Ship of Fools: Columba Declaration: C of E and C of S move closer together

Thread: Columba Declaration: C of E and C of S move closer together Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029609

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

The 'Columba Declaration' (text here web page )
has been announced. Not yet formally agreed, it proposes a convergence between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

My initial thoughts are, What would king Charles I think? (maybe a bit frivolous); and Where does it leave the Scottish Episcopal Church?

Early days of a process, of course, and all ecumenical ventures are a good thing, I guess.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Note that the Piskies and the URC are specifically mentioned for "further conversation". I guess that the United Free Church (Continuing) - not the same as the "Wee Frees" but the bit of the UF which didn't return to the CofS in 1929 - won't be too happy though. But, then, they fell out with the CofS a couple of years ago over its view on sexuality.

I couldn't care less about what King Charles I might have thought! That was then, this is now.

[ 24. December 2015, 09:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think Charles I would have minded, provided the Scots used Laud's Prayer Book ...

[Two face]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

As Baptist Trainfan says the United Free church is not the same as the 'Wee Frees' who have this name from being the small remnant of the Free Church of Scotland which refused to unite with the Church of Scotland in 1929. There is also at least one breakaway from the Free Church of Scotland which has the name of the 'Free church continuing'

The name 'wee free' is perhaps less of a commonly known name nowadays with less general interest in the minutiae of ecclesiastical affairs.

I once saw in a French book an explanation of the term 'wee free' which explained that the Free Church was liberal in outlook (being free !) but just a little bit liberal in outlook ,giving it the name 'wee free'

I applaud the proposed convergence but I think that it will be some time before Presbyterian ministers preside at the eucharist in big Anglican churches.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Whilst ecumenical agreement is always good to hear about, I do wonder whether this is another case of the CofE sending people to negotiate who are already inclined to agree with the other party. I struggle to see how anyone of a Catholic inclination could reasonably affirm that the sacrament of Holy Communion is rightly administered in the Church of Scotland, or indeed foresee a time when ministers will be considered interchangeable, without considerable caveats.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.

I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude [Frown]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, I'd wondered the same thing ... it almost like the two denominations clubbing together and saying, "One of us is the 'official' Church south of the border and the other is the same in the north" ... which I don't really buy!

But that may be unfair as I haven't read the document.

Of course the Scottish Baptists are not part of a UK-wide denomination but the URC is. I can't speak for the Methodists.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.

I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude

I wasn't hugely impressed that the declaration referred to the "Episcopal Church of Scotland", a title that's been out of use for some time. It's almost like those conducting the investigation consider the SEC to be an irrelevant detail. It would certainly be an extremely odd situation if the CofE and SEC were to consider priests to be interchangeable, and the CofE and CofS to consider ministers to be interchangeable, but for the CofS and SEC not to have interchangeability of ministers. It's also worth remembering that the Church of Scotland has made it clear that it will not accept Bishops, and this is where previous unity efforts between the CofS and the SEC have fallen apart (unlike in South India where episcopal governance was accepted).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Seems to me that there is a lot of misplaced hyperbole here.

First, it is fairly clearly a statement of ecumenical relations between the Church of Scotland in Scotland and the Church of England in England. Nothing is said about any other province - except for mentioning other Presbyterian churches in the UK and the Episcopal church in Scotland. This is therefore saying nothing about the Episcopal church in Kenya or anywhere else.

Secondly, it is clear that this proposal is not suggesting any kind of state of full communion between the churches. Para 1 (a) (iv) makes it clear that there are currently still barriers between "full unity" whilst "acknowledging" each others ministries.

Finally, it is pretty clear that the document is drawing upon a history of ecumenical co-operation in certain spheres - particularly as public-facing spokespeople on public affairs - with the Church of Scotland having a similar (but not the same) role in Scotland as the Church of England has in England.

That's it. Nothing much for anyone to get their knickers in a twist over.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

... and a little closer reading indicates that the author from the CofE side was Bishop of Chester Peter Forster, known homophobe and climate change denier, renowned for opposing the appointment of Jeffrey John to Reading and for telling gay people to seek psychiatric help.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, I take it back - there might be legitimate questions from both sides about this document and those involved in drafting it. But this is not any kind of statement about the desirability of the two churches joining as per the Church of South India.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, I take it back - there might be legitimate questions from both sides about this document and those involved in drafting it. But this is not any kind of statement about the desirability of the two churches joining as per the Church of South India.

It does, however, indicate that Porvoo-style interchangeability of ministers is a goal.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whilst ecumenical agreement is always good to hear about, I do wonder whether this is another case of the CofE sending people to negotiate who are already inclined to agree with the other party. I struggle to see how anyone of a Catholic inclination could reasonably affirm that the sacrament of Holy Communion is rightly administered in the Church of Scotland, or indeed foresee a time when ministers will be considered interchangeable, without considerable caveats.

The caveat is that minisers can only operate in the other church 'in accordance with the discipline of each church'.
The discipline of the C of E does not allow non-episcopally ordained ministers to prfeside at the Holy Communion exscept in LEPs - and even in them they are not allowed on Easter Day.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It does, however, indicate that Porvoo-style interchangeability of ministers is a goal.

It seems that this is par for the course with all ecumenical statements - they always seem to look to some misty-eyed future where all historical and theological barriers are removed and there is complete interchangeability. Such statements are regularly made with Rome as well, in an optimistic tone but with little chance of ever happening.

It is true that the Churches of North and South India give some kind of lead, but one has to remember that the situation in India re Christianity is quite different to that in England and Scotland. Even other countries where the Churches of England and Scotland have outposts have not managed formal union. Other than the odd arrangements in Milton Keynes, I can't think of anything which has been started on a significant scale since the 1940s.

Other than a bland "wouldn't it be nice if all problems were resolved some time in the future" statement, this document only commits itself to an exchange of ministers "in accordance to the discipline of each church". That is essentially where things stand anyway.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I'd wondered the same thing ... it almost like the two denominations clubbing together and saying, "One of us is the 'official' Church south of the border and the other is the same in the north" ... which I don't really buy!

But that may be unfair as I haven't read the document.

Of course the Scottish Baptists are not part of a UK-wide denomination but the URC is. I can't speak for the Methodists.

