Ship of Fools: Lutheran clergy serving Episcopal parishes

Thread: Lutheran clergy serving Episcopal parishes Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020292

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

If this is posted to the wrong board, please forgive, and place it where it belongs.

About a year ago my* parish started the search process for a new rector. At the completion of the process, the Episcopal parish called a Lutheran pastor. The new clergyperson has started work in the parish and the weekly bulletin states her title as “pastor-in-charge”, not rector. When I asked the senior warden about this, he answered that it was his understanding that one must be an Episcopalian to be the rector. If that is so, why did the search for a rector come up with somebody who is something else?

I wonder, too, what’s the difference between a priest-in-charge and a rector? Since the new pastor-in-charge is teaching and presiding at Eucharist with the Episcopal bishop’s authority, why wouldn’t she qualify as the vicar?

*I am aware that it’s not my parish, but God’s parish, but I am a member. I am also aware that the ELCA and TEC are in full intercommunion. I can say that while I affirm this intercommunion, I have misgivings about the different ways Lutherans and Episcopalians articulate the “real presence” and the office of Bishop.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I look forward to learning about this. The stuation is the same in Canada. I have wondered if nomenclature was just preference or more significant. The rest would be educative for me.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Could you say more about what you mean by how Lutherans " articulate" the Real Presence? Are you referring to our theological understanding of the Real Presence, or about how that plays out in our Eucharistic liturgy, or how the elements are treated, or something else?

My impressiin -- gained from my ' Piskie friends and the Shipmates -- is that our undeestanding is nearly identical, and that in fact a higher- up-the- candle Anglican would be more comfortable celebrsting the Eucharist at most Lutheran churches than at some snakebelly-low Langlican churches. But maybe I'm mistaken.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think this document will probably answer your questions.

As far as I understand it, a Lutheran pastor serving in the ACUSA is considered to be an extended but temporary situation and the Lutheran pastor "would remain an ordained minister of the ELCA during his/her time of service". And as far as I can understand the use of titles by the ECUSA, Rector implies something more permanent and implies rather more commitment to the Episcopal church.

I suspect what's happened here is that it wasn't possible to find a candidate who ticked the boxes from the ECUSA and so your bishop has asked the ELCA to lend a pastor for a set period of time.

It is possible for him/her to become a ECUSA Rector but he/she'd have to commit him/herself to the ECUSA.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:

I wonder, too, what’s the difference between a priest-in-charge and a rector? Since the new pastor-in-charge is teaching and presiding at Eucharist with the Episcopal bishop’s authority, why wouldn’t she qualify as the vicar?

The doc I linked to above defines these terms:

quote:
Priest-in-Charge. Practices vary widely among dioceses. In a parish without a rector, the priest-in-charge generally contracts with the vestry, in consultation with the bishop, to perform many of the functions of a rector.

Rector. Elected by the vestry of a parish in consultation with the bishop, and serves as the leader of the parish with respect to its spiritual life and mission. In charge of liturgy, music, education, outreach, and pastoral care, the rector has full use of the parish property to carry out his or her office, hires and supervises lay and clerical staff, and is generally entitled to preside at all vestry and parish meetings.

Vicar. The title applies to the priest-in-charge of a mission congregation, serving at the pleasure of and representing the bishop.

I think what is happening here is similar to the difference between a Vicar and a Priest in Charge in the Church of England.

Basically being a PiC is someone who hold's a bishop's license but not the incumbency. Which has some legal significance in England, but mostly seems to suggest longevity - a vicar suffers in the role indefinitely whereas the PiC is just there for as long as he is contracted by the bishop.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

There is a joint Episcopal-Lutheran church in Galax, Virginia. Here is their website.

Moo

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Could you say more about what you mean by how Lutherans "articulate" the Real Presence? Are you referring to our theological understanding of the Real Presence, or about how that plays out in our Eucharistic liturgy, or how the elements are treated, or something else?

