 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Counter-factual mergers: SA and CofE, and...
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On another thread, Mudfrog has quickened my imagination to consider some 'what-might-have-beens' in a counter-factual sense.
He was considering what might have been had William Booth's discussions with Canterbury in 1882 had led to the Salvation Army being 'assumed' within the CofE.
I'm interested in exploring some other 'what-might-have-beens' in terms of some mergers - both likely or unlikely - that could have taken place had things worked out differently ...
What would have happened had Melancthon's correspondence with the Ecumenical Patriarch had led to fruitful dialogue and a merger between the Lutherans and the Orthodox, for instance?
Or the Greeks and the Non-Jurors?
Or if the Methodists had been reunited with the Anglicans on the occasions where that has been mooted?
To start the ball rolling, here's my 'take' on what the Anglican landscape may have looked like in 1922, 40 years after Booth's conservations with Canterbury had led (counter-factually) to the SA becoming a kind of Anglican 'religious order'/evangelistic arm ...
It's 1922 ... General Booth (he kept that honorary title) has been dead for a decade. The group he led into the Anglican fold in 1883, after a year of exhaustive talks - is still going strong ... operating from 'citadels' and mission-stations throughout the British Empire and beyond.
It hasn't been an easy ride. In 1885 the first Salvationist-Anglicans seceded and their departure was welcomed in very scathing terms by a number of senior clergy - including some evangelicals as well as Anglo-Catholics. They were soon joined by others and by 1890 most of the Salvationists who had followed Booth into the CofE had left to join one or other of a fissaporous group of independent missions.
However, by 1892 there were signs of stablisation - there had been some interesting joint-mission and collaboration with Anglo-Catholic slum-priests in London's East End and other urban centres.
The Salvationists had proven themselves able missionaries in the most difficult of areas - both in Britain's industrial cities and across wide-flung mission fields such as parts of Africa, India, China and the South Seas.
Even in the most MoR of parishes the sight of a Salvationist 'missioner' in his (or her) distinctive uniform was a common one.
Indeed, the success of the initiative was such that a number of parallel or imitation missions had been formed - some with a distinctly 'Catholic' as well as evangelical flavour -- the Sacred Cross Corps operating in Birmingham and Newcastle, the Society of St George working among soldiers and sailors across the Dominions.
The Reveille retreat centre in Llandrindod Wells was proving a 'Welsh Keswick' and was still attracting trainloads of visitors for its annual Bible camps.
There were those who detected a greater awareness and insight of the sufferings of the poor in episcopal pronouncements in the House of Lords. The sight of Bishops in smocks and gaiters working alongside Sally Army girls in the soup-kitchens and rescue-missions had caused a stir -- and even by the 1920s it was still possible to catch the occasional photo of a cleric in stove-pipe hat posing for a photoshoot with Salvationists somewhere in Poplar, Splott or Toxteth.
Progress through the ecclesial ranks had been slow, however. It wasn't until 1916 that a Salvationist became an Archdeacon - although some had acted as rural-deans since the early 1900s.
Nevertheless, the revival of the office of 'deaconess' owed much to the influence of Booth and his wife - these dedicated women, many of them in hybrid forms of 'order' - a cross between nun and 'rescue-mission' worker - had made a substantial impact across the country. Nevertheless, the Anglican world was scandalised when one of these women actually administered communion during a priest's absence during a cholera epidemic in India. Questions were asked in Parliament ...
For all this, by 1922 there were those who said that the 'Army' had become far too respectable, that it had lost its original cutting-edge - it had been domesticated ... 'Not so much an Army as the Territorials ...' the quip had run ... until now the common refrain was, 'Not so much the Army as the boy-scouts/girl guides ...'
Nevertheless, a great deal of admiration and affection for the 'Army' remained - particularly on account of its chaplaincy and relief work on the Western Front during WW1 ...
There were the occasional Music Hall jokes and songs - and long-running press stories - such as the occasion when an ardent Salvationist had seized the sherry bottle from a group of clerics and thrown it out of the window and onto a cathedral quad ...
There had even been some surprising defections Romeward as a small number of Salvationists, having acquired a taste for tat and sacraments, had headed through Canterbury and right on across the Tiber. There was even talk of the Pope forming them into a new religious order ...
