Reader - a CofE ministry allowing a person to participate in services (parts of the Eucharist liturgy, morning and evening prayer, family services), preach, and occasionally bury people - presumably ones who are dead. Also a bit of pastoral stuff too.

Parish Evangelists - er, evangelists who work in the, er, er,....parish. They often do work with baptismal preparation.

Pastoral Assistants - look, I'm not your mother. Work this one out for yourself.

After my dad died, my mom decided to do something about this since she knew there were other people in the parish in the same position that she and dad had been in. She became a licensed lay Eucharistic minister, and she now takes communion to the sick and shut-in every Sunday. Two other members of the parish, who hadn't even realized that lay people could do this, also became licensed lay Eucharistic ministers. This is a wonderful example of lay ministry at its best.

quote:

---

In the PCW lay workers of all descriptions are welcomed with open arms. There is a shortage of ministers, and without the lay preachers etc many services would just not take place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan Henrietta Newperson:
The lay readers sit with the priests during the service but have no real role. Occasionally one will read the gospel but preaching or leading a service in the main church building are virtually unheard of. The readers lead a lot of services outside of the church but I think it is a shame they have such a low profile within it. Many people simply wonder why they are dressed up and are sitting at the front.

J. H. N.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
A Lay Reader should never read the Gospel at masss as this task is reserved for those in at least deacon's orders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
There is a shortage of anyone in the PCW. Even when there is a lay preacher, there may not necessarily be anything in the pews to preach to.

---

It tends to be that the Welsh-language churches in the middle of no-where have rather low attendance rates, but in towns it is a lot better. My church is part of a joint pastorate (2 churches). My church has ~120 adults, and 30-50 children. The other church is a bit smaller, and normally has congregations of 100.

quote:

---

There's much more fun to be had in the CinW, babybear. Come home!

---

Oooh, soo tempting, but "coming home" would mean Church of Scotland, which is another Presby Church.

I was at an Anglican communion at the weekend, and quite frankly, (and with no disrespect to other peoples chosen style of worship) I couldn't not be faffed with all the upping and downing. My knees were screaming at me after I struggled up from the altar rail thingy.

Confused person from low church tradition asks what is 'the role of deacon' that you fulfil as a Lay Reader, Spike?

Moreover, I regard the increasing tendency in the Roman and Anglican Churches to use readers - be they called layreaders or parish assistants or worship leaders or whatever... - as a thing to be deprecated.
Possible exceptions: a)a server reading the daily office on weekdays while the priest is vesting for Mass and b) for a handful of long-serving male servers to act as subdeacons when a third priest is unavailable.

The reason for my worry ? The more laypeople are given sacerdotal roles, the less incentive there is for them - or anyone observing them from the pews - to consider Holy Orders as a vocation. The blurring of the lines between things sacred and secular is a root reason for much of the disorder and schism and scandal in our Church today.

By all means encourage young men to act as acolytes, servers, crucifers, thurifers, boat boys, banner-bearers and masters of ceremony. And young women to act as beautifiers, designers, conservers and cleaners of the Sacred vessels, altar cloths and similar adornments and vestments. May both become involved on vestry, in fund-raising, in prayer and in all aspects of parish life and community service.

And let young men be encouraged to discern a possible vocation as priest, or an alternative vocation as permanent Deacon, or an even more unworldly calling as monk. Let young women be encouraged to consider taking the veil, or taking up the ancient and honourable work of a deaconess.

As a reader, I do everything except consecration. I actually took a communion service ( with pre-consecrated elements ) just before the summer.

It doesn't stop members of the congregation from seeking ordination or readership. I am one of 2 new readers, and one member has just started her curacy ( yes her ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldlccboy:
I agree with Fiddleback re a layman reading the Gospel. It cannot be.

---

Why ever not? Where has this idea come from? Is it CofE tradition, or is there some passage in the Bible that deals with it?

I agree with Fiddleback. Lay readers have no business reading the Gospel.

