the lack of liturgy is for a couple of reasons. one is that we don't want to get all confused with incantations. i know personally, i can get stuck in thinking "if i pray these words, then this will happen" (when praying for healing or whatever). it's partly to do with a recognition that it's not what we say that matters, but how we say it; our heart, if u like.

the second reason is the low church attempt not to fall into tradition (which is pretty impossible). actually, now i think about it, it's the same thing - we recognise (at least nominally) that the whole thing is not formulaic - we can't pray this prayer in this way and have this happen. God is God, and not some mathematical equation. i say nominally, cos we do still fall into that trap (ie: we sing this song, cos it worked so well last week; we are into the third song now, so let's hold on the last chord for a few bars; it's quite quiet, so it must now be the time in the service where we speak in tongues)

The reformers such as Cranmer in England influenced by continental proterstants such as Luther was determined to change all this. He wrote an English liturgy and included Bible reading and sermons into the service, as well as encouraging the public to take Holy Communion at least four times a year. Protestantism went much further than that in abolishing altogether the use of liturgies making hymn singing, long sermons on the ten commandments etc the focus of the service.

quote:

---

Posted by Angel: It still feels as big a mystery to me, this lack of liturgy and apparent order, as AC worship must do to others.

---

What do you mean by 'order'? Do you mean ' things proceding in an orderly fashion' or do you mean 'things going in the right order, one after another?'

Oh, and we do have liturgies.

We just don't admit it

quote:

---

So much of the service seems to hang on the individual at the front.

---

only inasmuch as the people at the front do most of the talking. Participation, for good or ill, is internalised - that is, we participate by choosing to respond as individuals to the words and music presented to us.

quote:

---

I don't understand the lack of emphasis on communion, or the lack of visual stimuli in church. Why do they parade in, and reverence the bible, yet show less respect to the altar or table?

---

Not everybody reverences the Bible (I've never seen that happen, meself). But as for the altar and/or table? Well, that's just because it's considered a table; the actual performance of the communion is the focus, not the objects with which its done.

Now, Angel, both the Protestant and A/C view of this have been presented pretty comprehensively on the 'tat should be melted down...' thread in Hell, the 'Holy places and objects' thread in Purgatory.

More importantly, a lot of your questions have already been answered (and a lot of differences between the traditions have been explained) in the Bizarre Practices/ Protestants thread, which still sits in the dark recesses of MW's bowels.

quote:

---

More importantly, a lot of your questions have already been answered (and a lot of differences between the traditions have been explained) in the Bizarre Practices/ Protestants thread, which still sits in the dark recesses of MW's bowels.

---

Wood - could you try to be a bit more patronising, only I don't think you've rubbed my nose in it enough.

It's precisely because we don't have that much discussion on protestant ideas. I've read the thread in Hell, but I'm after the beginnings of it. The nuts and bolts. Bizarre Practices concerns just that - Bizarre Practices. Not day to day services. If asked, the AC folks will answer thread after thread on their beliefs, looking at stuff from many angles. Why can't the evangelical/protestant lot do the same?

As for order - I mean that one week all the prayers might be at the beginning, so prayers, hymn, prayers, hymn, sermon hymn, close. Another, there might be a "children's" address, even if there are no kids there. Some will use psalms a lot, others don't.

Wood - I want to know how stuff came about, not just the differences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel of the North:
Wood - could you try to be a bit more patronising, only I don't think you've rubbed my nose in it enough.

---

If my post came across as patronising, I apologise. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

And FWIW, the Bizarre Practices thread contains a great deal of material on the origins of the various practices.

Now, as for order... I thought that's what you meant. But I wasn't sure. Now, as Stooberry said, a lot of Protestant practices came about because the 'high' types do it the other way. Sad but true.

But some of the things do have specific reasons. Take, for example, communion.

To reiterate, this is how it's done in my church (a reasonably MOR Baptist church):

The pastor and four or five of the
deacons sit around the table. The pastor (or whoever else is presiding - as I have said on a number of occasions before, there is no such thing in the Protestant church as 'lay presidency', because there are technically no laity), 'fences the table' - which means that he outlines the Biblical prohibitions against joining in Communion with an unready or unrepentant heart, from 1 Cor. 11.

Then he reads one of the relevant passages from Scripture (either from 1 Cor 11 or one of the Gospels), and briefly explains the significance of the action.

There are, of course, no prayers to consecrate the bread, because the bread is not consecrated; rather, the congregation are brought together, and participate as a corporate body in the very action of eating and drinking.

The Deacons bring the bread and wine to us; customarily, we eat the bread as it is brought to us, and wait until everybody has the 'wine' (which is in those daft little glasses for hygiene reasons) and drink together; the pastor receives last - on the 'Bizarre Practices' thread, somebody said, 'hang on, isn't that a bit sola gratia?' re. the Pastor giving out what he has not received already. This, of course, is the whole point: the grace of God in the face of our own fallen nature is represented here, as is the atonement.

The taking of the bread last is indicative of the pastor's equality with the congregation. He does not mediate for us; rather, he is the one of us landed with the job of preaching, speaking and leading the communion.