Thanks for the responses. I use the word “articulate” to differentiate the meaning of the words Lutherans and Episcopalians and Roman Catholics use to describe the Real Presence: consubstantiation, transformation, and transubstantiation, respectively. And that does suggest a difference in the way the elements might be treated. I remember a priest explaining to me that the consubstantial presence is “real” only during the time of communion, and that after the service, the bread may be returned to the box and the wine poured back into the bottle. Maybe that is an error, but I know of no Lutherans who reserve the Sacrament. Also, I understand that a Lutheran bishop is bishop for a specific term of service, locally, six years. After that time, the bishop goes back to being a pastor. Which sounds like Lutheran sacraments come with an expiration date.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Could you say more about what you mean by how Lutherans "articulate" the Real Presence? Are you referring to our theological understanding of the Real Presence, or about how that plays out in our Eucharistic liturgy, or how the elements are treated, or something else?
Thanks for the responses. I use the word “articulate” to differentiate the meaning of the words Lutherans and Episcopalians and Roman Catholics use to describe the Real Presence: consubstantiation, transformation, and transubstantiation, respectively.

FWIW—and I'm quite ready to be corrected by Lutherans—without exception the Lutherans I've known and the Lutheran sources I've read, reject describing the Lutheran view as "consubstantiation." The term they use is "sacramental union."

And also fwiw, I may have just moved in the wrong circles, but I think you're the first Episcopalian I've heard use the word "transformation" in a Eucharistic context. I've known some Episcopalians who use transubstantiation. Otherwise, I've just heard Real Presence or Eucharistic Presence, without getting into specifics.

[ 11. September 2017, 00:56: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

One of our very own shipmates, who is an ordained Lutheran pastor out of the ELCIC, served as rector of an Anglican parish in Canada for several years. That person's story, not mine, so I won't identify.

John

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It is possible for him/her to become a ECUSA Rector but he/she'd have to commit him/herself to the ECUSA.

That's not an interpretation I've heard before. The two churches have free exchange of clergy, who are eligible for calls in either. Certainly in Canada a Lutheran pastor can be rector of an Anglican church, and an Anglican priest can be a parish pastor for an ElCiC congregation.

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
Also, I understand that a Lutheran bishop is bishop for a specific term of service, locally, six years. After that time, the bishop goes back to being a pastor.

This was once the case in North America, but AIUI the full-communion agreements worked out a common understanding of ordination to service for life, with jurisdiction limited to term in office.

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
I remember a priest explaining to me that the consubstantial presence is “real” only during the time of communion, and that after the service, the bread may be returned to the box and the wine poured back into the bottle.

The first part is a common Lutheran opinion, but not mandated. The second part is not a practice of any Lutheran church I've been familiar with. Reverent consumption is the norm in both churches to my knowledge.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

That sounds right to me.. although I seem to remember hearing about tabernacles in tge Church of Sweden.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

The Church of Sweden retained bishops and the Apostolic Succession; their bishops aren't just administrators with an expiration date on the title.

Episcopalians were therefore in communion with them long before cooperating with American Lutherans was even a gleam in a Protestant-side eye.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
I remember a priest explaining to me that the consubstantial presence is “real” only during the time of communion, and that after the service, the bread may be returned to the box and the wine poured back into the bottle.
The first part is a common Lutheran opinion, but not mandated. The second part is not a practice of any Lutheran church I've been familiar with. Reverent consumption is the norm in both churches to my knowledge.

I believe the first part is, historically speaking, the Anglican position as well - that is, Christ is present in the act of communion when carried out by the faithful, but not necessarily in the elements themselves. Thus Article XXVIII:

quote:
To such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

And Article XXIX:

quote:
THE Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Hence also the rules against monstrances, benediction, tabernacles, etc.

The Anglo-Catholic movement has successfully made a belief in transubstantiation possible within the Church of England, but to claim that the view described above is un-Anglican seems false to me.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It is possible for him/her to become a ECUSA Rector but he/she'd have to commit him/herself to the ECUSA.
That's not an interpretation I've heard before. The two churches have free exchange of clergy, who are eligible for calls in either. Certainly in Canada a Lutheran pastor can be rector of an Anglican church, and an Anglican priest can be a parish pastor for an ElCiC congregation.

Possibly that's just a difference between the way that the ECUSA and Canada use the term "Rector" - the document I linked to above specifically states that a Lutheran Pastor can't be a Rector in the ECUSA.