And as for preaching -- I like a good sermon. And I don't think that one need be in orders to transform oneself into an accomplished homileticist (one need only look at the number of people in orders whose sermons are dreadful to see my point). However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.

With all due respect to the accomplished lay readers who participate here,

God provokes people to ministries of the word who having tested their heart do not feel called to the role of priest, or minister of word and sacrament, or whatever we call it. The church recognises this and creates ways of training people and supporting them in such ministries. God does not call priests/ MW-Ses to be all round fab beings whose presence holds up the church in every way. Some priests read the Bible (yes, even the Gospel) out loud badly, some are fantastic at sermons but hopeless at pastoral care, the inverse is often found too. Now, the fact that God doesn't equip priests to act as the whole body, but as an elbow, or a toenail or perhaps a lung, and does give people gifts to act as complimentary parts of the body without a calling to the ministry of the priesthood might suggest that God doesn't hold with a priest-only model.

quote:

---

The more laypeople are given sacerdotal roles, the less incentive there is for them - or anyone observing them from the pews - to consider Holy Orders as a vocation.

---

HT

quote:

---

However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.

---

By "amateur" do you mean people who are part time and unpaid who spent three years part time studying Theology, Doctrine, Preaching,Church History and Liturgy? Does this also apply to Non Stipendiary Priests who undergo similar training?

[tidied ubb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

And as for preaching -- I like a good sermon. And I don't think that one need be in orders to transform oneself into an accomplished homileticist (one need only look at the number of people in orders whose sermons are dreadful to see my point). However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.

HT

---

HT, given that you a) don't think one
has to be a priest to give a cracking sermon and b) don't agree with amateurs doing it (however enthusiastic) then one would assume you would require some sort of training and apprenticeship without the need for ordination - rather like that which lay readers undertake?

I'm not sure I understand the use of your word 'amateur' in this situation.

clare

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
However, unleashing enthusiastic amateurs into the pulpit vaguely disconcerts me.
HT

---

I agree. Let's keep these clergy out of the pulpit. Leave it to those with at least degrees in theology, and preferably PhDs.

BB - this is sort of CofE tradition. It has no biblical precedent. Fortunately not in any CofE church I have stepped into.

Sometimes this comes down to preference. I am a cathedral worshipper by preference. Otherwise I seek out large urban parishes. I am not used to the active ministry of lay people in Eucharistic services.

I am quite certain that in some places the ministry of lay readers, pastoral assistants or lay leaders is not only beneficial but in fact necessary.

However, I am quite certain that the kind and understanding Christians posting here wouldn't want to impose upon me practices in worship that make me uncomfortable.

HT

When does an enthusiastic amature become a professional lay-person?

1. I've never understood why a Reader (or a priest come to that) who has no role in the liturgy should choose to robe and sit in the chancel. He or she should be in the congregation playing a full part there and not proclaiming his or her status. And a Reader who appears sometimes active in the congregation and sometimes robed and active in the chancel symbolises well his or her calling to an accredited lay ministry which by definition has a foot both sides of the chancel step.

2. The general Notes at the beginning of Common Worship Holy Communion sets out what a ministry of a deacon might include at such a service (including reading the Gospel) and then adds 'The deacon's liturgical ministry provides an appropriate model for the ministry of an assistant priest, a Reader, or another episcopally authorized minister in a leadership ministry that complements that of the president.'.

3. In the Anglican diocese of Lincoln we have authorised Lay Ministers (trained over three years in teams from parishes) a few of whom have been ordained as Ordained Local Ministers, as well as Readers, and ordained Non-Stipendiary Ministers. We've got over 800 trained and authorised ministers of which the paid Vicars and Rectors make up only just over a quarter. Two thirds of our paid Vicars and Rectors are now working alongside at least one person in one of these forms of trained authorised ministry, so the single handed parish priests ploughing solo furrows are now the unusual ones. (To answer the question which began this thread: sometimes a collaborative team like this works well and sometimes there are just the sorts of problems your original post suspected; the most difficult time is often when a new Vicar or Rector is appointed and hasn't been used to working alongside others in the same way.)