In a healthy Protestant church, this is central. As said in the thread in Purgatory, the correct Protestant idea (and of course, many Protestants don't quite get it) is that all things are holy, as are all jobs of work. The pastor is just someone doing a necessary and - if he's doing it right, difficult - job.

Thus, the thing Huw mentioned, which is quite common round here, where the minister is pulled up by his congregation if he gets something wrong (and his authority balanced by the deacons, who in a Baptist church are basically the elected executive officers of the church) is the Right Way to do things.

The cult of personality which some (normally charismatic, I'm afraid) evangelical leaders have is not only damaging, but theologically and ecclesiologically wrong.

I'm looking at this from a Baptist perspective; Methodists, URCs, Presbyterians, EMWs and so on all do it slightly differently - because there is no right way to actually run a service.

Which brings me on to another thing: the place of the church service in the Christian life. While attendance at meetings (which term many Protestants prefer to 'service') is often the prerequisite for membership, the service is not really central to the Christian life, rather it's one of a number of things Evangelical Protestants (from now on, instead of 'Evangelical Protestant', I'm going to use E/P in the same way some of us use A/C for Anglo Catholic) are expected to do. Regular 'quiet times', personal extempore prayer. And, of course, good works as well, although emphasis is repeatedly made on the given that it is not by these works that we are saved, but by faith alone.

If I were to bring it all together, I'd say that E/P practices can be lumped together thus:

• Those which we do differently to A/Cs because it's the way A/Cs do it.
  
• Those we do because it's sensible to do it that way (eg. the wine in the little glasses; because it's not alcoholic, it's only sensible to avoid the spread of germs by getting everyone to drink out of separate vessels).
  
• Those we do because of our theology; our theology of practice can be summed up (bear in mind that each of these things should be prefixed with 'E/Ps believe that'):
  
  
  
  1. Objects can't be made holy.
     
  2. Scripture is paramount.
     
  3. The pastor is one of the congregation.
     
  4. We are saved by Grace alone.
     

We are slightly different, because we have a liturgical service every week. We are normally in accord with Common Worship. But the form and structure of the service can be significantly different week on week, because the people involved and the theme lend themselves to different treatments.

We have developed our forms of service out of the permitted orders ( we are anglican after all ), and the approaches of the people who lead. Because we have a large number of different people involved in leading, this is not focussed about one person, but drawing styles from a cross section, all of which enhances our worship. The styles do change as people come and go.

We also have all age worship, which is often an occasion to try novel and radical ideas out, some of which may be picked up and used in other services, as appropriate. So our style is constantly developing and growing.

Why have liturgies if you don't use them?

Isn't the act of praying/reading over the bread consecrating it, in a way?

If you are saved by grace alone, why is so much emphasis seemingly placed on believing the "right and/or sound" things? I'm thinking about the way certain E/P churches I've been to, although they are freer in worship, have far more doctrine in private life. So it seems a sort of trade-off.

Is there a preparation for membership, in the same way that there are confirmation classes. (Angel remembers fondly her excellent confirmation classes)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huw:

It seems to me that the lower down the church scale you go ("lower" in the liturgical sense only) the less you see of that sort of attitude.

---

Interesting, I have observed the opposite. Evangelicalism has in some quarters had a stronger emphasis on Leadership rather than the more catholic idea of Representation. Avoiding evangelical or catholic horror stories, reading ecclesiology from both traditions in the Anglican church certainly indicates this difference in emphasis.

A major difference, which doesn't exactly fall along the general High / Low divide is to do with exactly what the church is. In some evangelical ecclesiology the church is a church of converts. In some more catholic ecclesiology the church may be seen as something wider and less defined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
Interesting, I have observed the opposite. Evangelicalism has in some quarters had a stronger emphasis on Leadership rather than the more catholic idea of Representation. Avoiding evangelical or catholic horror stories, reading ecclesiology from both traditions in the Anglican church certainly indicates this difference in emphasis.

---

As I said above, it depends in which direction you go 'down'. The more 'trad' your evangelical types are, the more likely they're going to have a healthier view of their pastor. I think you'll probably find it isn't anywhere as clear cut as all that, and varies whichever way you go.

[irrelevance]By the way, can I say how much I HATE the term 'low' church? I mean, to discard it would be pointless, since everyone here knows what it means. But still, there's a 'superiority/inferiority' thing happening there which annoys me. Just a gripe. [/irrelevance]

quote:

---

I speak today as 50% Liberal Catholic, 50% Liberal Evangelical and 50% Anarchist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel of the North:
Wood - thank you.

Why have liturgies if you don't use them?

---

It was actually a tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that certain things which were said and certain uses of scripture were equal to liturgy in higher churches.

We say the grace at the end of every service, for example: May the Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all for ever more, Amen. We use the Lord's prayer. The use of one of three or four passages of Scripture in communion. Phrases said after readings, such as - May the Lord be pleased to bless this Word.

quote:

---

Isn't the act of praying/reading over the bread consecrating it, in a way?