Overall, the experiment and experience had been deemed positive. Speaking in a packed Westminster Abbey on the 10th anniversary of Booth's death, the Archbishop of Canterbury paid tribute to the old patriarch's zeal and wisdom.
'Our Anglican communion has been marked indelibly by his example and that of his dedicated troops,' he said. 'For all the scoffings of cynic and critic, the Salvation Army has strengthened our mission and led us into new and unforeseen avenues of worship and service. There are many who have cause to bless Almighty God that such a union took place in the last years of the previous century -- and we have no doubt that many more will do so as we face the challenges that are to come ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog on the other thread:
Well, at the time of the conversations with thre bishops, TSA was still observing the sacraments of the Lords Supper and (infant) baptism. It was as a direct result of the breakdown of these talks that we decided (at the time, temporarily) to cease from offering them in worship.
Our doctrines didn't change.
Our 11 doctrines (established in English law, interestingly) were in place in the Methodist New Connexion, into the Christian Mission and then into TSA. They were unchanged during this time of experimenting with Anglicanism, and they remain unaltered to the present day. The change from sacramental practice to sacramental non-observance came about with no reference to doctrine whatsoever.
I am sure Mudfrog is right on this however there was a lot of antagonism from the Anglican church (and actually in society as a whole) towards the Salvation Army in particular, and the whole "missionary" movement.
Let's not forget that the Salvation Army (and antecedents) were not operating alone, and from the early 19 century, there were many different "missions" operating for and towards different groups of (usually working class) society.
The best known, and still surviving to a certain extent, is forms of seaman's mission. These were often set up in co-ordination with the various Anglican parish ministries - but still seemed to remain as outsiders.
There was the whole "Bethel" movement amongst sailors, which was, some say, a reaction against the existing forms of institutional religion. At one point, a massive ship chapel was floating on the Thames, attracting many for services. But the reaction of the Anglican structures to this was very interesting - they set up their own floating chapel in competition!
Certainly on a microscale that I'm aware of, the seaman's mission in my port town was supposedly set up as an interdenominational mission venture in the early 1800s, but by the later decades of the century huge arguments had broken out, apparently driven by the Anglicans who wanted more control over the missionaries, the Bethel church building and the types of preachers and services that went on.
As far as the way the ministry was run over more than 100 years, it was almost always a laity run effort, with paid missionaries, often from the Church Army.
Now, I don't know how this was replicated to other seaman's missions, nor to other forms of mission which developed in the early 1800s, but I am willing to bet that the Anglican structures were very uncomfortable with it - at first treating it with disdain and then getting into fights about the ownership of the enterprise.
And that was the environment into which Booth stepped with his mission to the poorest. Clearly it wasn't so much his theology which was uncomfortable to the Anglican structures as the nature of what he was doing. The Church Army shows how far the SA would have had to change to have become acceptable to the Anglican structures (and the CA has an uncomfortable history of war-wounds from that relationship, despite Carlisle and other efforts).
As a final thought, I understand the priestly work of Anglicans in that period was often by Anglo-Catholics in the inner city areas because they were excluded from other parishes. I am very curious how these priests related to the SA and other missionary movements in the slums and elsewhere.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Another interesting thought experiment would be what might have happened if Carlisle's efforts had been squashed. Would the Church Army have turned into a church like the Salvation Army?
I don't think so. But I am interested to hear what Mudfrog thinks about that point.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Doc Tor - yes, I had the Church Army in mind -- but I rather think that the SA would have become a larger and arguably more successful movement within the CofE had it joined in 1882/83 ...
I think there would have been some immediate fall-out too, though, with many of the incomers leaving to form their own independent missions.
@mr cheesy - yes, there was a certain amount of antipathy towards the Salvation Army and not always from the quarters one might have expected ...
Lord Shaftesbury, a very dry Prayer Book Evangelical took a very dim view indeed of the Salvation Army and all its works ... which he deemed highly irregular and 'fanatical' even.
The Salvation Army was nowhere near as respectable as it has become - and yes, if you read about some of the antics of early Salvationists - understandable as these might well have been in context - they did have some peculiarities and eccentricities ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the slum priests thing ... I've heard some, including the late lamented Ken, claim that this work wasn't as widespread as legend suggests ...