What strikes this Methodist is how similar the text of the affirmations and commitments is to that of the Anglican Methodist Covenant, with the exception of the affirmation on episcopacy. In both the tension* between an affirmation that the Eucharist is rightly celebrated but that ordained ministries cannot yet be recognised is the rather unacknowledged problem.

*I confess that more I see these kind of conversations the more I think this is less a tension and more a dishonesty.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although SCIFU didn't result in any organisational unity between churches in Scotland (CofS, Piskies, URC and Methodists), to a very large extent because someone decided that the individuals to be appointed as regional chairpersons would be called "bishops" which was never going to wash with most CofS congregations, it did pave the way for much closer relationships between local churches. It probably won't be very long before most Protestant denominations in Scotland will recognise the validity of ordination and sacraments in the other churches, and therefore for the sort of shared ministry (subject to the 'in accordance with the discipline of each church' clause) that the Columba declaration envisions.

But, there does seem to be a certain amount of desperate clinging to a "we are the national church" and "if we work closer together maybe we can hold onto that status a bit longer" about the whole thing. The days of national churches are behind us. As churches we need to take our place in the civic arena and make our stand based on the quality of the arguments we can make, not on some historical privilage.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although SCIFU didn't result in any organisational unity between churches in Scotland (CofS, Piskies, URC and Methodists), to a very large extent because someone decided that the individuals to be appointed as regional chairpersons would be called "bishops" which was never going to wash with most CofS congregations

This I don't really understand - the Church of South India has bishops, doesn't it? How did they manage to get that past the Presbyterians?

Also it seems that Methodists in the UK don't like Bishops, even though the title is widely used by Methodists in other parts of the world. I've never really understood that either.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

I think there is a cultural opposition to bishops in Scotland, based on history, of course.

My father was Church of Scotland, but lost his faith, and died an atheist. But in his atheist days he still knew he was a Presbyterian atheist. He didn't believe in God, but he believed in bishops even less. I think that may not be uncommon among Scots.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

There is a small part of the Church of Scotland that is extremely hostile towards anything that hints at Catholicism, whether Anglo- or Roman. Add that to the specific legacy of antipathy towards Bishops dating from the wars of the three kingdoms and Bishops become an impossibility for the CofS.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are memorials dotted across Scotland to people who decided that death was preferable to bishops.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
(vi) identify theological issues that arise from growth towards fuller communion and be prepared to allocate resources to addressing them;

Why do these need 'identifying'? Are the words 'Presbyterian' and 'Episcopalian' too subtle for the good bishop? And what resources are going to make the problem go away?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And what resources are going to make the problem go away?

There's only one answer that would be agreeable to Prebyterian and Episcopalian alike. They need a committee.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And what resources are going to make the problem go away?

Well, if it's OK to have special bishops for people that don't much like the bishop they've got, maybe it's also OK to have a special lack of bishop for people who don't much like any bishops.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

As a minor tangent, there was a Presbyterian Church of Ireland minister who was posted to northern India in the 1960s and 1970s, and retired back to Ulster as a CNI bishop. Perhaps the best solution, and one avoiding internal CoS disputes, would be to ship the Kirk's ministers, one by one, to India to serve as bishops, and then return.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, Alan Cresswell and some of those Covenanters weren't averse to dealing death TO Bishops either ...

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/musa/see/starobjects/themurderofarchbishopsharpe/

Which isn't to let the Establishment off the hook when it comes to the execution of Covenanters at Wigtown - two women, by drowning - and elsewhere.

On the bishops thing, most non-episcopal churches have bishops in my experience -- they either aren't aware of it or are in denial ...

[Biased]

Or they call them something else ...

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Mr Cheesy asks how the Church of South India managed to get episcopal governance past the Presbyterians there. They weren't SCOTTISH Presbyterians.

I know a woman who was a presbyter in the Church of South India (of Scottish Presbyterian background) Here in Scotland she would not think of presiding at the eucharist in a Scottish Episcopal church.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

And of course there are some individuals within the Church of Scotland who are thought to act like bishops or even archbishops without having the authority to do so. [Snigger]

Sorry, bit heretical that, must be Christmas Eve stress getting to me. But these are many in struggling presbyteries who would not be opposed to bishops at all, so long as the burden of doing too many other things besides ministry was taken from ministerial shoulders

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... and a little closer reading indicates that the author from the CofE side was Bishop of Chester Peter Forster, known homophobe and climate change denier, renowned for opposing the appointment of Jeffrey John to Reading and for telling gay people to seek psychiatric help.

Yes, I noticed that. He's a piece of work, isn't he. Was this his pet project? If so, then he's probably showing his true colours.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one answer that would be agreeable to Prebyterian and Episcopalian alike. They need a committee.

Quotes file.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.

I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude

This brief statement from the SEC today suggests not.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Indeed. Judging by some of the comments I've seen elsewhere, no-one in the SEC can work out who in the SEC was actually consulted....

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.

I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude
This brief statement from the SEC today suggests not.

Sir Humphrey Appleby could have drafted that. A satement which is quite cordial, but which nevertheless makes it quite clear how annoyed they are.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Alan Cresswell and some of those Covenanters weren't averse to dealing death TO Bishops either ...

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/musa/see/starobjects/themurderofarchbishopsharpe/

Which isn't to let the Establishment off the hook when it comes to the execution of Covenanters at Wigtown - two women, by drowning - and elsewhere.

On the bishops thing, most non-episcopal churches have bishops in my experience -- they either aren't aware of it or are in denial ...

Or they call them something else ...

Around here (The Presbyterian Church in Canada) the presbytery is often considered to be the bishop, which doesn't stop people muttering, "We need a bishop," when indecision and procrastination set in. (This makes me about 1/60 of a bishop...)

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As a minor tangent, there was a Presbyterian Church of Ireland minister who was posted to northern India in the 1960s and 1970s, and retired back to Ulster as a CNI bishop. Perhaps the best solution, and one avoiding internal CoS disputes, would be to ship the Kirk's ministers, one by one, to India to serve as bishops, and then return.