---

No. Not really. Because the prayers are directed at the congregation, rather than over the bread. It's us that consecrated, not the elements.

quote:

---

If we are saved by grace alone, why is so much emphasis seemingly placed on believing the "right and/or sound" things?
I'm thinking about the way certain E/P churches I've been to, although they are freer in worship, have far more doctrine in private life. So it seems a sort of trade-off.

---

Well, there's a thing. Umm, yeah, often there is a concentration on being 'sound'. But, you know, that doesn't mean it's right. There is often a need for people to believe the same things; many of these things get piled on top of one another when a new convert joins.

The reason for this is, I think, because we're freer in worship. In an A/C church, you've all got the central authority and the prayer book to work from. E/Ps have the tradition of a few centuries, and Scripture. It's more open to abuse. Hence the desire to get things right. If done properly, then you have a closely knit group of people in the grace of God, who understand why they're here and what they're doing.

If it's not, you get doctrine Nazis (I knew a guy in Uni who would practically unchurch you if you weren't a five point Calvinist, for example). Too many people get it wrong (to be honest, anyone getting it worng is too many), but that is not the fault of evangelicalism itself.

quote:

---

Is there a preparation for membership, in the same way that there are confirmation classes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
As I said above, it depends in which direction you go 'down'. The more 'trad' your evangelical types are, the more likely they're going to have a healthier view of their pastor. I think you'll probably find it isn't anywhere as clear cut as all that, and varies whichever way you go.

---

I will qualify. Within Anglicanism there is a tension, even in the Ministry Division between these ideas. The Traditional idea of Pastor-Teacher is far more healthy. Reading books by Tidball like "Builders and Fools" or Stuart Murray (Baptist union) church planting or Meic Pearce's "Who's feeding whom?" this tradition is visible.

Sadly when I was looking for a Liberal Evangelical church that shared that view I couldn't find one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
The Traditional idea of Pastor-Teacher is far more healthy. Reading books by Tidball like "Builders and Fools" or Stuart Murray (Baptist union) church planting or Meic Pearce's "Who's feeding whom?" this tradition is visible.

---

Firstly, the Protestant Church covers a huge range, from Anglican practices that can be very similar to RC practices (and the Anglican Church manages to describe itself as Protestant, Reformed and Catholic) to much more fully protestant ideas in, for example, the Baptist Churches, so it is very difficult to generalise.

Secondly, although I would not strongly disagree with Wood’s “four points”, I would put the Protestant stand (in the more fully Baptist type of Protestantism) as

The priesthood of all believers without the need for an “ordained Priesthood”.
The Bible as the sole source authority for the Church.

I don’t think I have put those particularly well, please bear with me.

Thirdly, in my limited experience, I have never seen a “bible procession”. It seems an odd idea to have any sort of formal procession in a Protestant, non-conformist Church, but I seem to recall that I have heard of such things (in Scotland, if my memory serves correctly).

Fourthly, also in my limited experience, it is not uncommon to have some form of preparation for Church membership, although the form this preparation takes varies enormously. My own experience was three evenings spent with the Pastor to ensure I understood the basics of the Christian faith. For others I have known it to be “confirmation classes”(in an Anglican Church), other similar courses or even an Alpha Course. It should be remembered, however, that membership in a Baptist Church means something very different to membership in a RC or Anglican Church.

Finally, the point about the way in which Protestants/Evangelicals put so much emphasis on “correct” biblical interpretation etc has been well answered with reference to the need to “compensate” for not having a Prayer book, formal creeds, Articles of Religion etc. A further consideration is the (entirely unachievable) need we all have to know “what the rules are” and “what pleases God”. Christianity is always challenging and I think everybody wants to make life simpler by being able to say

“If I go to confession/attend mass/give lots on money to the Church/get people to pray for me/live a good life/obey the ten commandments/pray every day/ensure my purity of doctrine/evangelise lots/any number of other things then God will be pleased with me and I will get to heaven”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Who's Feeding Whom? is a book I'd really recommend.

---

Anyone interested can buy it with this link and also help the ship float:

Who's Feeding Whom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

The priesthood of all believers without the need for an “ordained Priesthood”.
The Bible as the sole source authority for the Church.

---

Baptists certainly trace this idea back to Luther. So this is a fairly important element.

However that is vacuum, so what could they believe (positive). Firstly they tended to be puritians. Secondly having thrown out the bishops in England (unlike Scotland) they rejected reformed churched moderators.
They also tended to be Calvinistic. So they have Sola Scriptura theology but believe what you like systems of church government.

OK so big split in independants, they generally agreed about twice monthly communion in the manner described by Wood however baptism is another story. So soon you had independants who practice infant baptism - who became known as Congregational Churches (after their form of church government) and in the 20th century joined with the Presbyterians to form the United Reform Church., and those who practice believers baptism - who became known as the Particular Baptists - also a few who left it up to individuls to decide on baptism and these churches (such as John Bunyan's old church) as both Baptist and United Reform Churches.