I don't know a great deal about it, but I knew some die-hard almost Communist left-wing types from London's East End who had a lot of admiration for these guys ... and said that while they were growing up (this was pre-WW2), the Anglo-Catholic parishes were the source of much needed education, social relief and general care for the needy ...
I can't cite chapter and verse, but pre-internet I came across an account somewhere of Anglo-Catholic priests in the East End making use of 'revivalist' or almost Salvation Army style methods during their missions in order to get people through the doors - then switching to bells, smells and 'spiritual formation' to keep them in the pews ...
I've also read that many Anglo-Catholics saw colour and spectacle as a means of mission insofar as they were offering something bright and mysterious in people's otherwise drab and pretty grim lives ...
So, whilst the Salvationists were setting spiritual words to Music Hall songs, the A-Cs were leading processions and putting on the bling in order to achieve a similar end ...
I've seen 1920s footage of Anglo-Catholic processions on high-days and holy days and it's astonishing how many people are involved - as well as how many cubs, scouts and other uniformed groups are following along ...
I'll have to Google or You Tube to see if I can find some ... fascinating footage ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On another thread, Mudfrog has quickened my imagination to consider some 'what-might-have-beens' in a counter-factual sense.
Are there any examples of groups that originated outside the CofE joining it, and then retaining their distinctive identity for any length of time?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Are there any examples of groups that originated outside the CofE joining it, and then retaining their distinctive identity for any length of time?
If the answer is no.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm interested in exploring some other 'what-might-have-beens' in terms of some mergers - both likely or unlikely - that could have taken place had things worked out differently ...
I've heard it said - but have no source to back it - that when the first Celtic missionaries went south to see what this Augustine guy from Rome was all about, they were advised that if he stood to greet them, they would be friends; if he remained seated, they would not. And he remained seated. But if he had stood ... it's interesting to imagine a church of Romano-Celtic spirituality evangelising the British Isles, from both directions.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The source for that story is Bede, Lord Jestocost and one of the locations that has been cited for this alleged incident is Aust - just across the first Severn Bridge ...
I doubt they had a motorway service station there then.
With the best will in the world, though, had St Augustine of Canterbury stood to greet his Welsh (or 'British') counterparts instead of snubbing them by remaining seated, I don't think a Roman mission/Celtic churches 'merger' at that early date would have made any real difference.
If Bede is to believed there was little difference between them other than a particular style of monastic tonsure - the Celtic monks shaved their heads in a band from ear to ear over the top - and the insistence of some - but by no means all of them, apparently - to celebrate Easter on the 'Eastern' rather than the Roman date.
The Celtic churches used Latin for their liturgies just as the incoming missionaries from Rome did - and the Anglo-Saxons thereafter.
They were organised on monastic lines though, being a largely agrarian and rural society - rather than an episcopal structure -- the municipal bishops seem to have disappeared after urban life declined sometime in the 5th century - although it may have hung on slightly longer in Viriconium (Wroxeter) if some archaeologists and historians are to be believed ...
It seems that some Irish monks were already using the Roman date to calculate Easter before the Synod of Whitby so there doesn't appear to have been uniformity on that among the indigenous churches.
To all intents and purposes though, other than a few rough-edges and more rigorous asceticism, that wasn't any real difference between so-called 'Celtic spirituality' and that found anywhere else in Europe and the Middle East at that time - you'd have found similar prayers and invocations and so on in Spain, Romania, Greece, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor ...
The whole thing about 'Celtic Christianity' as something unique and very distinct from what came afterwards has been greatly exaggerated.
So, welcome though an initial joining-forces of Augustine's Roman mission with the indigenous churches would have been, I doubt if it would have made a great deal of difference ...
Bede makes a big deal of the Celtic Church not evangelising the pagan Anglo-Saxons and he sees some of the ills that befell the Celtic peoples of these islands as some kind of divine judgement on their failure to do so ...