Ah, the Curry Connection. [Big Grin]

Had the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada ever pulled off the merger discussed in the 1970's, I thought this would be a good solution to the "problem" of mutual recognition of ordinations.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.

I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude
This brief statement from the SEC today suggests not.

Oh dear, maybe the C of E didn't really consult the Episcopal Church which if true seems to be a sad and serious error of judgement.

I guess it's now a case of watch this space.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the bishops thing, most non-episcopal churches have bishops in my experience -- they either aren't aware of it or are in denial ...

Or they call them something else ...
Around here (The Presbyterian Church in Canada) the presbytery is often considered to be the bishop, which doesn't stop people muttering, "We need a bishop," when indecision and procrastination set in. (This makes me about 1/60 of a bishop...)

Yes, presbytery is often understood as a "corporate" bishop. During the Consultation on Church Union talks in the U.S., the Presbyterians maintained that a commission of presbytery at ordinations served the role of the bishop in ordination in other traditions.

There is also a strand of a Reformed/Presbyterian ecclesiology that understands the minister of Word and Sacrament to be a bishop, and that understands the three-fold orders of ministry—episcopate (minister/pastor), presbyteriate (elders), and diaconate—to be present in every congregation. (Or at least potentially present, as some smaller congregations choose to not have deacons.) Of course, the word "bishop" was rarely used, though for many, many years there was language in American Books of Order describing the minister as "bishop."

I have no idea whether this understanding is encountered much in the Church of Scotland. In the PC(USA), it likely would unfamiliar to the average person in the pews, but it regularly comes into play in ecumenical discussions.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

You do all already realise that within Europe there is already interchangeability of Reformed and Lutheran Clerics? Actually we are in full communion. The agreement is called Leuenberg .

Jengie

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You do all already realise that within Europe there is already interchangeability of Reformed and Lutheran Clerics? Actually we are in full communion. The agreement is called Leuenberg .

Jengie

Not all Lutheran churches are part of that agreement, and I don't know how the ones that are handle the issue of episcopal ordination.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I like to think of each Church of Scotland parish minister as the 'teaching elder' which is the same as the Catholic bishop.

The teaching elder is surrounded by his 'ruling elders' or presbyters, just like the presbyters (priests) of the Catholic bishop. As far as I know the 'elders' will have been ordained by the minister for work within his parish, just as the Catholic 'elders'or presbyters will have been ordained by the bishop or teaching elder for work within the diocese.

A minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be ordained until he has been appointed to a charge/parish, just as a Catholic bishop cannot be ordained without a diocese to serve (or at the very least a titular diocese.

I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.

Of course there are many differences also particularly with the 'ruling' idea of the 'ruling' elders I may be quite wrong but is not the minister in charge of the teaching of the Gospel and the conduct of the worship,but the elders have real power over the temporal affairs of the parish ?

In the Catholic world it is really only Italy where there is a separate diocese for virtually every city and town,almost like some Church of Scotland parishes with a few outlying centres for worship. Otherwise Catholic bishops tend to be 'teaching elders' for much wider area.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.

I think that for a minority of elders and parishoners you would likely cause heads to explode by suggesting it.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The Session has the "Real Authority" when it comes to spiritual matters, as any decision the Minister takes on changing worship, marrying couples, baptisms etc. have to be approved by the Session.

Or as one UCCan church chair put it: "You (the minister) are the Wandering Willie who is here for at best a few years. I am here for decades. I was here when you came, and I will be here when you leave. Remember that."

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You do all already realise that within Europe there is already interchangeability of Reformed and Lutheran Clerics? Actually we are in full communion. The agreement is called Leuenberg .

Jengie
Not all Lutheran churches are part of that agreement, and I don't know how the ones that are handle the issue of episcopal ordination.

Ah but that is an internal Lutheran issue. Not all Lutherans have sucession. It is regarded as the Pauline stance on circumcision. If you have it do not seek to do away with it; if you do not do not seek to obtain it.

This is part of what makes the Anglican usage of "catholic" so exceptional. It is on something all other traditions treat as peripheral.

Jengie

[ 26. December 2015, 20:53: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I like to think of each Church of Scotland parish minister as the 'teaching elder' which is the same as the Catholic bishop.

'Teaching Elder' is one way of thinking about the role of the minister, but not the only way. It is not even necessarily the most common way, although I think it is more dominant a concept in North American Presbyterian circles. The title means that the minister holds a particular responsibility for the teaching of the apostolic faith. But they also have a sacramental role which 'teaching elder' doesn't quite cover. Moreover, the minister serves as Moderator (chair) of the Kirk Session (the local church elders), and does not vote in decisions, although the minister do have a casting vote if there is a tie, should they choose to use it.

quote:
The teaching elder is surrounded by his* 'ruling elders' or presbyters, just like the presbyters (priests) of the Catholic bishop.

*or her.

quote:
A minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be ordained until he* has been appointed to a charge/parish, just as a Catholic bishop cannot be ordained without a diocese to serve (or at the very least a titular diocese.

Not quite. This is mostly the case, but ministers can be ordained by a Presbytery to an army chaplaincy role, for example. There is also a tradition dating back to Calvin of ministers being ordained to teaching in the academy, although this has fallen pretty much into disuse in Scotland these days. An Ordained Local Minister is a new-ish non-stipendary role, and these OLMs are ordained to the Presbytery, and not to a particular congregation.

quote:
I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.

The analogy might be useful when trying to explain how we work to an Anglican or Roman Catholic. But it is not an analogy we generally use among ourselves. We ministers really and truly do not understand ourselves as bishops – it's your explanation of who we are, not ours. And the trouble with the analogy, is that it breaks down when we try to explain where Presbyteries fit in. I myself have often explained a Presbytery as “like a diocese”, and I think that analogy works better. As Stercus Tauri suggests above, Presbytery can be thought of as a 'corporate bishop'.

quote:
Of course there are many differences also particularly with the 'ruling' idea of the 'ruling' elders I may be quite wrong but is not the minister in charge of the teaching of the Gospel and the conduct of the worship, but the elders have real power over the temporal affairs of the parish ?