Another group of Baptists grew out of the continental Anabaptists and these were the general Baptists - who had beliefs that at the time were consuidered so strange that they were not always accepted as a genuine church - the 2 most offensive beliefs being a rejection of predestination (hence the name General baptist - Jesus died for mankind generally) and what really put them beyond the pale - they allowed Women to preach (logical extension of priesthood of all believers).

Towards the end of the 19th century the General and Particular Baptists merged into the Baptist Union.

So really it there is a tradition of making it up as you go along. Baptists don't really have a written tradition but there are a number of principals, which again vary from groupm to group. The primary ones are

a) Each church is independant and can make up its own mind. No one Baptist Group can tell another what to do or believe.

b) The government of each church is decided by the church members - there are regular church meeting were decisions are made. The meeting of church members hires and fires the minister and any other church officals
(paided and unpaid). Thus the church meeting is a kind of infallable pope.

c) The church is bible based. Now I know all churches are Bible Based, but in Baptist churches the Bible as well as be scripture is also the equivalent of the 39 articles.

I would also make a point that confuses some people Baptist churches are not by definition evangelical. Although there is nothing to stop a Baptist church from being evangelical trying to impose evangelical beliefs on another baptist church is very much a no no.

Various Baptist groups around the world are linked together in the Baptist World Alliance
but that has about as much power over an individual church as does the World Council of Churches (some Baptist groups are members of the WCC and some not).

So I think if you are wondering why Baptist churches do things the way they do think
1) it is up to each individual to make up their own mind
2) all decisions concerning liturgy, belief, practice etc. are subject to approval by the church members meeting together.

On processions. A procession seems to me a very sensible way of getting the choir and clergy into the building, up to the front and into place. I cannot see that there can be doctrinal objections to people walking in a row behind a cross.

On the Bible. If you do not read from a lectionary, how do you know that uncomfortable or inconvenient or boring bits are being omitted on Sunday morning?

On prayer. One of the things I appreciate about Anglican worship is that no matter what parish I go into, I can pretty accurately know what to expect. The collect that we say is the same collect being said in every church everywhere. That's a good feeling of community. If the prayers are extempore, then your parish is the only one saying those words at that moment. Isn't that isolating?

the worship band will already have been there an hour or so before everyone else arrives practising & doing sound checks - so they don't need to walk in either.

that just leaves the pastor/whoever else is taking the meeting - they tend to be seated in amongst the congregation and so don't need to process anywhere.

i don't know that it's so much a doctrinal objection, but the thinking seems to be "if we don't need it, why do it?"

Our church does quite well on that. I remember the series on the Book of Judges we did...

As for processions... in our church, the Pastor and the deacons pray before the service in a room behind the sanctuary, and so enter through a different door to the congregation. their entrance is pretty much the start of the meeting, but I wouldn't call it a procession.

Prayer: If the prayers are extempore, then the pastor/praying person is indeed the only one saying those prayers at that moment. Is that isolating? Well that depends on what you're used to. The person praying 'leads' the congregation. They are expected to offer their corporate assent to the prayers being said, even though they're not vocalising the prayers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
OK -- some questions.

On processions. A procession seems to me a very sensible way of getting the choir and clergy into the building, up to the front and into place. I cannot see that there can be doctrinal objections to people walking in a row behind a cross.

On the Bible. If you do not read from a lectionary, how do you know that uncomfortable or inconvenient or boring bits are being omitted on Sunday morning?

On prayer. One of the things I appreciate about Anglican worship is that no matter what parish I go into, I can pretty accurately know what to expect. The collect that we say is the same collect being said in every church everywhere. That's a good feeling of community. If the prayers are extempore, then your parish is the only one saying those words at that moment. Isn't that isolating?

Can anyone enlighten me?

---

To add to the posts already made...

Part of the reason that some of the reformed churches would not have wanted processions is precisely because they would have seemed "too Catholic", and if this seems both harsh and negative, please remember the pain (both physical and mental) that the reformation caused (to both sides). Also, if you consider that a Baptist Church (for example) does not have an altar (but a communion table) then there isn't going to be any processing to the altar.

Yes, the lack of a formal lectionary does mean difficult bits of the bble can be left out, but lectionaries also do not usually cover 100% of the bible (what gets left out then?). Also, a significant part of the reformation was concerned with translating the bible into the vernacular so that people could read it for themselves (those who could read anyway). So the people could be/can be expected to find the "difficult" bits anyway.

I would certainly agree that the sense of community to found within the RC and CofE (as a result of having the same collects and readings) are a great joy, but something has to go as the price for the independence of individual churches.

On the other hand (and please don't be offended with this). The first time I attended a CofE Church (having been a Baptist), I could not believe in the existence of Liturgy. I was convinced that I had mis-understood as I could not comprehend how a Church could use the same words every week. It seemed at the time madness. I now appreciate Liturgy, but to Protestant non-conformists the existence of liturgy can seem as baffling as the non-existence of Liturgy in "free" Churches does to Catholics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

But some of the things do have specific reasons. Take, for example, communion.

[del]

There are, of course, no prayers to consecrate the bread, because the bread is not consecrated; rather, the congregation are brought together, and participate as a corporate body in the very action of eating and drinking.