[ 11. September 2017, 07:16: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Basically being a PiC is someone who hold's a bishop's license but not the incumbency. Which has some legal significance in England, but mostly seems to suggest longevity - a vicar suffers in the role indefinitely whereas the PiC is just there for as long as he is contracted by the bishop.

Have also known it used in British Anglican circles as a trial period to make sure the parish and the priest can work together, and then the PiC becomes the Vicar (as the later is a lot harder to move)

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

Bizarre. I can't imagine what the point of differentiating the title would be. But then I didn't realize ECUSA uses rector differently (though I know mission churches have "vicars"). The cathedral in Winnipeg even has a Lutheran pastor as dean and rector, so there's definitely no ceiling on preferment. (To date neither church has elected a presbyter of the other to its episcopate, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time).

[ 11. September 2017, 13:28: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gog:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Basically being a PiC is someone who hold's a bishop's license but not the incumbency. Which has some legal significance in England, but mostly seems to suggest longevity - a vicar suffers in the role indefinitely whereas the PiC is just there for as long as he is contracted by the bishop.
Have also known it used in British Anglican circles as a trial period to make sure the parish and the priest can work together, and then the PiC becomes the Vicar (as the later is a lot harder to move)

Yes, I believe that's right. I also think - at lest historically - that a Rector was the incumbent of a church which had glebe lands and who therefore received the tithes thereof; while a Vicar was the incumbent of a parish which didn't. Ipso facto rectors tend to be found in ancient, often village, settings, but not suburbia (unless a conurbation has engulfed an old village). Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Three points (at least from my perspective):

1) Lutherans do not use the terms: "consubstantiation; transformation; or transubstantiation" in their description of the Real Presence. They simply say the body and blood of Christ are in, with and under the bread and the wine.

2) While Lutherans do say the Real Presence happens within the communion service, they generally will dispose of left over elements by either consuming them after the service or pouring the wine onto the ground and scattering the bread on the ground. They will reserve a portion of the elements to take to the shut-ins for individual communion, but they tie it back to the congregational communion service--it is a way of affirming the shut in is still a part of the Body of Christ through their congregation.

3) While Lutheran Bishops are elected to six-year terms, they can be re-elected as long as they are willing to stand for re-elections. The retiring bishop of my local synod was re-elected twice for a total of 18 years. He will continue with the honorary title of bishop-emeritus but other than that his ordination will be as pastor. The new bishop will be installed this next week. I quite imagine we will have the local ECUSAA bishop and the local heads of the other denominations we are in fellowship with also be part of the installation service (Methodist, UCC, and Reformed as well as Moravian). I would not even be surprised to see the Roman Catholic bishop involved. I know he was involved with the installation of the previous bishop.

Now I as a lay person was elected to the synod council for a six-year term and that is a one term limit. I just hope I can last six years.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I think Baptist Trainfan is right. From recollection, the difference between a rector and a vicar goes back to the state of affairs before the Reformation. A rector got all the tithes. If a monastery got the tithes, they appointed a vicar who I think got some of them. Whatever the position before the Reformation, since it, both get the freehold. A priest in charge is an incumbent but only under licence from the bishop and does not have the freehold.

I don't know whether this is still the case, but at least well into the nineteenth century there were lay people who were entitled to receive tithes that their forbears had acquired after the dissolution of the monasteries.

It is possible that none of this may apply outside the CofE.

On Lutherans, the impression I got from a Lutheran on an exchange scheme is that in the CofE it may depend on which part of the Lutheran world they come from. If so, it will be turn on whether the particular Lutheran Church retained apostolic succession at the Reformation.

It certainly will not in the CofE depend on what particular understanding of eucharistic presence an individual Lutheran articulates. As has been clear on these boards and as Ricardus has pointed out a few posts back, there is quite a range within the CofE of permissible 'articulations'. What matters isn't what the priest thinks is happening when he or she consecrates, but whether they are ordained by a recognised bishop or not.

In the CofE, a bishop holds office until they retire, but remains a bishop for life. Retired bishops get called upon to do confirmations, ordinations etc.