As I understand it, the reason deacons read the gospel at the Eucharist is because that act in symbolic of the deacon's role as a mediator between the church and the world. Deacons are called to bring the church to the world and the world to the church -- to be bridgebuilders of a sort. Proclaiming the gospel and leading the intercessions, and well as doing the biddings, etc., are liturgical signs of this diaconal role. Of course all Christians are called to do this, but it is the particular vocation of the deacon to model this, lead it. In most parishes in the US, deacons are in charge of outreach programs, soup kitchens, drug counseling and referral programs, and activities of this sort.

BTW. Has the diaconate been revived in the C of E as a distinct order, or is it still just a stepping stone to priesthood?

Lay people can preach in this diocese, but they must be trained and licensed, and the testing is rather rigorous before one can be licensed. One test is to preach a prepared sermon in front of the class on the proper for a given day, which is standard enough. Another test is to preach a sermon without notes on 5 minutes notice. That's scary! Along with this are the traditional courses in scriptural exegesis, etc. Most licensed lay preachers I know are better preachers that most priests and deacons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Br. Christopher Stephen Jenks, BSG:
As I understand it, the reason deacons read the gospel at the Eucharist is because that act in symbolic of the deacon's role as a mediator between the church and the world. Deacons are called to bring the church to the world and the world to the church -- to be bridgebuilders of a sort.
Chris

---

As indeed are authorised lay ministers. I've got a certificate and licence From the Bishop to prove it

In fact, I see the role of Readers being an even more prominent go-between than Deacons because to many people anybody with a dog collar is a "Vicar".

quote:

---

BTW. Has the diaconate been revived in the C of E as a distinct order, or is it still just a stepping stone to priesthood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Moreover, I regard the increasing tendency in the Roman and Anglican Churches to use readers - be they called layreaders or parish assistants or worship leaders or whatever... - as a thing to be deprecated.

---

Well, that's one way to kill a church in one easy step...

I am not ordained or a reader. I have regularly preached, led services, you name it in my (large urban C of E parish) church over the last few years.

And before you all get too mad at me there's nothing particularly 'illegal' about this, nothing going on that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself didn't encourage in the 1996 report 'Youth Apart'.

The fact is we need to be a lot more flexible over these things or its the end of the line for most of our churches. We're already in decline, if we don't start using the gifts of all the people in our churches in worship then there's probably not much of a future.

Apparently in Bristol readers are not allowed to do funerals but in other places it is the norm.

Personally I see no problem with unlicensed people preaching reading the Gospel praying reading the Epistle since I have not been struck down it must be all right. Why should a former Baptist minister in an Anglican church spend three years in training to preach?

quote:

---

oldlccboy:
By all means encourage young men to act as acolytes, servers, crucifers, thurifers, boat boys, banner-bearers and masters of ceremony. And young women to act as beautifiers, designers, conservers and cleaners of the Sacred vessels, altar cloths and similar adornments and vestments. May both become involved on vestry, in fund-raising, in prayer and in all aspects of parish life and community service.

---

First, of course there may be unusual situations in isolated communities or due to a temporary illness a layperson might of necessity perform an act normally reserved for those in Orders. But this should not go so far as to perform every element of the Mass except the Prayer of Consecration - not when Matins, the Litany and Ante-Communion are all available.

Frin, I tried to give many examples of how laymen and women are called to non-sacramental ministries - both those which adorn worship and those which are essential such as visiting the sick and ministering to the poor. But to arrogate to oneself some right to do more than that - when one isn't ordained - is not only wrong, it is misleading: it blurs the lines between the Ministry of the People and of the Priest, which are distinct, just as in a biological sense are the roles of father and mother. Neither is superior; each is different. How Frin suggests that laypeople doing what laypeople should leave someone who has rejected ordained ministry feeling he has "nothing to do" is beyond me !