That's about right. SPK suggests that in the United Church of Canada, the elders also have charge over worship. Not so in the Church of Scotland. Here, the conduct of worship is entirely the minister's affair. However, the elders do decide who gets to partake in the sacraments of baptism and communion, and who is admitted to membership of the church. And whatever the history, the elders don't really get a say in whom the minister marries. Although they could certainly refuse permission for a wedding in their church building (and this could well happen if equal marriage becomes a possibility in the CofS at some point), the minister can conduct a wedding anywhere in the parish without permission being needed. If this became a disciplinary matter, it would be at Presbytery level, and not at the Kirk Session.

Hope that helps clarify some things. I appreciate as always, Forthview, the efforts you have made to understand how we work, and the respect which you accord us.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I like to think of each Church of Scotland parish minister as the 'teaching elder' which is the same as the Catholic bishop.

The teaching elder is surrounded by his 'ruling elders' or presbyters, just like the presbyters (priests) of the Catholic bishop. As far as I know the 'elders' will have been ordained by the minister for work within his parish, just as the Catholic 'elders'or presbyters will have been ordained by the bishop or teaching elder for work within the diocese.

A minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be ordained until he has been appointed to a charge/parish, just as a Catholic bishop cannot be ordained without a diocese to serve (or at the very least a titular diocese.

I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.

That is certainly the understanding—and the terminology ("teaching elders" and "ruling elders")—that holds in American Presbyterianism.

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Session has the "Real Authority" when it comes to spiritual matters, as any decision the Minister takes on changing worship, marrying couples, baptisms etc. have to be approved by the Session.

Yes to some extent, but some further explanation is probably needed.

The Session is the council consisting of the ruling elders and the teaching elder(s). A teaching elder always presides, or "moderates," as we say. If a congregation is without a pastor, presbytery will appoint a teaching elder to moderate the Session.

Yes, generally speaking, Session has responsibility for the spiritual life of the congregation, including worship (and the space for worship) and provision for administration of the sacraments. So in the ecclessiological understanding Forthview and I have been describing, the spiritual life of the congregation is in the care of the teaching elder and the ruling elders gathered with him or her. (Temporal matters, such as the budget, are also part of Session's responsibility.)

And still, there are some matters that are in the pervue of the teaching elder alone, without Session input or approval. These include the content of worship, including the prayers, hymns, Scripture readings (many will follow the lectionary, but doing so is voluntary) and, of course, the sermon. It would also include whether or not to marry a couple—that decision is solely up to the minister. Session's decision is for policies on use of the church for weddings. This is being played out in PC(USA) congregations right now, as it is a minister's decision whether or not to preside at the wedding of a same-sex couple, but the Session's decision on whether such a wedding may be held in the church.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
'Teaching Elder' is one way of thinking about the role of the minister, but not the only way. It is not even necessarily the most common way, although I think it is more dominant a concept in North American Presbyterian circles. The title means that the minister holds a particular responsibility for the teaching of the apostolic faith. But they also have a sacramental role which 'teaching elder' doesn't quite cover.

"Teaching elder" is indeed the constitutional term here, and is widely used. For almost 30 years, the constitutional term was "minister of Word and Sacrament," but a recent revision of The Book of Order has brought back "teaching elder" and "ruling elder."

quote:
We ministers really and truly do not understand ourselves as bishops – it's your explanation of who we are, not ours. And the trouble with the analogy, is that it breaks down when we try to explain where Presbyteries fit in. I myself have often explained a Presbytery as “like a diocese”, and I think that analogy works better. As Stercus Tauri suggests above, Presbytery can be thought of as a 'corporate bishop'.

One would rarely hear a minister here describe him-or herself as a bishop, except perhaps in a more learned discussion on polity. But as I said it was in The Book of Order for many, many years, and I suspect many if not most ministers, particularly older ones, would be very familiar with the concept.

One frequently hears the presbytery-diocese comparison here, and the "corporate bishop" description, but usually as a helpful analogy for Catholics and Anglicans. Those who really go for the "minister=bishop" concept will typically posit that in the early church, the bishop, with the gathered presbyters, oversaw the church in a given place, and that it was only as the church grew that presbyters were given authority over the assemblies that grew out of the original assembly, while the bishop maintained authority over the gathered assemblies. So, they would say, the Session in the congregation is analogous to the bishop and presbyters in the early church, while the presbytery is analogous to dioceses as they have developed in the Catholic and Anglican churches.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

I'm seeing pond similarities and pond differences, Nick Tamen. [Smile]

'Bishop' is not a term I've ever come across to describe a minister in any of our books of Order, and we simply don't use it. I think it could be found in some Biblical Studies discussions, but that's about it. Probably something to do with the Covenanters!

I didn't realise you had reverted to 'teaching elder'. Do you know why that was? It is very much 'Minister of Word and Sacrament' here, with no movement to change it. But I recognise a lot of the rest of what you say as understanding and practice here.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Come, brothers and sisters, let us repay the Anglicans for all those bishops and tat threads tenfold! [Devil]

In the United Church of Canada, the Session has responsibility for "Public Worship" according to the Manual.

The Minister is also the chair of the Board of Trustees.

"Temporal Matters" are left to the Stewards and Trustees. In newer congregational models, everyone is an Elder but not in the classic one from 1925.

The minister often delegates his chair position to a Chair of Session, which I had the honour of being for a time at a past congregation.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I'm seeing pond similarities and pond differences, Nick Tamen. 'Bishop' is not a term I've ever come across to describe a minister in any of our books of Order, and we simply don't use it. I think it could be found in some Biblical Studies discussions, but that's about it. Probably something to do with the Covenanters!

FWIW, Chapter 3 of the Form of Government in our first Book of Order (1789) began:

quote:
The pastoral office is the first, in the church, both for dignity and usefulness. The person who fills this office, hath, in the Scripture, obtained different names expressive of his various duties. As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed bishop. As he feeds them with spiritual food, he is termed pastor. As he serves Christ in his church, he is termed minister....