It's unclear to what extent the Celtic churches were in a position to evangelise their Anglo-Saxon pagan neighbours though ... and there may well have been attempts to do so that were unrecorded and lost to history.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And I suspect there may also have been a bit of 'we are the heirs to the Romans and so don't expect us to waste our civilised religion on you, you bunch of hairy-arsed Germans'. It has always seemed to me- and I say this with some trepidation, because, you, Gamaliel, are Welsh, and I just happen to live here- that that story encapsulates a certain kind of parochialism and mistrust of outsiders and air of rather defensive spirritual superiority that is, alas, not quite extinct among some Welsh Christians.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, indeed, Albertus - so I'll come and burn yewer cottage down now just ...
Seriously, mind, I'm Anglo-Welsh so, like Gerald of Wales (Giraldus Cambriensis), 'I am sprung from the Princes of Wales and the Barons of the Marches - and when I see injustice in either race, I hate it.'
Mind you, not that my forebears were as exalted as his ...
I think it was Gwyn Alf ('When was Wales?') Williams the historian who said something like the post-Roman Britons were wearing goat-skins and sitting on bare rocks overlooking the Irish Sea, drinking wine from an imported amphora and bemoaning the lost days of Empire ...
There's a kind of mixed 'hubris'/hiraeth sense of loss and wistfulness about the Welsh ... as though we're missing something and we're not actually quite sure what it is or was ...
We're not the only ones to have that kind of lost, aching yearning ... I've noticed it with the Greeks too, but in a different kind of way (and perhaps with more reason ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Gamaliel, I was under the impression that St Patrick or someone else essentially took the Roman rite to Ireland and the Celtic rite moved from Ireland to Iona and Northumbria - so the Roman rite was a later introduction to the British Isles.
It's not a counter-factual merger, quite, but I wonder what would have happened if permanent deacons had been kept in the CoE.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've not so far been able to see the point of permanent deacons. They can't do much that a lay person, yet alone a Lay Reader can't do. Why 'half-ordain' someone?
Besides, they didn't disappear. Back in the C19 when quite a lot of men were ordained to give them the status to teach, it wasn't unusual for them to remain only in deacon's orders unless or until they had occasion to take on parochial responsibilities. I think Dr Arnold did for some years. So did Charles Dodgson.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Deacons aren't half-ordained - they are fully ordained, just as deacons. They could do the work of SSM/NSM, and at the same time carrying on a historic role within the church rather than a new one. Lots of churches have deacons and they work very well.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gamaliel, I was under the impression that St Patrick or someone else essentially took the Roman rite to Ireland and the Celtic rite moved from Ireland to Iona and Northumbria - so the Roman rite was a later introduction to the British Isles.
It's not a counter-factual merger, quite, but I wonder what would have happened if permanent deacons had been kept in the CoE.
Technically, we can still have permanent deacons. I'm not sure any actually exist in the wild (nor do I have the energy to hunt through Crockfords and check). I suspect most DDOs will just look at you bemused if you suggested that might be something you thought you were called to. (But many of them do that if you mention the religious life too!)
I know someone, a woman, from a traditionalist catholic background who was considering the idea whilst trying to address the question on whether she could accept the ordination of women as priests - she went forward as a candidate for priestly ministry in the end. I suspect it is those quarters you are most likely to find a permanent deacon though.
My view is that we should ordain most lay readers deacon and do away with readership.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gamaliel, I was under the impression that St Patrick or someone else essentially took the Roman rite to Ireland and the Celtic rite moved from Ireland to Iona and Northumbria - so the Roman rite was a later introduction to the British Isles.
Quite possibly. My point was more along the lines that there wasn't a great deal of difference - other than the date of Easter and the style of monastic tonsure - between the Celtic churches and St Augustine of Canterbury's Roman mission.
The idea that there was some kind of distinctive Celtic spirituality that differed from that found on the continent of Europe at that time is a myth.
Of course, Christians in Ireland and what was to become Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, would have had localised practices that differed in some small degree from Christians elsewhere - but doctrinally they were still essentially on the same page.
It's also something of an anachronism to regard the Rome of the late 6th century as identical to the Papacy as it later developed ... although one could argue that the signs of later development were there already at that time -- whether we see these developments as either positive or detrimental.
