that the "gift of God that is
within you" (RSV) may very well be the same faith of v5, after all it's the
very next verse. It would not be strange for Paul to call saving faith a
"gift".
In which case the reference to a laying-on of hands is confusing and makes
me think that it's more to do with his gift of leadership/teaching which is,
after all, the issue that Paul returns to time and time again in the letter.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>| On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:01:36 GMT, Patrick Herring put finger to
>| keyboard and typed:
>
>| >We know that there were disputes as to status and authority based on
>| >closeness to Jesus, which to my mind is completely upside-down.
>| >Perhaps the idea of a set aside class being the only people who were
>| >allowed to represent Jesus was simply a political solution to a human
>| >problem, that of people needing authority and to avoid responsibility.
>|
>| I think that's very true. It's also one of the reasons why having a
>| separate class of people is the wrong solution - it's based on filling
>| a human need, rather than acting on God's wishes.
>
>But human needs delimit what God can achieve at any particular moment;
>there may have to be many odd & temporary social constructions to get
>God's people moving.
The difficulty is that the concept of an ontologically different
clergy requires us to believe that it is genuinely necessary. If it's
temporary, then it clearly isn't necessary in any fundamental sense.
Your statement works for many other human social constructs, such as
democracy, capitalism, etc, as it's (reasonably) obvious that these
are useful rather than essential. But it doesn't work for something
which is based on a fundamental, unalterable difference.
> God's wishes are that we be perfect and fit for
>heaven just anyway, so why don't we just do that and forget the whole
>church/religion thing right now?
I'm not sure that is God's wish, at least, not in the short term.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Don't let the bells end"
Debbie
<ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>Ordinand: I won't wear a stole
>Bishop: Why not?
>O: Because of the priestly overtones that it has
>B: But it's really not that important, is it?
>O: glad you agree, I won't be wearing it.
>
>It is, I'm sure you'll agree, a matter of some objection to evangelicals to
>be asked to wear vestments that symbolise a priestly function that they
>reject.
Then I really don't see why they want to be ordained to the office and
work of a priest.
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
David Ould
I have an ongoing mini-contention with my brother who is in his second year
at Wycliffe. He says that "priest" means presbyter but I point out to him
that it looks much more like hieros than presbueteros.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
David Ould
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:26:45 +0800, "David Ould"
> <ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> wrote:
>
>> Ordinand: I won't wear a stole
>> Bishop: Why not?
>> O: Because of the priestly overtones that it has
>> B: But it's really not that important, is it?
>> O: glad you agree, I won't be wearing it.
>>
>> It is, I'm sure you'll agree, a matter of some objection to
>> evangelicals to be asked to wear vestments that symbolise a priestly
>> function that they reject.
>
> Then I really don't see why they want to be ordained to the office and
> work of a priest.
it's about the name, not the office. It's a serious evangelical contention.
usually we are pragmatic and accept the title so that we can get the job
done.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
David Ould
exactly. The eucharist is a sacrifice of *thanks and praise* (see BCP) since
that's what the name means - thanksgiving.
In that way it truly is a second Passover, looking back to a great
redemptive work of God and giving thanks.
If, instead, we want to view it as a sacrifice in the more common
understanding that we are, in some way, offering Christ up again ( ie a
Roman understanding) then the role of the president is somewhat different.
As for the Reformed understanding, there is still some argument that an
ordained president is needed. The line is that a sacrament is a form of
"teaching", ie a declaration of the gospel and so we should reserve it for
those set apart to teach.
I'm not sure if I agree with that but it's still an argument within the
Reformed tradition against lay presidency.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Simon Crouch
news:memo.2003122...@pjbeale.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <3fef68fe....@text.news.ntlworld.com>, p...@anweald.co.uk
(Patrick Herring) wrote:
>
> > The first
> > representation is in being the person able to offer sacrifice to God -
> > i.e. presiding at communion
>
> But the minister presiding at communion in the reformed Church of England
> isn't (or shouldn't be) offering sacrifice to God.
As I pointed out earlier, as long as the idea is not one of the*repetition*
of the sacrifice of Calvary, the notion of the Eucharist as sacirifice is
lawful within the CofE.
all the best,
Simon.