I don't know if there was a prior source for this language, but it remained in American Presbyterian Forms of Government until 1957 for the "northern" church, when the PCUSA and the United Presbyterian Church in North America joined to form the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. The "southern" church kept it until the 1983 reunion of the two churches. It was put back into the PC(USA) Form of Government in 2001, mainly for ecumenical reasons. It was lost again in 2011, with an extensive revision and streamlining of the Form of Government. It can still be found in the Books of Order of some other American Presbyterian bodies.

quote:
I didn't realise you had reverted to 'teaching elder'. Do you know why that was? It is very much 'Minister of Word and Sacrament' here, with no movement to change it.

i don't want to go too far afield of the thread topic. I've figured that discussion of Presbyterian understanding of the office of bishop is relevant to the Columba Agreement, and have offered an American understanding to the extent it may be relevant to a CofS understanding, The history of "teaching elder" may go a bit further afield, though.

So I'll try to give the short answer: Concern for recognizing parity among elders, something that I understand is emphasized more here than in Scotland. More can be found here. Some did not favor the reversion because it doesn't speak to the sacramental role of the minister.

There was also some concern that the post-1983 use of "elder" only for ruling elders ignored the fact that ministers of Word and Sacrament are also elders. (The post-1983 usage was "presbyters" as the term for both ministers and elders.)

But I should note that the terms "teaching" and "ruling elder" are really only used in official and semi-official contexts. Everyday use is "minister" and "elder."

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This I don't really understand - the Church of South India has bishops, doesn't it? How did they manage to get that past the Presbyterians?

Also it seems that Methodists in the UK don't like Bishops, even though the title is widely used by Methodists in other parts of the world. I've never really understood that either.

It might have sweetened the pill that one of the first CSI bishops was a Kirk minister. (Also, while somewhat anomalous, the term itself at least has some precedent in the C of S).

Methodists in Canada dispensed with episcopacy in the 1880s when, inter alia, the (British) Wesleyans and (American) Methodist Episcopalians united to form a national Methodist Church - which would later fold with (again among others), Congregationalists and a majority of Presbyterians (themselves reunited in the 1870s from the Disruption) to form SPK's own United Church.

[ 27. December 2015, 03:33: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The British strain was the dominant one, I might add, though of the four churches in the Methodist reunion, (the Bible Christian Church, the Wesleyan Methodists, the Methodist Episcopals and the Primitive Methodists), three were bishopless.

The CSI was based on the same principle that animated the 1925 Canadian union, each parent had to give up a little of its heritage and got to pass on a little of its heritage. As with Canada, the seams in the CSI healed almost too well.

The CSI also created an A and a B list of clergy. A list clergy were Anglican-ordained and could go anywhere, B list clergy were non-espicopally ordained and could not move into a former Anglican congregation without the permission of that congregation. That permission was freely and frequently given as there was a thirty year period of "reunion" where everyone would continue to use their own heritage worship patterns, and everyone would grow together while the divinity schools pumped out A-list ordinands.

It appears to have worked.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

So what exactly keeps us (CofE) and the Methodists apart, should we and the Kirk sign up to the commitment to 'enable ordained ministers from one of our churches to exercise ministry in the other church, in accordance with the discipline of each church?'

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Therein lies the rub, because the phrase "according to the discipline of each church" is the get out clause. As a Methodist minister, there are various ministries I can exercise in the CofE, assuming I am invited to do so, for example preaching (as I will be doing in a few weeks' time). However, because I am not (as the CofE understands it) episcopally ordained, I couldn't normally preside at the Eucharist in a CofE church and were I ever to become part of the CoFE my ordination would not be transferable. Resolving the interchangeability question is where the Anglican Methodist Covenant has got stuck. In theory, the CofE and the Methodist Church have now committed ourselves to resolving it but I don't see how it can happen really, short of one side or other giving up a great deal.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

I get that, so nothing's changed, really. Presbyterian ministers etc are not really allowed or invited to do more than they already are able to do.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I am always impressed when I go to a Presbyterian Communion service and I see the minister and her elders around the Holy Table.The elders then distribute Communion to the parishioners( or at least that is how I have seen it done).

It reminds me of the occasions when I see our teaching elder (the bishop) surrounded by his presbyters who will then bring Communion to the faithful.

It makes me think that,at that moment when we cannot actually share Communion,we are indeed acting in the same fashion.

Of course the Presbyterian minister is not only the 'teaching elder' but also responsible for Word and Sacrament.That is also the role of the bishop who is the chief pastor of the faithful committed to his charge as well as the initiator of all the sacraments administered in his diocese.
The presbyters are his delegates and administer the sacraments in his name.

Sorry about not saying 'his' or 'her' when referring to Presbyterians.I thought it was a given.

One of my favourite Christmas services is the one that I go to in the German Lutheran church here.
This year there is a new ministerial couple (one man and one woman) who share the pastoral work covering Edinburgh,Glasgow,Aberdeen,Newcastle and Middlesbrough. The Pastorin (female minister) took the service in Edinburgh with her young son clambering around the altar with his toy car.

I wondered what that might be like in a Catholic church some day.I can only remember the big cat which used to participate regularly in the services in St Patrick's church in the Cowgate wandering around the sanctuary.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I am always impressed when I go to a Presbyterian Communion service and I see the minister and her elders around the Holy Table.The elders then distribute Communion to the parishioners

Also the "usual" way among Baptists, United Reformed Church and - I guess - Congregationalists.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

Bishop David Chillingworth, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, has blogged this morning about the Columba Declaration (with another blog to follow by the looks of things): blog post.

Interestingly, the day that the declaration was announced, someone from the CoS who was involved in it was interviewed on Radio Scotland and was asked about the whole independence/strengthening the UK in the aftermath of the referendum angle, and denied it was anything to do with that at all. However, I think that Bishop David is onto something here with his observations, regardless of what eventually happens constitutionally in Scotland.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting observations.

Even as a non-Scot, I've been wondering why the CofE seems to think it has some 'stake' in what Scottish churches do.

I'm trying to think of a Welsh or Northern Irish equivalent.

It'd be like the CofE coming to some kind of agreement with Welsh Independents, say, without consulting the Church in Wales, or with one or other of the Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland without involving the Church of Ireland.

Such moves strike me as 'unthinkable' - so why do they think they have such a right in Scotland?

It doesn't make any sense.

I must own up to feeling a tad defensive whenever I hear US Episcopalians, for instance, expressing disapproval of the dear old CofE ... but if she acts like this with them as well as a fellow Anglican church north of the border, it does make me wonder what the heck is going on and who the hell they think they are?