The purpose of ordination is, IMHO, two fold: the Church ensures that the person being ordained has been equipped for ministry with the best possible training. (Of course this does not guarantee his possessing a meliflous reading voice, an uplifting sermonic ability, a honed sense of beautiful liturgy or indeed even personal gifts in dealing with the faithful.)

Second, in Ordination the power of the Holy Spirit commissions and hallows this mortal to overcome the defects above-enumerated, to which all humanity is inherenly subject, allowing grace to be "stirred up" in him and human faults to be overcome by Ghostly Strength, one of the gifts of that Spirit.

The example given by PMM in the Diocese of Lincoln resonates with me to the extent that individuals, properly trained, are then ordained vocational deacons or non-stipendiary priests. Those positions - which differ in function but not in substance from the transitional deaconhood or "full-time" ministry of a priest - are greatly to be preferred to allowing readers to function in sacredotal roles. Nor should "convenience" be the issue.

And forgive me, Spike, but the ignorance of individuals who assume anyone in a collar is "Vicar" is not a cogent argument for preferring the Ministry of Reader to that of Permanent Deacon.

Wibblethorpe uses practical arguments: if we don't accept such lay ministries we are dead. That is neither accurate nor is it couched in theological terms. To make just one argument, the Church's witness does not depend on popularity. If the trend of the Church to conform to the world were a guarantee of approval, then attendance and membership in ecclesia anglicana (N America and England) would not have slumped so dramatically.

Nor is Amos convincing with his genuine testimony of the helpfulness of his Parish's Reader to his formation. No one is decrying the sincerity or goodness of the individuals, any more than I doubt the same qualities in female ministers. But personal worthiness (or unworthiness) has nothing whatever to do with how the Church understands the Sacrament of Orders.

Isn't it interesting how many of us have entirely different perceptions of the Church ?

Steve rebukes me by saying that ministry "at the front" "empowers" the ordinary people." But the point of Orders, and indeed of any role in the Church, is not "empowerment." That is the world's language, Steve, the aggressive clamour of civil rights and feminism and right to life and....(am not judging the causes, merely commenting on their diction which of course underlies their political tactics.")

Surely the way a Christian is "empowered" is through the Sacraments, of which Orders is one. Also through prayer, penance and humility. Also through accepting the mind of the Church interpreted by the Scriptures, reason and tradition. It is not "empowering" to dress up in vestments and act as though one were ordained. (It may, to use the world's language, be gratifying to the ego, the senses, the ambition and all sorts of other elements in human nature. Which is the problem !)

I am also baffled as to why people sit in the sanctuary who are not taking part in leading that particular service. Even if they do so sincerely, the symbolism of so doing suggests "I am important. Look, I'm up here". WE should avoid suggesting that in our worshipping.

The congregations who take their gospel less seriously when the priest isn't the reader are totally off on the wrong track, IMO. The symbolism of the Gospel procession is, I assume, something about proclaiming the gospel to the world - hence facing the big doors. This is something we are all called to do. We don't get to overlook it if there isn't a priest threatening to throw his hat at us (or somesuch).

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldlccboy:

Nor is Amos convincing with his genuine testimony of the helpfulness of his Parish's Reader to his formation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Nor is Amos convincing with his genuine testimony of the helpfulness of his Parish's Reader to his formation. No one is decrying the sincerity or goodness of the individuals, any more than I doubt the same qualities in female ministers.

---

Spike beat me to it, but I had to laugh over this.

Since Amos is a lady vicar, oldlccboy presumably applauds her sincerity and goodness but doesn't find her any more efficacious than he does Lay Readers!

This church of yours, if you're claiming it is the historic church tracable to the NT, took on worldly structures - episcopos (over-seer), diakon (servant) - used imperial clothing to clothe its ministers, formulated its services to look like the rituals of court and magistracy and enjoyed all the benefits of mediaeval worldliness. For one ecclesiology to accuse another of being "worldly" smacks of hypocrisy - words such "pot", "calling", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind. I do hope you are not a hypocrite, old'boy - I would be grateful if you could convince me otherwise.