Simon Crouch
news:bsori6$hs7$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg...
> Simon Crouch wrote:
>
>
> >>> How would you read 2 Tim 1:6? "...the gift of God that is within
> >>> you through the laying on of my hands".
> >>
> >> It's an interesting turn of phrase. But I don't think that the "gift"
> >> Paul is referring to is specifically one of leadership. It seems to
> >> me that this is more likely to be referring to the same experience as
> >> described in, for example, Acts 8:17.
> >>
> >
> > Well, yes exactly. Surely "receiving the Holy Spirit" is about as
> > radical an ontological change as one could wish for? In the the case
> > of Acts 8:17, the change is that brought about during baptism; in the
> > case of 2 Tim 1:6, that brought about during commisioning.
>
>
> I find it intriguing. My best guess would be that the "gift of God that is
> within you" (RSV) may very well be the same faith of v5, after all it's
the
> very next verse.
>It would not be strange for Paul to call saving faith a
> "gift".
That's quite possible. But is this "laying on of hands" referring to some
sort of "confirmation" or to some sort of "commision"? I look back at all
the commisioning in 1 Tim and see the process of (i) discerning through
prophecy the will of the sprit followed by (ii) the laying on of hands by
the elders and it looks to me as though Paul (in 2 Tim.) is elaborating upon
that (by suggesting that the act of laying on of hands includes some sort of
ontological change involving the Spirit).
> In which case the reference to a laying-on of hands is confusing and makes
> me think that it's more to do with his gift of leadership/teaching which
is,
> after all, the issue that Paul returns to time and time again in the
letter.
I think that this is correct. So, then, does the commision for
leadership/teaching involve an ontological change? And if so, is there any
connection one can make with leadership in the Eucharist?
all the best,
Simon.
Simon Crouch
news:lkSHb.40154$R6.89...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
But the language of sacrifice is dotted all over the NT - this confirms that
the early Christians adopted the universal religious understanding of the
time that *any* approach to the holy involved sacrifice and therefore the
eucharist as, in some sense, a holy meal must have involved some notion of
sacrifice. In Hebrews, we see the beginnings of the Christian notion of
sacrifice being worked out.
What's more challenging (to a reserved priesthood) is the language used (in
Revelation and 1 Peter) of the "priesthood of all believers". Then one has
to balance what this means against the fairly well developed notions of
different members of the community with different gifts and functions in
Paul.
all the best,
Simon.
Robert Marshall
> But there's also the issue of the theology tied up in the
> robes. It's been a evangelical tradition in the circles that I move
> in to conscientiously object to things like stoles at ordination
> services.
Though, I seem to recall, Michael Baughen, when he was up here, being
keen on finding evangelicals prepared to put things like vestments as
very much second and to work in parishes with a (say) a cassock/alb
style with the more important aim of communicating the Gospel
Robert
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:j5luuvkmpps8ufh70...@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:34:42 GMT, Simon Crouch put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>> >
>> >How would you read 2 Tim 1:6? "...the gift of God that is within you
>through
>> >the laying on of my hands".
>>
>> It's an interesting turn of phrase. But I don't think that the "gift"
>> Paul is referring to is specifically one of leadership. It seems to me
>> that this is more likely to be referring to the same experience as
>> described in, for example, Acts 8:17.
>>
>Well, yes exactly. Surely "receiving the Holy Spirit" is about as radical an
>ontological change as one could wish for? In the the case of Acts 8:17, the
>change is that brought about during baptism; in the case of 2 Tim 1:6, that
>brought about during commisioning.
Maybe I should have been more clear: In my opinion, what Paul is
referring to in 2 Tim 1:6 is the same thing as in Acts 8:17 - that is,
the initial filling (or "baptism") of the Holy Spirit in a believer's
life shortly after (or as part of, depending on your theology)
conversion. That is, when Paul wrote about the gift that is within
Timothy, he is referring to Timothy's giftedness *as a Christian*, not
as related to any specific role within the church.