[Confused]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Is it just me who is confused?

In the past 18 months the CofE has begun a process of bishops depriving ordained clergy and licensed lay readers of office if they are in a SSM. This decision is a top-down one and any change to it has to also come from top-down procedures.

Meanwhile the CofS has decided that presbyteries are adult enough to make up their own mind and so left them to it.

Furthermore, the way of arriving at these decisions is fundamentally different but can be crudely summarised as follows:

The CofE commissioned a report which one of the commission then rejected. So the CofE has now broadly gone along with the objections of one bishop in its decision to deprive clergy and readers of the opportunity to minister because they have decided to back-down in the face of blackmail from one small wing of the church.
The CofS, having received a report from a commission that was guaranteed to alienate the vast majority of the unchurched, and plenty within the church, decided to give congregations the authority to decide on whether or not to accept ministers insame-sex relationships (marriage or other). In other words, the middle-of-the-road decided to face-down the more extreme fundamentalists.

And we're told that now is the ideal time for the two churches to get closer? [Confused]

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is it just me who is confused?

In the past 18 months the CofE has begun a process of bishops depriving ordained clergy and licensed lay readers of office if they are in a SSM. This decision is a top-down one and any change to it has to also come from top-down procedures.

Meanwhile the CofS has decided that presbyteries are adult enough to make up their own mind and so left them to it.

Furthermore, the way of arriving at these decisions is fundamentally different but can be crudely summarised as follows:
The CofE commissioned a report which one of the commission then rejected. So the CofE has now broadly gone along with the objections of one bishop in its decision to deprive clergy and readers of the opportunity to minister because they have decided to back-down in the face of blackmail from one small wing of the church.
The CofS, having received a report from a commission that was guaranteed to alienate the vast majority of the unchurched, and plenty within the church, decided to give congregations the authority to decide on whether or not to accept ministers insame-sex relationships (marriage or other). In other words, the middle-of-the-road decided to face-down the more extreme fundamentalists.

And we're told that now is the ideal time for the two churches to get closer?

Hmmm. I am possibly walking into a storm here.

Firstly, the question of how gay people are treated by the Church is not an unimportant one to me. Nor is the way authority is exercised in the Church unimportant.

But. Really? As far as I am aware, both Church of England and Church of Scotland have far more in common than separates them. Like faith in Jesus Christ, and a common desire to make Him known to a world which is largely indifferent to Him.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I would have thought that the crucial problems in any association between the two denominations would be over Episcopacy and their respective national statuses (i.e. Establishment), not SSM.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

Here's Bishop David Chillingworth's second blog post about the Declaration: blog post 2.

The whole thing just seems monumentally poorly thought-out and executed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And plain bad manners on the part of the C of E.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
The whole thing just seems monumentally poorly thought-out and executed.

That does, sadly, seem to just about sum all this up. I wonder if, as has been suggested earlier, it is a pet project of the Bishop of Chester, driven forward without thought for the wider ramifications?

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

My charitable hope is that somewhere in the CofE there is someone who was involved in this now saying "Shit, we forgot the SEC! How did we forget the SEC?!" Rather than that it was a deliberate thing. I've no idea though whether I am being naive to assume that it was incompetence/ineptitude rather than something more deliberately exclusionary.

Incidentally, other than official/semi-official sources such as Bishop David's blog, and friends and acquaintances in the SEC, I am seeing pretty much nothing about the Declaration online from either CoS or CoE sources (although admittedly I'm not very well up on where/whether CoS discussions about this sort of thing take place online). There is though ongoing discussion on Thinking Anglicans.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Jack the Lass - this does have the whiff of cock up, rather than conspiracy, about it. My guess is that in their enthusiasm for a fellow National Church the CofE people involved simply forgot about the SEC.

Sadly the SEC has had rather a history of being forgotten

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Well, not entirely forgotten, they just forgot what the SEC was called and forgot to actually speak to anyone in it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cock-up or not - it's still a shameful thing for them to have done.

Shame on you, CofE! Shame! Shame!

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Jack the Lass - this does have the whiff of cock up, rather than conspiracy, about it. My guess is that in their enthusiasm for a fellow National Church the CofE people involved simply forgot about the SEC.

Sadly the SEC has had rather a history of being forgotten

Why do you think there are ongoing conversations between the URC and SEC. We are not talking about merger but how you deal with being overlooked.

Jengie

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Glad you mentioned that, JJ. I don't think anyone has mentioned a sort of equivalent of SEC in England- in the sense of being a sort of English equivalent of the Church of Scotland in England.

That is, if we see the SEC as a sort of equivalent of the CofE in Scotland.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Jack the Lass - this does have the whiff of cock up, rather than conspiracy, about it. My guess is that in their enthusiasm for a fellow National Church the CofE people involved simply forgot about the SEC.

Sadly the SEC has had rather a history of being forgotten
Why do you think there are ongoing conversations between the URC and SEC. We are not talking about merger but how you deal with being overlooked.

Jengie

Not so much Ecumenical discussion as Group Therapy, isn't it?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Precisely. Or how does a dissident form cope with a dominant form so close at hand.

There is a substantial part of Christians in the UK who will go with the national church rather than with a particular tradition, not just the Queen.

Jengie

[ 31. December 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

For those with more Ecumenical agreement then this declaration may be of more interest.

Jengie

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Any chance of a better-than-google translation of the gist, Eutychus?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Not really.

The page Jengie links to explains that the recently-merged église réformée (presbyterian) and Lutheran churches are to adopt a joint declaration of faith, which in true église réformée style is to be discussed at every level starting from the grassroots up. The draft declaration is to be found here.

The union of those two churches to create the Eglise Protestante Unie de France (EPUdF) was a lengthy process but not especially controversial.

(It is currently paling into insignificance compared to the seismic consequences of the EPUdF having consented to bless same-sex marriages, a resolution passed in their general synod that has led, unexpectedly, to a "Reform" style movement emerging within the EPUdF and which is seriously threatening the broader Protestant Federation to which it belongs. It's all very depressing).