Whatever the case, it's certainly a mistake to reduce it all to goodies and baddies - the Celtic churches = good, the Roman mission under Augustine = bad.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gamaliel, I was under the impression that St Patrick or someone else essentially took the Roman rite to Ireland and the Celtic rite moved from Ireland to Iona and Northumbria - so the Roman rite was a later introduction to the British Isles.
It's not a counter-factual merger, quite, but I wonder what would have happened if permanent deacons had been kept in the CoE.
Technically, we can still have permanent deacons. I'm not sure any actually exist in the wild (nor do I have the energy to hunt through Crockfords and check). I suspect most DDOs will just look at you bemused if you suggested that might be something you thought you were called to. (But many of them do that if you mention the religious life too!)
I know someone, a woman, from a traditionalist catholic background who was considering the idea whilst trying to address the question on whether she could accept the ordination of women as priests - she went forward as a candidate for priestly ministry in the end. I suspect it is those quarters you are most likely to find a permanent deacon though.
My view is that we should ordain most lay readers deacon and do away with readership.
I am very well-acquainted with DDOs' bafflement at vocations to the religious life! There seems to be a huge lack of imagination and pushing the priesthood as the only vocation the CoE is talking about.
I wouldn't want to confuse the roles of lay readers and deacons, though. To me deacons are more of a pastoral/chaplain type role. Lay readers are preachers.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
My view is that we should ordain most lay readers deacon and do away with readership.
Which suiggests that you are unaware that readers have a distinct role which is very different from diaconal
Care to elaborate?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Pomona, I am aware of the theory, though a key part of the deacon's functions in the CofE do include teaching, instruction of the faithful, etc.. Even so unless one is stirred by the idea of people living a symbolic role, the fact remains that I can't see what permanent deacons are for. Liturgically, I think that in England the only thing they can do that a Reader can't, is baptise. Legally they can marry people, but that relates to the civil function not the ecclesiastical. In practice, the dioceses don't let them because they can't do the ecclesiastical but.
If you are saying that it would be good if the church could have full time paid people who were committed to doing pastoral work, who could disagree with that? That, though, is a financial question not one of what, if any, orders they are in.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
My view is that we should ordain most lay readers deacon and do away with readership.
Which suiggests that you are unaware that readers have a distinct role which is very different from diaconal
Care to elaborate?
at the risk of being a tangent - the role of deacon is service.
That of Reader is teaching and preaching
More relevant - Readers are LAY whereas deacons are ordained.
Lay readers earn their money and do most of the Christian ministry in secular and bring their insights from this into their preaching so as to equip other laity in the ministry in secular.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
My view is that we should ordain most lay readers deacon and do away with readership.
Which suiggests that you are unaware that readers have a distinct role which is very different from diaconal
Care to elaborate?
at the risk of being a tangent - the role of deacon is service.
That of Reader is teaching and preaching
More relevant - Readers are LAY whereas deacons are ordained.
Lay readers earn their money and do most of the Christian ministry in secular and bring their insights from this into their preaching so as to equip other laity in the ministry in secular.
From the (Common Worship) ordinal:
'Deacons are... to proclaim the gospel in word and deed... they are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people'
So covers the same ground, if you ask me.
I'm not suggesting stipendiary posts. In fact, in almost all cases, I would argue against any change in financial/working status. (I would envisage the exceptions being those that go off to offer for ordination under the current scheme). I just call for an ontological recognition of the service readers already offer.
I don't see why there is an advantage to them being lay people. I can see advantages to them not being institutionalised, mind you, but that is not contradictory to receiving holy orders.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Are RC permanent deacons ever stipendiary? I had the impression that as a rule they're not, but I might be quite wrong about that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Gosh ... isn't it odd how threads develop?
I started with a counter-factual thought-experiment with Booth and the CofE and now we're onto the role of the diaconate ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I quite agree. It is odd, but also fascinating.
Two further thoughts.
The first is that those ordained as priests, and indeed as bishops, do not cease to be deacons. They remain deacons. They can't say 'I've been promoted. It's not my job to serve any more'.