You did indeed list things that the laity could do - the men can do the visible acts while the priests do all the talking, and clearly the women would have to do all their activities outside the church service, because clearly it would be rude to do those things during it. And of course you fail to give any justification for your division of labour. Where do you get this from?

From what you have written (here and elsewhere) it seems you have no respect for the experience of anyone other than those who fit into your little theological framework. You are not God, old'boy, you are not our spiritual guardian. We are not here simply to make up the numbers when your blessed priests are off sick. You may wish to pursuade me otherwise, but at present all I can conclude is that you have contempt for women and the laity. I have been reading through Luke and Acts this week - I do not recognise your vision of Christ's ekklesia, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
and clearly the women would have to do all their activities outside the church service, because clearly it would be rude to do those things during it.

---

I believe that sorts of things that oldlccboy has in mind are arranging flowers, polishing plate and needlepointing cushions -- all those nice domestic things for use during a service. So in that sense, I suppose, you could say the fruits of this feminine labour are at work in the service.

Now. I find it very odd to be on the same side of a debate with oldlccboy, as in most areas I find his views to be (to put it mildly) reactionary.

But I have a genuine question. If lay people can read the Gospel, read the words of the absolution (presumably swapping "us" your "you"), preside at a Eucharist of the pre-sanctified, stand in the pulpit, provide care and outreach, visit the sick and bury the dead, what does one need a priest for at all?

That sounds flippant but I am serious. Wouldn't it be more economical to just have the bishop sanctify a pile of Host every Saturday, and then the lay readers could collect it that evening and serve it up on Sunday during so many masses of the presanctifieds?

What's the point of having vicars at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
But I have a genuine question. If lay people can read the Gospel, read the words of the absolution (presumably swapping "us" your "you"), preside at a Eucharist of the pre-sanctified, stand in the pulpit, provide care and outreach, visit the sick and bury the dead, what does one need a priest for at all?

---

First, I am not your or anyone else's "spiritual guardian." That role is for the Holy Guardian Angels and perhaps a Spiritual Director, in addition to one's conscience. I merely express where my reason and experience have led me, just as you do. But I don't accuse you of attempting to be my spiritual guardian ! Seems a bit of a double standard here.

Second, I am well aware that the early Church took some of its trappings from the culture of the age in which it was born. But it took its faith from Christ, as further revealed and explained and amplified by tradition, reason and experience. That these differing discernments have led you and I to differ in some particulars of the way we see the Ministry is not a sign of weakness or hypocrisy (again, you use frightfully pejorative words) but of the differing perceptions that humans, given the gift of free will, enjoy. That God will in the end judge the right from the wrong, the trivial from the substantial - in our conversation reassures us, and gives us the freedom to continue them, in charity, one would hope, as each of us strives towards Heaven.

How could I have contempt for laity when I am one of them ? I think I have a healthy regard for my own limitations. Perhaps I unfairly impute them to others.

Of course I would wish for the priest to have the skills you mention. But God works through the priest's imperfections, too. And I was merely trying to refer to the Article of Religion which makes the point about the unworthiness of the Minister (surely all of us) not affecting the efficacy of the Minister.

The church has developed a faulty theology of the sacred and the secular in church everyone has there proper place moving in the right place bowing in the right place in church. It can only be built on a theology of maintenance keeping things in there right place as it always has been done. I suppose we have to thank Cyprian for this or not as the case may be.

Outside where the Gospel is spread anyone can do anything. Some one does not need bishops permission to tell some one about Jesus but would do so to to give them communion. To lead a bible study no permission to do so to read the bible in church they would.

I found myself in hospital the other week chatting to one of the chaplain's and I almost signed up to become a hospital visitor no need for Bishops permission or anything the chaplain though I was a good egg all I needed was approval from the Hospital.

But are you being as charitable as you claim? Is it truly charitable to tolerate women and lay ministry on the grounds of necessity? Isn't this damning with faint praise? Is it not simply another way of saying, "Well, they'll do - in the absence of a male priest", as if they were less than the image of God, less capable than an ordained man?