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Eh? By way of counterpoint, the United Church of Canada, under the guise of L'Eglise Unie du Canada covers Quebec in the small world that is French Protestantism. Even by liberal United Church standards, Consistoire Laurentiene is very liberal and very Affirming.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

This is getting to be rather a tangent, but here's some info:

Broadly and historically, the EPUdF is liberal and affirming (or at least that's the evangelical perspective on it), but the SSM-blessing vote has galvanised the more conservative opponents within its ranks, whose numbers are quite possibly on the rise as the 1968 generation retires (and perhaps swelled by the arrival of the Lutherans).

The same issue is also being seized on by evangelicals within the French Protestant Federation, which the EPUdF dominates, as a "last straw" to quit in favour of the much more recent, conservative and evangelical National Council of Evangelicals in France (CNEF). While some may be pushing this way on grounds of conscience, my perspective is that there's a lot of political opportunism afoot, and that such a split is wholly dumb and ignorant of history, regardless of how one feels about the issue.

The divisions look like they might be serious enough to compromise planned celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation next year.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Eh? By way of counterpoint, the United Church of Canada, under the guise of L'Eglise Unie du Canada covers Quebec in the small world that is French Protestantism. Even by liberal United Church standards, Consistoire Laurentiene is very liberal and very Affirming.

Curiously, there is a francophone continuing Presbyterian congregation about a ten minute bus ride from me.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

As a footnote, here is Jezebel's Trumpet on the Columba Declaration and the SEC's pissed-offness at it: Church Times

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

From that article, it does appear that the Scottish Episcopal Church was involved in the conversations, rather than that it had only discovered they had been going on when lo the Declaration suddenly appeared.

This statement,

quote:
"Bishop Chillingworth said that the Declaration would cause "real difficulty" in the relationship between his Church and the C of E.

Would English Anglicans who visited Scotland now be assumed to worship in Church of Scotland parishes rather than the SEC, he asked."

pinpoints a dilemma that an ordinary member of the CofE has when they visit Scotland or look at it.

The answer partly depends on one's ecclesiology. If one asks, 'which Protestant church in Scotland has apostolic succession in the standard CofE model?', the answer is the SEC. If one asks, 'which Protestant church is the linear descendant of St Columba and those who first evangelised Scotland, and is the default church in Scotland, the 'normal' form of religious expression of Christians in Scotland?', the answer is the Church of Scotland.

If one is Queen Elizabeth II, of course, the answer is straightforward.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The answer partly depends on one's ecclesiology. If one asks, 'which Protestant church in Scotland has apostolic succession in the standard CofE model?', the answer is the SEC. If one asks, 'which Protestant church is the linear descendant of St Columba and those who first evangelised Scotland, and is the default church in Scotland, the 'normal' form of religious expression of Christians in Scotland?', the answer is the Church of Scotland. .

I think it's more simple than that. Most ordinary churchgoers wouldn't know or care about 'apostolic succession' or even St Columba, but they know the sort of worship they are familiar with. And for most English Anglicans that is (still) the Eucharist on Sunday mornings, which is what they are likely to get in the SEC and less likely to in the C of S. Of course, evangelicals, charismatic or otherwise, might feel more at home in the C of S (though I don't know, isn't it generally less conservative than anglican con-evos?). But generally speaking the SEC is familiar territory and the C of S less so.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

In my experience, where people go to church has a lot to do with simple geography. There are many more Church of Scotland churches than SEC churches, particularly in rural areas. People who value being part of a parish or village church often choose the local Church of Scotland rather than travel the miles to their nearest SEC church. This also means they can tap into the whole community aspect of church, which is hard to do when the church is 15 miles away, and no one else from your community goes there. They may well miss the weekly communion, but find they can live with that. Sometimes they become full members of the Church of Scotland; sometimes they become adherents, and attend for the rest of their lives without actually ever joining the church. In cases of the latter, the absence of an episcopacy would probably be a deciding factor.

Equally, from my time living in various parts of England, I would go to a URC church if one was close by and at all congenial. Failing that, I would try the Methodists. But sometimes neither of these options was available - and I didn't have a car at the time - so out of my 7 years south of the border, I spent two of them at two different Churches of England. I missed the kind of sermon I was used to, but found I could live with that. If I had stayed there, perhaps I would have attended one of those churches for the rest of my life. But I would never have become a member of the Church of England, as that would mean some kind of declaration of loyalty to the bishop, which I could not in conscience do.

Given that practical reality, I am quite glad the CofE and the CofS are talking (among other things) about how to care for such exiles.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But I would never have become a member of the Church of England, as that would mean some kind of declaration of loyalty to the bishop, which I could not in conscience do.

I really don't think it would. A C of E confirmation certainly requires you to affirm your faith in Christ, but there's no kind of loyalty pledge to the Bishop involved.

If you want to be ordained in the C of E, you need to take an oath of obedience to your Bishop. There's no such requirement for the laity.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From that article, it does appear that the Scottish Episcopal Church was involved in the conversations, rather than that it had only discovered they had been going on when lo the Declaration suddenly appeared.

What I've been reading suggests that the SEC withdrew from the negotiations because they had problems with what was being proposed, and the CofE and CofS just ignored them and carried on doing their own thing, which is why the declaration has come as a surprise. The claim that the SEC knew what was going on (with the implication that the shock is feigned) comes from one of the authors of the declaration, the aforementioned notorious bigot, the Bishop of Chester.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
What I've been reading suggests that the SEC withdrew from the negotiations because they had problems with what was being proposed, and the CofE and CofS just ignored them and carried on doing their own thing, which is why the declaration has come as a surprise. The claim that the SEC knew what was going on (with the implication that the shock is feigned) comes from one of the authors of the declaration, the aforementioned notorious bigot, the Bishop of Chester.

If you withdraw from something, you can hardly grumble when you don't have any influence on what happens after you've gone, or those you've withdrawn from go in a direction you don't like. It's like those that think an election is somehow less valid if they protest by refusing to vote in it.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But I would never have become a member of the Church of England, as that would mean some kind of declaration of loyalty to the bishop, which I could not in conscience do.
I really don't think it would. A C of E confirmation certainly requires you to affirm your faith in Christ, but there's no kind of loyalty pledge to the Bishop involved.