[del]

I'm looking at this from a Baptist perspective; Methodists, URCs, Presbyterians, EMWs and so on all do it slightly differently

[del]

Objects can't be made holy.

---

Well, your perspective seems pretty skewed to me, and very far removed from the that of the great churches of the reformation!

I think that the Church of Scotland, for instance, is an absolutely mainline reformed church and it would be an abuse of language to deny it the title Protestant. And yet its recommended forms for the celebration of the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper include such prayers as

...and we most humbly beseech thee to send down Thy Holy Spirit to sanctify both us and these Thine own gifts of bread and wine that we set before Thee...

which surely asks for an object to be made holy (=sanctified), and is (I think) intended as consecratory (consecrate=?=sanctify, but the C of S does not specify exactly which prayer effects the consecration, and many would argue that recital of the Words of Institution is the essential).

[As far as I can check all the recommended forms have an explicit epiclesis in this double form.]

The form of service commended for use "At a Second Table" explains that this is "for use in parishes where it has been customary to have a second Table at a later hour ... when communicants receive the elements *already consecrated*." (In catholic parlance, from the reserved sacrament.) The prayers used include

...bread and wine already set apart from all common uses unto this holy use and mystery, ...which have been sanctified by the Word of God and prayer...

It is absolutely clear from the rubrics that the Minister should not repeat at this Second Table the epiclesis, nor the Words of Institution, mandatory at the first Table. Something (consecration) has already happened to the elements! Clearly the sacramental theology of the traditional reformed churches is far more complex than that presupposed in the quote above.

I fear your Protestantism is far too anglo-saxon and (hence?) too narrow. You certainly can't (with an unargued "slightly differently") recruit URC/Presbyterians automatically to your cause, nor (I suspect) the Methodists, at least in their official position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:

Maybe it would be better to retitle the thread: Anyone for Anabaptistry?

---

quote:

---

Hooker's Trick
On processions. A procession seems to me a very sensible way of getting the choir and clergy into the building, up to the front and into place. I cannot see that there can be doctrinal objections to people walking in a row behind a cross.

---

quote:

---

Stooberry
well... us low-churchy types have no choir, so no need for them to be in a procession!

---

quote:

---

Hooker's Trick
On the Bible. If you do not read from a lectionary, how do you know that uncomfortable or inconvenient or boring bits are being omitted on Sunday morning?

---

Again my church where I stay does read from a lectionary, while my church at home does not - varies massively amongst E/P churches from my experience.

quote:

---

AOTN
or sing the doxology every week? Why are the sermons so long?

---

We always sing the doxology - and our sermons are 15-20 minutes - is that long?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel of the North:
It still feels as big a mystery to me, this lack of liturgy and apparent order, as AC worship must do to others. So much of the service seems to hang on the individual at the front.

---

Hi Angel,

As a fairly vocal Charismatic Evangelical, I shall add my 2 pence worth. I shall also try and be as gracious whilst doing so, as everyone has been with me on the AC for Beginners thread. That's a hard act to follow though, and I'm unlikely to succeed!

Firstly, I'm surprised that in a Methodist church, you find a real lack of liturgy. In all the Methodist churches I've been in, there has been lots of liturgy. Not as much as with the ACs, I guess, but still plenty - and also lots of order and routine. This is all very dependent on the individual church, I suppose.

At St Aldates - from whence I have just departed - we also used a certain amount of liturgy - particularly for communion. A certain lack of order was evident though. I generally think that the lack of routine is partly to keep us on our toes - the words we sing or say change frequently so that we keep thinking about what the words mean, and don't just keep trotting them out. I said the Lord's Prayer every day at school for years and years. When I eventually became a Christian, I had great difficulty transforming this repetition into something meaningful, and still find that my thoughts tend to drift. I think, for a certain kind of person, this can be true of any repetitious liturgy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel of the North:
Why are the sermons so long?

---

Very good question! I guess because a lot of the emphasis in many E/P churches is changing ones life to fit in with a certain model. Now, whether you agree with that model or not, you can see that it may take a while to explain what part of the model one is currently talking about, back up one’s support of that model with (several) relevant bible verses – providing context etc -, further back it up with various quotes from theologians, and then explain how we can change our lives to fit in with that model in three easy steps all beginning with the same letter! See, it even took me a long time to describe it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
only inasmuch as the people at the front do most of the talking. Participation, for good or ill, is internalised - that is, we participate by choosing to respond as individuals to the words and music presented to us.

---

The role of the "person at the front" is again very much church dependent. I have worshipped in churches where there was a cult of personality around that person, and also in churches where the leader essentially presented opportunities to the congregation for them to bring before the Lord what He had placed on their hearts, and also to bring things to the congregation. In this latter context the Leader acts both as a facilitator, and also as a set of brakes - stopping anything, or any individual getting too out of hand. This task is sometimes passed around the congregation from week to week.

This kind of model is difficult to explain, and sometimes it works well, and sometimes it's a bit of a mess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huw:
she ends up doing loads of stuff in church because she has problems putting the words "No" and "Father" together.