I do think that an ontological change occurs when someone moves from
being a non-Christian to a Christian. But I don't think there are any
ontological differences at all between Christians.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Life can be yours if you only stay"
David Ould
On reflection I think it's a bit of both, but more with the commisioning to
do with his job. After all the very next charge from Paul is to not be
ashamed but to carry on telling the (true) gospel. And this theme continues
throughout the letter.
>> In which case the reference to a laying-on of hands is confusing and
>> makes me think that it's more to do with his gift of
>> leadership/teaching which is, after all, the issue that Paul returns
>> to time and time again in the letter.
>
> I think that this is correct. So, then, does the commision for
> leadership/teaching involve an ontological change? And if so, is
> there any connection one can make with leadership in the Eucharist?
>
I'm not sure if it does imply an ontological change. Either way I don't see
how it could have any connection with the Eucharist - or at least with the
Eucharist as I understand it.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
David Ould
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, David Ould wrote:
>
>> But there's also the issue of the theology tied up in the
>> robes. It's been a evangelical tradition in the circles that I move
>> in to conscientiously object to things like stoles at ordination
>> services.
>
> Though, I seem to recall, Michael Baughen, when he was up here, being
> keen on finding evangelicals prepared to put things like vestments as
> very much second and to work in parishes with a (say) a cassock/alb
> style with the more important aim of communicating the Gospel
>
oh, absolutely. It's not a breaker and I know many who take that view.
Indeed, at our wedding, the "priests" wore robes in order to be more
acceptable to many in the congregation. That was our choice, even though -
in principle - we didn't think it was the right thing.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Peter Beale
> oh, absolutely. It's not a breaker and I know many who take that view.
> Indeed, at our wedding, the "priests" wore robes in order to be more
> acceptable to many in the congregation. That was our choice, even
> though - in principle - we didn't think it was the right thing.
But "in principle" there is, I suggest, a distinction to be made between
cassock, surplice, scarf and hood on the one hand, and mass vestments
(including the stole) on the other - that's the point of declining to wear a
stole at ordination, surely.
--
Peter Beale
Simon Crouch
> >
>
> I'm not sure if it does imply an ontological change. Either way I don't
see
> how it could have any connection with the Eucharist - or at least with the
> Eucharist as I understand it.
>
How it *could* have a connection is easy: the repeated testimony of the NT
to the specialization of gifts and roles within the church and to the use of
laying on of hands as an act of commision might suggest that something as
important as the Eucharist had to be presided over by someone specially
identified by the Spirit and commissioned by the elders.
Whether it *does* have a connection is harder ;-) Once one goes outside the
NT to the testimony of the writnings of the early church then, when it's
spoken about, it's pretty much unequivocal. (But it's not spoken about much
in the very early years - and one can of course argue that the testimony of
the early church as it survives to us is selective, having been selected by
the later church!)
all the best,
Simon.
David Ould
Absolutely. The two men who presided at our wedding both refuse to wear the
stole and don't wear any robes if they can help it.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
David Ould
I think the Fathers are helpful. They certainly seem to have understood that
some form of leader should preside.
Which I'm happy with. For example, an elder could preside.
--
David Ould
ould.bravehost.com
Gareth McCaughan
Can you explain what the distinction is? I mean, if the issue
is that dressing up specially gives the wrong impression then
why does it matter exactly what special clothes you wear?
Michael J Davis
<ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> writes
[snip]
>If, instead, we want to view it as a sacrifice in the more common
>understanding that we are, in some way, offering Christ up again ( ie a
>Roman understanding) then the role of the president is somewhat different.
David, NO!
The RCC understanding is *NOT* that it is offering Christ up *again*. It
is a making present of Christ's *one and only* sacrifice, a statement
that (at least) the Anglo-Catholic end of the CoE supports.
*You* really should know better than to repeat such protestant [1]
misrepresentations.
>As for the Reformed understanding, there is still some argument that an
>ordained president is needed. The line is that a sacrament is a form of
>"teaching", ie a declaration of the gospel and so we should reserve it for
>those set apart to teach.
>I'm not sure if I agree with that but it's still an argument within the
>Reformed tradition against lay presidency.
I think that is a fair point. One that is being abandoned in the merger
with the Methodists, isn't it?