[ 11. September 2017, 15:52: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the CofE, a bishop holds office until they retire, but remains a bishop for life. Retired bishops get called upon to do confirmations, ordinations etc.

Can't speak for Lutherans, but a retired (UK) Baptist Regional Minister or URC Synod Moderator does not retain the title and may indeed revert to being an "ordinary" minister. This goes with the view that ordination is recognition of particular gifts and commissioning for service, rather than something which effects ontological change.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In the US, a vicar is the pastor of a mission church; the bishop is the rector of every mission church in his diocese.

Mission churches are not self-supporting, although the amount of money they receive from the diocese varies considerably. At one mission church of which I was a member, the amount the church paid to the diocese in dues was about equal to the amount they received from the diocese. It was done this way to make it clear that no church in the diocese is independent.

Moo

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think Baptist Trainfan is right. From recollection, the difference between a rector and a vicar goes back to the state of affairs before the Reformation. A rector got all the tithes. If a monastery got the tithes, they appointed a vicar who I think got some of them. Whatever the position before the Reformation, since it, both get the freehold. A priest in charge is an incumbent but only under licence from the bishop and does not have the freehold.

In the CofE, a bishop holds office until they retire, but remains a bishop for life. Retired bishops get called upon to do confirmations, ordinations etc.

Basically correct - but because the rector received all the tithes, he bore all the expenses of the church. A vicar only bore the expenses of the sanctuary and not the rest of the church - could have been the other wa around for the vicar, not in a position to check, but certainly the vicar was not responsible for the lot.

In Anglican churches here, and without the historical background outlined, there are rectors in NSW, but vicars elsewhere. No reason, it just is.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

I´m surprised to discover the "real presence" might still be an issue for nowadays episcopalians and elca "lutherans". When most of your bishops don´t even believe in Christ´s divinity neither he is ressurrected, I really doubt that the real presence in the sacraments has any meaning. On the other hand, I wonder if the remaining confessional lutherans there would bother about such theological details when both denominations have already departed from the core of christian doctrines.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

The use of the term "bishop" seems to be an area where Catholic denominations (including Anglicans) and Protestant same (in which I would include most Lutherans) differ. For Catholic denominations, ordination is for life, whether as deacon, priest, or bishop; for Protestants, a bishop seems to be just an administrator, with an expiration date in that role.

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I´m surprised to discover the "real presence" might still be an issue for nowadays episcopalians and elca "lutherans". When most of your bishops don´t even believe in Christ´s divinity neither he is ressurrected, I really doubt that the real presence in the sacraments has any meaning. On the other hand, I wonder if the remaining confessional lutherans there would bother about such theological details when both denominations have already departed from the core of christian doctrines.

Gee, gorpo, where to start with this? Real Presence doesn't need quotes; ELCA Lutherans don't get scare quotes. They're real Lutherans. Most Anglican/Episcopal clergy most emphatically do believe in the divinity and Resurrection of Christ.

As for "departed from the core of christian (sic) doctrines," what do you mean? Or did you intend to post this in Hell and lose your way?

[ 12. September 2017, 00:08: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Gee, gorpo, where to start with this? Real Presence doesn't need quotes; ELCA Lutherans don't get scare quotes. They're real Lutherans. Most Anglican/Episcopal clergy most emphatically do believe in the divinity and Resurrection of Christ.

As for "departed from the core of christian (sic) doctrines," what do you mean? Or did you intend to post this in Hell and lose your way?

I mean Lutheran as christians who believe acording to the lutheran confessions and the heritage of the lutheran reformation, not liberal congregations which just happen to have lutheran in their names because of their past. And sorry, that definition doesn´t fit for ELCA. A church that allows a congregation where Jesus´ name is not even mentioned (http://www.herchurch.org/) should not be called lutheran, let alone christian. And a denomination where openly atheist persons have become bishops and important theologians shouldn´t bother so much about liturgical details. Sooner or later, both denominations are going to merger anyway due to lack of folks in the pews, and the "doctrine" of both consisting merely of socially progressive wish-wash.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I mean Lutheran as christians who believe acording to the lutheran confessions and the heritage of the lutheran reformation, not liberal congregations which just happen to have lutheran in their names because of their past. And sorry, that definition doesn´t fit for ELCA....