---

This isn't just a Catholic problem - I had difficulty putting "No" and "Tom", or "John" together for a long while - Tom being the chap who works with the students and John being the vicar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
As I said above, it depends in which direction you go 'down'. The more 'trad' your evangelical types are, the more likely they're going to have a healthier view of their pastor. I think you'll probably find it isn't anywhere as clear cut as all that, and varies whichever way you go.

---

I don't think this is necessarily true. Us less "trad" evangelical types, don't all want to be judged by Soul Survivor and the Matt Redmond fan club!

AON – if you have any specific questions about the Charismatic end of things, I shall do my best to answer them, so fire away. That goes for anyone else as well, I guess!

All the best,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stooberry:
well... us low-churchy types have no choir, so no need for them to be in a procession!

---

I was astonished to read this. Every church I have ever been in has had a choir (even if the choir doesn't sing at all the services).

quote:

---

I think, however, that there's an inherent danger in any freedom, but that does not mean that we should necessarily impose structures to keep things safe.

---

I have to say that this is probably the biggest difference between protestant (low) and catholic (high) points of view.

Because I think those of higher persuasions would recite exactly what you have written without the negative. We most certainly SHOULD impose structures to keep things safe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Because I think those of higher persuasions would recite exactly what you have written without the negative. We most certainly SHOULD impose structures to keep things safe.

---

I need to go to bed, and I probably won't have time to post tomorrow, but here's an enigmatic comment for discussion:

It can be dangerous to keep things too safe.

Hooker's Trick: re the dangers of freedom. I think you do understand. Most of us are well aware of the dangers of not having a set lectionary... and make allowances for that.

Bear in mind that we've had a couple centuries to think about it, after all. There are checks and balances; and each E/P group approaches the problem in a different way. IMH(BSUC)O*, the only reason the so-called 'house churches' get a bad press for abusing this is because they haven't yet been round long enough to get round this for themselves.

quote:

---

Chapelhead said:
Secondly, although I would not strongly disagree with Wood’s “four points”, I would put the Protestant stand (in the more fully Baptist type of Protestantism) as

The priesthood of all believers without the need for an “ordained Priesthood”.

---

I think the priesthood of all believers is not mutually exclusive to an 'ordained priesthood' - for it to be so requires creative reading of 1 Peter. As far as Anglican evangelicals go - it's our law and that's all there is to it. Our ministers are called by the Holy Spirit and discerned by the Church to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments.

Unless you believe that the Gifts of the Spirit are given equally to each believer - which I do not, and a casual glance around a congregation would confirm it - it stands to reason that some are given those gifts required to exercise headship or eldership over the congregation (and in the Anglican Church to preach the Word and adminster the sacraments). In that sense, the one that leads the congregation is different to the rest. I have no time for pussy-footing shared leadership - something that I see as unbiblical - all things should be done to edifying and orderly worship - let the people who have been anointed to the task, do it! And let the others submit to their authority knowing that if those in authority don't exercise it in a godly way, they will be rebuked by God.

For a High Chugh (HC) person, tradition is one of the pillars upon which the church is built. (The others being the sacraments and the Bible.) For people like Hooker's Trick and Cosmo (to name 2) the centrality of the Eucharist is of primary importance.

As a P I would say that tradition has come about for a reason. People have choosen to do the thing that way. But I (and my church) feel able to examine the tradition and determine if it still has usefulness today. I also feel able to explore different parts of the church and look at and use their traditions.

For me, the sacraments (inc Eucharist) are important, but are not central. Yes, they are a means of God's grace, but the primary focus of grace must always be the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. I can almost hear people shouting, "That is the the core of the Eucharist." But the focus is firmly away from the formal, or structured responce, and firmly with the the way that the person responce to God's grace.

We don't follow the lectionary. We avoid missing the difficult passages by some degree of consensus as to what we need to work through. We have also assessed our preaching over the last few years, and are filling in the gaps. So it can be done.

Our prayers are generally extempore. But we don't feel isolated. Even when we say the collect ( often ), it is probably at a different time to anyone else. The sense of community is deeper than saying the same things.

Did I mention we are Anglican?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
I have no time for pussy-footing shared leadership - something that I see as unbiblical - all things should be done to edifying and orderly worship - let the people who have been anointed to the task, do it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
Unless you believe that the Gifts of the Spirit are given equally to each believer - which I do not, and a casual glance around a congregation would confirm it - it stands to reason that some are given those gifts required to exercise headship or eldership over the congregation (and in the Anglican Church to preach the Word and adminster the sacraments). In that sense, the one that leads the congregation is different to the rest. I have no time for pussy-footing shared leadership - something that I see as unbiblical - all things should be done to edifying and orderly worship - let the people who have been anointed to the task, do it! And let the others submit to their authority knowing that if those in authority don't exercise it in a godly way, they will be rebuked by God.

---

Well, most Baptists (for example) would agree with your point that there has to be someone with a pastoral/teaching gift leading the congregation. Otherwise we wouldn't have pastors at all. That's basically what ordination in the Baptist church recognises: that the ordinand is blessed with the neccesary gifts to pastor a church.