I don't think that's controversial at all. The second point might be to a few people, but is generally accepted by most. It's that deacons, priests and bishops likewise do not cease to be part of the laos. Ordination may confer responsibility and even authority. It may be indelible. But however high one's view of it, it is not an ontological change comparable with baptism. It is not a passing from darkness into light, from being one sort of person to being another, from 'old man' to 'new man' (including 'woman' of course here, but we are referencing scripture).
I'd understand ordination as the marking out of certain people among the laos to fulfil certain roles. It does not make the ordained more 'the church' than everyone else. An ordained person is still an ordained lay person.
I also, though, think that Leo is making an important point that the 'lay' bit about a Reader matters. The world does seem to look different to those paid a stipend to work full time in church activities. As a result, there are also things full-timers don't quite get. It's one of the reasons why a lot of what the General Synod does is a waste of time.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gamaliel, I was under the impression that St Patrick or someone else essentially took the Roman rite to Ireland and the Celtic rite moved from Ireland to Iona and Northumbria - so the Roman rite was a later introduction to the British Isles.
It's not a counter-factual merger, quite, but I wonder what would have happened if permanent deacons had been kept in the CoE.
Technically, we can still have permanent deacons. I'm not sure any actually exist in the wild (nor do I have the energy to hunt through Crockfords and check). I suspect most DDOs will just look at you bemused if you suggested that might be something you thought you were called to. (But many of them do that if you mention the religious life too!)
I'm confused: are you saying the CofE doesn't have permanent deacons?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gamaliel, I was under the impression that St Patrick or someone else essentially took the Roman rite to Ireland and the Celtic rite moved from Ireland to Iona and Northumbria - so the Roman rite was a later introduction to the British Isles.
It's not a counter-factual merger, quite, but I wonder what would have happened if permanent deacons had been kept in the CoE.
Technically, we can still have permanent deacons. I'm not sure any actually exist in the wild (nor do I have the energy to hunt through Crockfords and check). I suspect most DDOs will just look at you bemused if you suggested that might be something you thought you were called to. (But many of them do that if you mention the religious life too!)
I'm confused: are you saying the CofE doesn't have permanent deacons?
I'm saying they are rare.
And that anyone who suggests that they might have a vocation as a permanent deacon might get a few blank looks.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I also, though, think that Leo is making an important point that the 'lay' bit about a Reader matters. The world does seem to look different to those paid a stipend to work full time in church activities. As a result, there are also things full-timers don't quite get. It's one of the reasons why a lot of what the General Synod does is a waste of time.
What is the advantage in them being lay rather than non-stipendiary?
I would fully advocate keeping them out in secular employment. I'm not even sure I'd be assuming housing being provided, so not even house-for-duty.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
What is the advantage in them being lay rather than non-stipendiary?
I would fully advocate keeping them out in secular employment. I'm not even sure I'd be assuming housing being provided, so not even house-for-duty.
To some extent it depends on how you view orders. If you are non-stipendiary and have a high view of orders, then I suspect you'll regard it as significant that you express something theological about yourself by being a worker-priest or a worker-deacon. You'll tend to see being a priest or deacon as something you bring to your work-place. You might be less likely to value what you should be bringing in the opposite direction.
If you believe that what you bring from your work to your church is something that really matters, then if you have a high take on orders, you're more likely to find it important that you remain fully lay.
If you have a MoR or low view on orders, this will probably be less significant an issue for you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I'm saying they are rare.
And that anyone who suggests that they might have a vocation as a permanent deacon might get a few blank looks.
Well, that's probably true here too, relatively speaking. Anglican dioceses in Canada seem to have been slower to recover the distinctive/permanent/vocational diaconate than their RC counterparts.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Had The Salvation Army experiment succeeded and we had been absorbed into the Anglican Church, I wonder if:
- we would have remained a non-eucharistic order
- we would have remained a teetotal order
- our male officers would have been baptised and confirmed, if not already, in preparation for ordination into the diakonate
- our female officers would have similarly have been prepared, but with a view to being made deaconesses.
I am not sure what the Reverend William Booth would have been given. Though converted into Methodism as a teenager, he had been baptised an Anglican - so he's covered there. He could have been ordained I guess, but as what?
Would there have been a national role for him?
Who knows, either way, the above scenario would have entailed a lot of aquiescence from TSA and not a lot given by the Anglicans.
Many Salvationists would have left.