You sound like a MOSyn. That's fine (one of my favorite Shipmates is a MOSyn), but - at the risk of being guilty of Junior Hosting - this is not the place for your opinions. Let's both stick to the actual subject at hand.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What's a MOSyn, please?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a MOSyn, please?

I assume that it's the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church in the US - more conservative than the Evangelical Lutheran (ECLA) and less so than the Wisconsin Synod. And Synod's not used here in the Anglican sense of the diocesan parliament as it were.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a MOSyn, please?
I assume that it's the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church in the US . . . .

Yes, though technically the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the CofE, a bishop holds office until they retire, but remains a bishop for life. Retired bishops get called upon to do confirmations, ordinations etc.
Can't speak for Lutherans, but a retired (UK) Baptist Regional Minister or URC Synod Moderator does not retain the title and may indeed revert to being an "ordinary" minister. This goes with the view that ordination is recognition of particular gifts and commissioning for service, rather than something which effects ontological change.

My understanding is that the only ordination in the ELCA is to the office of pastor; bishops are installed, not ordained or consecrated to the episcopate. Gramps49's post above seems to reflect this. And I don't think Lutherans understand ordination as a sacrament.

Lutherans, do I have that right?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks Nick Tamen, I'll store that away. Did I get the Wisconsin Synod right please?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

The formal name is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, but I usually hear it referred to as the Wisconsin Synod (as with the Missouri Synod) or as the WELS.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just dropping by this thread to say that the subject isn't a big issue with us Anglicans in the UK, as there aren't that many Lutherans over here.

However, the most socially deprived parish in this Diocese is something of a flagship, inasmuch as the lively all-age congregation engages deeply with its local community, and is leading the way in helping with a town-centre regeneration scheme which inter alia involves re-opening a closed church. They have a newly-installed Priest-in-charge, and for some time have enjoyed the services of a young lady Associate Priest who is Swedish, and was ordained in (IIRC) Ostersund Cathedral. She is, therefore, a proper Lutheran, I take it, ordained in a church which (under the Porvoo agreement) is in full communion with the C of E. My feeling is that our Diocese could well do with more Lutheran clergy to help us out!

Offers, anyone from Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc. etc.?

IJ

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Re ordination: Yes, it's correct that Lutherans do not categorize ordination as a sacrament, and that in the ELCA ( and I assume in the ELCIC and across the pond) our bishops are installed, not ordained.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Re ordination: Yes, it's correct that Lutherans do not categorize ordination as a sacrament, and that in the ELCA ( and I assume in the ELCIC and across the pond) our bishops are installed, not ordained.

Correcting the assumption: In the ELCiC, bishops are ordained, but this only started after the 2001 Waterloo Declaration.This link notes the first ordination of an ELCiC bishop in 2002.
The current national bishop was ordained, consecrated, and installed in 2007.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Good to know.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a MOSyn, please?

It's how members of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are sometimes colloquially known in these parts, which are heavily inhabited by them. Perhaps there should be a space between the two syllables, thusly: MO Syn.

They're a very conservative group; girls have cooties, and the Bible is the literal Word of God. Most of the MO Syns I know are lovely people; the exceptions are mostly clerics, interestingly enough. They are slightly less conservative than the Wisconsin Synod - WI (pronounced "we") Syn?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
I remember a priest explaining to me that the consubstantial presence is “real” only during the time of communion, and that after the service, the bread may be returned to the box and the wine poured back into the bottle.

That is decidedly not a Lutheran teaching. Yes, some Philipists believe so, but the Lutheran position is that once consecrated, the host and contents of the chalice remains consecrated until consumed.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
3) While Lutheran Bishops are elected to six-year terms, they can be re-elected as long as they are willing to stand for re-elections.

In America, perhaps, but not in Scandinavia. Once a bishop here, always a bishop. We, the Church of Norway (I'm an incumbent priest), are also in full communion with the Church of England.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a MOSyn, please?
It's how members of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are sometimes colloquially known in these parts, which are heavily inhabited by them. Perhaps there should be a space between the two syllables, thusly: MO Syn.