But that does not (we believe) make them any more than a gifted member of the church, hence the structures in place which make the pastor subject to the democratic decision of the church and its deacons.

The idea of the 'priesthood of all believers' is that we are all equal in the eyes of God, although differently gifted. And this is why there is no question of 'lay presidency' for example - anyone whom the congregation considers fit to lead the communion leads the communion.

(If this all sounds unspiritual, please bear in mind that in Baptist theology, it's believed that the will of God is discerned through democratic vote of a godly congregation).

FWIW, I agree with Steve: anyone with the right gifts should be allowed to lead the congregation in teaching, prayer, communion and worship (which still includes the headship of elders, however you construe them). I believe that's Biblical. (But hey, I believe that's Biblical and my politics are left-wing - of course I'm a Baptist! )

quote:

---

Rachel_o said concerning lengthy sermons:I guess because a lot of the emphasis in many E/P churches is changing ones life to fit in with a certain model. Now, whether you agree with that model or not, you can see that it may take a while to explain what part of the model one is currently talking about, back up one’s support of that model with (several) relevant bible verses – providing context etc -, further back it up with various quotes from theologians, and then explain how we can change our lives to fit in with that model in three easy steps all beginning with the same letter!

---

I'm not entirely sure that's fair. After all, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox are required to alter their lifestyles too - and they manage it without 30+ minute long sermons.

I still maintain that the sermon in the E/P tradition is - given the lack of liturgy and creeds - the primary vehicle for the teaching of good doctrine.

Traditionally, a good sermon comes from an exegesis of the week's Bible passage, performed with some integrity, followed by an application to the lives of the congregation, without shying away from the difficult bits.

The first that I attended (only a few times)was a 'house church' that had incredibly long services (lots of singing choruses, long 'preaches', long times of 'being open to the Spirit'). It worried me that it had a tme when the non-members (incl. me) had to go out of the hall to let the full members do whatever they did. I felt a bit of a 'square peg' there.

The evangelical Anglican church I next attended was , by comaprison, a lot more 'formal' and 'liturgical'. It suited me fine. I particularly liked Communion, with its set words, and it was nice to be able to sing hymns (oragan accompanied) AND choruses (worship group with guitars, etc.). We got married at that church, but it wasn't my wife's church, and the latter was where we ended up going

That suited me less well, although it remains the church I went to for more years than any other so far. It was AOG (Assembles of God) Pentecostal initially, then decided to 'go it alone' (more or less).
It was often very like a Student Christian Union, both in terms of the congregation being mainly students or ex-students, and in its free, Charismatic style. (You may have different experiences of CUs, however!).
I felt in particular that the very UN-ceremonial communions, and even these were a rare event) were, for me, its worst aspect. Also there was the length of the morning services. The preaching, particularly of the church leader, was the best aspect.

quote:

---

daisymay
Lots of churches have pretty strenuous preparation classes before being baptised or becoming adult members.

---

quote:

---

daisymay continues ...
They would have to have shown that they were truly 'born again' before they were baptised, as baptism is something that follows on after a person's conversion. On the day of their baptism, they would publicly, in the face of the congregation, 'give their testimony' of conversion and determination to follow Jesus, before being immersed. It would also be an opportunity for the church to invite visitors, as the sermon would be about the meaning of baptism, and would include an invitation to repentance and conversion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Excuse me ... ... do you want to go on and ask me if my minister is a Christian? There is not one part of this that my E/P church would endorse.

---

Is your minister a... no, just kidding.

Daisymay's account of baptism is pretty much how it goes in our church too.

The testimony beforehand is seen as part of the public declaration. So. How do they do it in your church, SCZ? And why?

quote:

---

I honestly don't see what benefit is to be had in a long sermon - the preachers job is to make the congregation think about what they believe and why? - if the congregation can't think - well! I've been to way too many Christian fellowships where the 'congregation' is told something rather than invited to think about something.

---

quote:

---

Wood
Is your minister a... no, just kidding.

---

Our church practices infant baptism and so baptism is seen as (I think) 1/ the congregation accepting the child into the church and promising to care for him/her and 2/ the church asking God to look after the child.

Baptism is not so much about the person being baptised's faith as it is about the mystery of God. Faith is not something that we choose but rather something that God has brought us to - it livingly demonstrates that we are only Christians because of what God has done for us. He adopts us - rather than us adopting Him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
[QB][QUOTE] Our ministers are called by the Holy Spirit and discerned by the Church to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments.
<snip>
- it stands to reason that some are given those gifts required to exercise headship or eldership over the congregation (and in the Anglican Church to preach the Word and adminster the sacraments). In that sense, the one that leads the congregation is different to the rest. I have no time for pussy-footing shared leadership - something that I see as unbiblical - all things should be done to edifying and orderly worship - let the people who have been anointed to the task, do it! And let the others submit to their authority knowing that if those in authority don't exercise it in a godly way, they will be rebuked by God.
[QB]

---

The main reason I left evangelicalism was because of this approach to leadership. Talking to Wood however (who I have decided is my friend as he likes one of my favourite books) it seems that this isn't the only model for church ministry.