Can someone from the C of E tell me whether it is true, or not, that the year after talks with Booth broke down, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued an instruction that communion wine had to be alcoholic? If so, that rather suggests that part of the talks foundered over the issue of Methodist-style grape juice versus Anglican wine.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The 'edict' about alcoholic wine was, I believe, 1883.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't know enough about the rubrics on communion wine to answer your question, Mudfrog, nor to determine whether a stipulation about alcoholic wine only was brought in after the negotiations with Booth had broken down ...
I'm sure there'll be an Ecclesiantic Anglican who could answer those questions for us.
Meanwhile, I'm glad you've contributed to this thread as I was interested to hear whether you thought the CofE could have been 'transformed' internally in some way had the negotiations of 1882 led to the Salvation Army joining the CofE ...
I wasn't sure whether your comment on the other thread about 'how different things could have been' was a positive or negative one ... ie. 'it would have had a tremendous impact' or 'It would have clipped our wings ...'
FWIW I suspect that:
- the SA would not have remained a non-eucharistic order (but Anglicans being Anglicans I'm sure some compromises could have been reached in some circumstances)
- the SA wouldn't have remained a strictly teetotal order but I suspect leeway would have been given on the grounds of individual conscience
- your male officers would have been baptised and confirmed, if not already, in preparation for ordination into the diakonate
- your female officers would have similarly have been prepared, but with a view to being made deaconesses.
As for Booth's role ... there is, I think, Anglican precedence for missionary societies and other organisations being led by 'lay-people' with some form of patronage from the clergy. I can imagine that some kind of arrangement could have been reached.
But then, he might have been ordained under Anglican orders too at some point - or given some kind of honorary or 'emeritus' status. The CofE does have 'canon-theologians' who are not Anglican and these can be lay people -- I'm thinking of Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist who is Orthodox.
I would imagine a similar arrangement could have been made for Booth in terms of leading particular forms of mission both in the UK and internationally - with due referral to the standard Anglican arrangements where necessary.
Had this happened then it may well have set a precedent for other groups and 'orders' operating under the aegis of the CofE only in a kind of 'outrider' sense.
That would have been an interesting development.
Would there have been a national role for him? Almost certainly - but I suspect in some kind of pan-diocesan and almost para-church kind of way and very much whether individual dioceses were prepared to work with him or not.
I think you're right that many Salvationists would have left and that formed part of my imaginary scenario in the OP.
As an aside, it's interesting how many Anglican religious orders and mission/relief organisations set up a century ago - during a spectacular burst of Anglican 'setting up orders' and so on activity - have failed to stand the test of time.
Many of the brotherhoods and sisterhoods have folded over the years and others are a shadow of their former selves ...
Some initiatives from those days have continued though ... so I suspect 'natural wastage' is to be expected with only the 'fittest' surviving ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile ...
I can't resist ...
'Who knows, either way, the above scenario would have entailed a lot of aquiescence from TSA and not a lot given by the Anglicans.'
Which is only right and proper and as it should be, of course ...
Why would anyone think it ought to be otherwise ...?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I can't see why TSA might not have remained teetotal. There were, I believe, temperance societies within the CofE at the time and it could have sat alongside them. Sometimes the temperance/ abstinence movements in the CofE and RCC get rather overlooked.
[ 06. August 2015, 14:36: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Cynthia Belaskie, a historical researcher on the 19 century teetotal movement, writes:
quote:
By the 1880s, most Nonconformist chapels used grape juice in Communion. Wesleyan Methodists reversed and earlier ban on Unfermented Communion wine. Roman Catholic and Anglican officials, however, forbade the practice. Disappointing a militant Anglican teetotal minority, the 1883 Convocation of Canterbury and the 1888 worldwide Lambeth Conference insisted that only fermented wine be used for Communion.
from here.
I strongly suspect such moves were made to keep the distance between the Anglicans and Non-conformists.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
From the (Common Worship) ordinal:
'Deacons are... to proclaim the gospel in word and deed... they are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people'
So covers the same ground, if you ask me.
No it doesn't the word 'serve' comes from the story of the choosing of deacons to serve tables Acts - sort of social work.