They're a very conservative group; girls have cooties, and the Bible is the literal Word of God. Most of the MO Syns I know are lovely people; the exceptions are mostly clerics, interestingly enough. They are slightly less conservative than the Wisconsin Synod - WI (pronounced "we") Syn?

Sorry again. What are cooties? It's an unknown expression here. I've tried looking it up and the answer I get is 'lice'. Surely, that can't be correct. They wouldn't be 'lovely people' if that were true. Besides, what would be the connection between verbal inspiration and having lice?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Enoch: "Girls have cooties," refers to what little boys used to say when they built their tree houses and posted signs on the trunk saying, "No girls aloud!" Cooties being some kind of yucky bug. I think here it's a joke referring to women pastors.

My ELCA Lutheran has recently joined with the local Episcopalian church in order to share a pastor and make our dwindling numbers seem less pitiful. I wasn't thrilled when this happened. I had loved our young Lutheran priest before he moved on. His sermons regularly moved me to tears. The Episcopalian pastor was more practical, quite knowledgeable but her sermons were more informative than inspiring. Now she's gone, too and we're searching for someone, anyone, to serve us both. We alternate church buildings.

I've never heard a single person from either camp fuss about theological points. It's all which pews are more comfortable and whose service requires the most paper shuffling.

Gorpo's post made me laugh. It sounds like my mutterings after the Christmas Eve service that was all about recycling with no mention of Jesus. Still we welcome all people and do some good in the Christian world, I think.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

"Girls have cooties" is a phrase that I came up with after years of putting up with misogynistic excuses as to why women shouldn't be ordained. When I was a girl, some young louts actually used to say, "Girls have cooties!" when we tried to play with them, and it stuck.

One old priest actually asked me, "What if a woman priest is having her period when she celebrates communion?" I've heard all the tortuous reasoning, and most of it boils down to a combination of "Women aren't first-class human beings; only men are really fully human" and "We've always done it this way."

And yes, I have dealt with some MO Syn clerics who seem to be outright misogynists. Happily, the ELCA pastors I know don't seem to be as hung up on Y versus XX chromosomes.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

AIUI cooties are lice.

Moo

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Cooties are officially lice, yes, but when the loutish little boys were flinging the accusation at us it was with the understanding that said cooties were something even worse.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Cooties.

But as any 7-year-old North American child could tell you, there's need to worry if you just write "C.P." ("cootie protection") on your hand.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Well I never. I've learnt something, though even with the wiki entry I still don't think I properly understand the reference. Thank you.

Rossweisse, I would never have guessed any of that or have had any idea that was what underlay your description of Lutherans in Missouri. It makes me wonder if (or when) I say things that mystify other people without my realising it.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Enoch: "Girls have cooties," refers to what little boys used to say when they built their tree houses and posted signs on the trunk saying, "No girls aloud!" Cooties being some kind of yucky bug. I think here it's a joke referring to women pastors.

Variant is "germs". As in, "girls' germs, no returns", when a boy touched a girl, then wiped the "germs" off onto another boy. (And girls would sometimes say "boys' germs...".)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Rosswisse--

If I may ask, did that old priest mention a more specific concern? E.g., blood on the floor?

Thx.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rossweisse, I would never have guessed any of that or have had any idea that was what underlay your description of Lutherans in Missouri.

It's not a description of Lutherans in Missouri, but of a particular denomination (the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod), which has congregations across the US (plus a handful in Canada) and is known for its conservative stances. It's not confined to the state from which it takes its name, nor does it have a monopoly on Lutheranism in Missouri, which is also served by the larger and more "liberal" Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other Lutheran denominations.

In British terms, the LCMS is equivalent to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England (which has a tiny, Portuguese-speaking outpost in Bristol) and the ELCA to the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Cooties....

Thank you, Nick.

A belief in Girl Cooties is hardly restricted to certain MO Syns, although there are far fewer of that particular faithful in the Episcopal Church than there were a few decades ago.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rossweisse, I would never have guessed any of that or have had any idea that was what underlay your description of Lutherans in Missouri.

To follow up on Knopwood's post, the Wiki on the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
To follow up on Knopwood's post, the Wiki on the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Thank you, Nick.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0