Mike
[1] Nothing personal to any protestant brothers and sisters in Christ
who read this. (I haven't a better term at the moment. 'Reformed' is not
the issue.) Much of the reformation was pursued through half truths on
both sides, which became petrified in the doctrines of the time,
including the 39a, and it really is time we cleared that rubbish out of
the way.
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Peter Beale
> Can you explain what the distinction is? I mean, if the issue
> is that dressing up specially gives the wrong impression then
> why does it matter exactly what special clothes you wear?
I'm probably not the best person to explain it, having parted company
with the C of E 30 years ago. But in a nutshell, the surplice, scarf and
hood are the "ordinary" garb of a minister (rochet and chimere in the case
of a bishop) when taking the services, and the other vestments (alb,
chasuble, stole, etc.) were abandoned at the time of the Reformation as
being inextricably linked with the doctrine of the mass - they were described
by some as "Aaron's baubles". The Puritans wanted to get rid of the surplice
as well, but that's another story. Until the Oxford Movement the mass vestments
were to all intents and purposes absent from Anglican worship, nor did bishops
wear tea cosies, sorry, mitres, or pectoral crosses etc.
Personally I believe all robes to be unnecessary, the minister should dress
soberly and unobtrusively, not drawing attention to himself by trendy gear,
garish ties, and the like.
--
Peter Beale
Robert Marshall
I think that's a bit excessive ;-)
I'm a little puzzled by your apparent acceptance of cassock/alb but
drawing the line at a stole.
As to where that leaves Readers' scarves..
Kim Tame
<?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bsoup1$i2i$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, David Ould
><ou...@singnetNOSPAM.com.sg> writes
>
>
>>I'm not sure if I agree with that but it's still an argument within the
>>Reformed tradition against lay presidency.
>
>I think that is a fair point. One that is being abandoned in the merger
>with the Methodists, isn't it?
>
>Mike
>
Wouldn't have thought so. We don't have lay presidency either.
--
Kim
"We don't deserve forgiveness. We need forgiveness."
R. Giles
Steve Cleary
<tgi...@NOSPAMcyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>consequently the idea of priestly sacrifice is not relevant. As a dyed
>in the wool non-conformist, I've always gone along with the idea that
>anyone can preside over communion.
*I am answering this point in a seperate thread as the reason will
become clear - sorry for the faulty etiquette at this point*
Such a view is not generally a nonconformist one. I preside at
Communion each Sunday as a Baptist pastor. Within the congregation,
there are others who could preside and have done so - indeed, I insist
that all the deacons at one time or other, as well as some members
have presided. How about if I turned up at your church one Sunday,
walked to the front and started to preside over the Communion, on the
basis that since we believe in the priesthood of all believers, I
should do so. Would your congregation or your minister accept it?
The issue of presidency at the Lord's Supper might seem at face value
a rather pointless one, but it raises a number of related issues such
as the location of authority within the local and wider church.
Amongst Baptists in the seventeenth century, whereas opinions differed
as to whether only an ordained minister might preside at the Lord's
table, there was universal agreement that only a person recognized by
the church might do so. This would normally be the minister but in his
absence, through illness or, in times of persecution, imprisonment,
another officer of the church might be delegated to preside. Not all
churches agreed in this practice, however, and some went without
communion in the absence of the minister. The same would no doubt be
true of Catholic or Anglican churches today in some areas of the
world.
One question that someone might like to answer is this...if the
validity of the sacrament is not dependent on the status of the one
presiding, but on the baptized status of the celebrating community,
might it not be possible in some small congregations or gatherings to
celebrate without having an individual president at all? If it is WE
who are the body of Christ, then it is WE who preside at the sacrament
of his body. Just a thought.
Whilst it could rightly be maintained that there is no special
'priestly' office which indelibly sets some people aside to 'perform
the rite' of presiding at Communion as if by magic, however, equally,
we ought to reflect on the apostolic injunction to do everything
decently and in good order. It is a great privilege and honour to
preside at the table and we are able to do so only because of the
calling of Christ through his church. If some maintain that only a
priest can represent Christ, how about the assertion that such a
priest must therefore be a male Jew?
Steve Cleary