I am not a social worker - I am a preacher and teacher.
[code]
[ 06. August 2015, 15:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
From the (Common Worship) ordinal:
'Deacons are... to proclaim the gospel in word and deed... they are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people'
So covers the same ground, if you ask me.
No it doesn't the word 'serve' comes from the story of the choosing of deacons to serve tables Acts - sort of social work.
I am not a social worker - I am a preacher and teacher.
[code]
As were the deacons in Acts - men full of the Holy Spirit.
Stephen was an excellent preacher and Philip was an extremely itinerant Bible teacher.
For social workers, they were brilliant evangelists. Maybe the problem is that instead of elevating or dividing the preaching of the word above and from the 'lesser' and more 'ordinary' tasks of service, all 'social workers' within the Church should be able to preach as well?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Cynthia Belaskie, a historical researcher on the 19 century teetotal movement, writes:
quote:
By the 1880s, most Nonconformist chapels used grape juice in Communion. Wesleyan Methodists reversed and earlier ban on Unfermented Communion wine. Roman Catholic and Anglican officials, however, forbade the practice. Disappointing a militant Anglican teetotal minority, the 1883 Convocation of Canterbury and the 1888 worldwide Lambeth Conference insisted that only fermented wine be used for Communion.
from here.
I strongly suspect such moves were made to keep the distance between the Anglicans and Non-conformists.
Sadly, very sadly, it was almost entirely the adverse and unreasonable actions of many Anglican priests, that led to the breakdown in talks between the Salvation Army and the Bishops - and the decision to stop the celebration of the Eucharist in Salvationist worship.
From 1865 to 1882 the Christian Mission (renamed The Salvation Army in 1878), both tauight and practiced the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. It was highly regulated and taken most seriously.
In 1882, when General Booth was talking to Canterbury, entire SA congregations would march to the local parish church for a year-long ecumenical experiment. It was during this time that reports came in from various places that parish priests were telling the congregations that included Salvationists that only those who were confirmed in the CofE could come to the altar for the Eucharist. The rest could just go to the nonconformists 'down the road.'
When at the end of the year Booth made his decision regarding the sacraments he cited three reasons only for their cessation:
1) They are not necessary for salvation
2) We are being 'divided at the church doors'
3) We are not a church anyway (implying we are not obligated to have sacraments.
So yes, the CofE really did seem to have a downer on Nonconformists. Had we been welcomed at the altar we might have carried our practice of the sacraments into our merger with Anglicanism and maybe even negotiated on the alcohol bit.., who knows.
What a shame.
An epic ecumenical FAIL.
[ 06. August 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, Mudfrog - sad as all this is/was - to what extent can any of us expect to join anyone else's church or movement without conforming to its norms?
If I joined Rome, for instance, why should I expect to do so on my own terms rather than theirs?
Ok, so the CofE has shifted ground since then and is more than happy these days to admit any Trinitarian Christian to communion without having to be confirmed as Anglicans.
Back then, of course, that was clearly a bridge too far - but there's little point in crying over spilt milk.
What do you believe to have been lost or gained by the failure of the merger and who, if anyone has been the loser/s?
Would we have seen greater progress for the Kingdom had it taken place?
Or given the likelihood that many Salvationists would have left anyway, would we simply be considering a bold experiment but no more than an interesting footnote in church history?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
From the (Common Worship) ordinal:
'Deacons are... to proclaim the gospel in word and deed... they are to serve the community in which they are set, bringing to the Church the needs and hopes of all the people'
So covers the same ground, if you ask me.
No it doesn't the word 'serve' comes from the story of the choosing of deacons to serve tables Acts - sort of social work.
I am not a social worker - I am a preacher and teacher.
[code]
As were the deacons in Acts - men full of the Holy Spirit.
Stephen was an excellent preacher and Philip was an extremely itinerant Bible teacher.
For social workers, they were brilliant evangelists. Maybe the problem is that instead of elevating or dividing the preaching of the word above and from the 'lesser' and more 'ordinary' tasks of service, all 'social workers' within the Church should be able to preach as well?
Maybe.
But nowhere did I imply that one task was superior to the other.
They are different - which is why deaconing Readers would cut down on diversity of vocation.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