When I was a rising star in an E/C church the focus was on anointing, leadership. If you were a Leader then you were actually considered a different class of person. I think many of us have experienced this.

Woods ecclesiology makes sense to me, but why is it that church in some EP churches is so focussed on a small number of individuals? Why clericalism and professionalism? Here is a Litmus test. If the Leadership team were all killed in a horrible accident would the Church go on?

By removing the "Priest" role from the minister has what has replaced it been beneficial?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
If the Leadership team were all killed in a horrible accident would the Church go on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
Talking to Wood however (who I have decided is my friend as he likes one of my favourite books)

---

Why, thank you, Edward. Rest assured you're my friend, too

quote:

---

When I was a rising star

---

quote:

---

in an E/C church the focus was on anointing, leadership. If you were a Leader then you were actually considered a different class of person. I think many of us have experienced this.

---

I've come across this too. It's basically IMHO a charismatic attempt to emulate the A/C or Catholic style of priesthood - only without the accountability. And it's 1)the denial that it's the same as priesthood, and more importantly 2)the lack of accountability that leave this approach so open to abuses.

quote:

---

Woods ecclesiology makes sense to me, but why is it that church in some EP churches is so focussed on a small number of individuals? Why clericalism and professionalism?

---

The E/P way of doing things is open to abuses; the E/C way of doing things even more so (because it's new and the checks and balances haven't been tried and tested yet). It's easy both for the leader and the led to slip into an unbiblical 'me in charge' way of doing things, because people are like that. They naturally slip into roles. Call it the pack mentality.

quote:

---

Here is a Litmus test. If the Leadership team were all killed in a horrible accident would the Church go on?

---

A very good litmus test; although I'm confident in my church's ability to pass the test, it's a thought I'll definitely want to pass on (promise I won't pretend that it was me what thought of it ).

quote:

---

By removing the "Priest" role from the minister has what has replaced it been beneficial?

---

You see, that depends. If the non-priest minister has been doing their job the right way, then the others in the congregation will be discipling each other to think and grow for themselves. Despite the fact that doctrine is taught from the front (which is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a wee bit flawed), the church is led from the floor; taught from above, led from below.

A democratic church is ideally a church where people are brought to think and take responsibility for themselves.

On the other hand, there are churches - evangelical ones - where the leaders are, as you've said, in a different class, and who expect you to hang on every word. here, abuses happen, since the 'anointed' leader can easily become a dictator. This is bad. You have a flock utterly dependent on its leader and a leader who is not at all accountable.

At best, this produces a church whose congregation have a shallow, spoonfed faith; at worst, well, you get something like the Nine o'Clock service (although that's not a great example, cos that was Anglican, if I remember right).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve:
If you mean would we survive without the clergy, then the answer is yes, without any question.

---

I'm afraid there is a question whether you like it or not. I cannot emphasise enough that an Anglican church is part of an episcopal and sacramental Church which has sacramentally ordained priests to administer those sacraments to the faithful. That is his job and if your congregation does not have its priest then they cannot function properly as a full part of the Anglican church.

I don't doubt that your congregation of people would survive (adversity always being a good method for unity) but, as Anglicans at least, they would still need a priest to function fully as a part of the Church.

This isn't a post desgined to rile, irritate or annoy. It's just to point out that being part of an episcopal church means you need your ordained clergy and that to say you would survive 'without any question' is a deeply arguable point in both theological and ecclesiological terms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I'm afraid there is a question whether you like it or not ...I don't doubt that your congregation of people would survive (adversity always being a good method for unity) but, as Anglicans at least, they would still need a priest to function fully as a part of the Church.

---

quote:

---

If the Leadership team were all killed in a horrible accident would the Church go on?

---

A fairly senior Baptist person once suggested that during the period between the minsiter leaving and a new one being appointed, the best way for the church to honour their previous minister was to continue to grow.

Actually I have seen churches that rely too much on their leaders, it does seem that particularly in churches that emphasive spontaneous worship - people seem to look to a small group of people to decide what they should be doing, like if there is no written liturgy they need someone to make one up for them on the fly. This seems to be a problem more in newer "House Churches" or in churches which eventually leave the Baptist Union or Methodist church or whatever because their leader is more important than denominational tradition.

That's one reason why I prefer Evangelical churches within mainstream denominations as there is a sense of being part of a community other than the "Evangelical Community"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
as Anglicans at least, they would still need a priest to function fully as a part of the Church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

This isn't a post designed to rile, irritate or annoy. It's just to point out that being part of an Episcopal church means you need your ordained clergy and that to say you would survive 'without any question' is a deeply arguable point in both theological and ecclesiological terms.

---

I think you have missed the point. I said Leadership team, not Priest. If the leadership of many Anglican Churches goes does the church survive? A non "Leader" priest can be brought in to administer the sacraments. The representative role of the priest in the community as a single person full time would be missing, but would the church survive, or would it fall apart at the seams?

This is called an Interregnum of course ...