If you want to be ordained in the C of E, you need to take an oath of obedience to your Bishop. There's no such requirement for the laity.

Okay, thanks. Though the latter problem would probably have arisen. [Biased]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
What I've been reading suggests that the SEC withdrew from the negotiations because they had problems with what was being proposed, and the CofE and CofS just ignored them and carried on doing their own thing, which is why the declaration has come as a surprise. The claim that the SEC knew what was going on (with the implication that the shock is feigned) comes from one of the authors of the declaration, the aforementioned notorious bigot, the Bishop of Chester.
If you withdraw from something, you can hardly grumble when you don't have any influence on what happens after you've gone, or those you've withdrawn from go in a direction you don't like. It's like those that think an election is somehow less valid if they protest by refusing to vote in it.

On the otherhand, if you're asked to participate and your concerns and questions are ignored while the other parties continue on as though you weren't present, then IMO you have plenty of grounds for complaint. And, it's not unreasonable to consider continuing to be present a waste of time that would be better spent on other things. It's a bit like considering an election invalid if you vote and someone decides not to even open the ballot boxes from your polling station.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you want to be ordained in the C of E, you need to take an oath of obedience to your Bishop. There's no such requirement for the laity.

Unless you are a Licensed Lay Minister.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

It's genetic. It's the same as when the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada discussed merging in the 1970's, there were a disturbing number of bad backs and arthritic knees observed in United Church members.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?

Well, why is the very mention of having no bishops like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of England/SEC?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?
Well, why is the very mention of having no bishops like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of England/SEC?

Because we believe that the apostolic succession is part and parcel of the validity of the sacraments, that ordination to the priesthood established by the apostles involves the laying on of hands by one or more bishops who themselves have been consecrated in succession to the first apostles, in line with the practice of the church in both east and west as far back as we have clear records.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We believe that the apostolic succession is part and parcel of the validity of the sacraments, that ordination to the priesthood established by the apostles involves the laying on of hands by one or more bishops who themselves have been consecrated in succession to the first apostles, in line with the practice of the church in both east and west as far back as we have clear records.

I would say that some of you believe that but lots either don't or have never thought of it. For I'm sure that the Evangelicals would say that what is important is an unbroken line of teaching, not ordination; while other people will simply have gone to a CofE church because it's local, or because they like it.I contend that you are indeed speaking for one part (?Anglo-Catholic) of the CofE but by no means for all of it.

Having said all that, and having been involved in ecumenical discussions over many years, it is an intense irritation to Nonconformists such as myself that, in conversations between denominations, it is always we who are expected to embrace Episcopacy while no concession is ever made in the opposite direction. Indeed, it makes us think that the Episcopal churches don't consider our churches to be "valid" nor our ministers truly ordained ... and we're not prepared to accept that.

Of course we will willingly respect bishops and their ilk. Indeed, we ourselves have supralocal leaders to whom we defer. But they are still primus inter pares and can (and do) revert to being "ordinary" ministers at the end of their term of office.

[ 13. January 2016, 21:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity, why is it that now, as bishops are now rather than as they were in the early C17, the very mention of bishops is still like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of Scotland?
Well, why is the very mention of having no bishops like a red rag to a bull to many people in the Church of England/SEC?
Because we believe that the apostolic succession is part and parcel of the validity of the sacraments, that ordination to the priesthood established by the apostles involves the laying on of hands by one or more bishops who themselves have been consecrated in succession to the first apostles, in line with the practice of the church in both east and west as far back as we have clear records.

See, I know all that. I know what you believe, and I respect it. And I bet you also know what we believe, and why. My point is, that Enoch's question comes from the assumption that having bishops is the default position. This assumption means it is up to those churches which don't have bishops to justify themselves to those who have. Similarly, up thread, there was also a comment from yourself about ecumenical discussions falling apart because "the Church of Scotland has made it clear that it will not accept Bishops". I could equally say that the discussions fell apart because "the SEC has made it clear that they will not give up bishops".

Can you see the point I am making? There is an attitude coming across sometimes that 'not having bishops' is a stubbornly-held error on our part, and a problem to be fixed, after which correction the Anglican Communion will gladly recognise our orders. That's just not how we see it.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

One of the challenges of the anti-bishop approach, which often has more to do with historical experiences than current realities, is that if it cannot somehow be worked out with the Anglicans (and it has been in India), then how on earth are we even going to be able to talk about structural reunion with the RCs & Orthodox? And their numbers and historical presence are such that they cannot be ignored forever.

SEC might perhaps be doing us all a service by being sticky at this point.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of the challenges of the anti-bishop approach ...

Again, you are reading the situation from the 'bishops-as-default' approach, so that everyone else is 'anti'. Having presbyteries instead of bishops is not a negative position for us; it is a positive doctrine and ecclesiology. For the sake of good ecumenical relations, you could, for example, try "pro-presbytery approach" or "pro-parity-of-ministers approach".

quote:
... which often has more to do with historical experiences than current realities ...

This is rather insulting to Presbyterians, who know their own history and their own current realities very well. Again, you are coming from a position where it is our task to get with the programme, and if we only examined our history and our current realities properly, we would accept bishops gladly and repent of holding out so long. That's not how it works.

quote:
... is that if it cannot somehow be worked out with the Anglicans (and it has been in India), then how on earth are we even going to be able to talk about structural reunion with the RCs & Orthodox?

Structural reunion is not the be-all and end-all of ecumenical discussion. Mutual recognition and acceptance might be more important, or at least, a vital step along the way. We already recognise the validity of Anglican ordination and eucharist. And we do this without asking you to change anything.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One of the challenges of the anti-bishop approach, which often has more to do with historical experiences than current realities, is that if it cannot somehow be worked out with the Anglicans (and it has been in India), then how on earth are we even going to be able to talk about structural reunion with the RCs & Orthodox? And their numbers and historical presence are such that they cannot be ignored forever.

SEC might perhaps be doing us all a service by being sticky at this point.

South India got chucked out of the Anglican Communion for its troubles as it took a gradualist mixing approach to orders instead going straight up. It was only readmitted in the 1960's.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
See, I know all that. I know what you believe, and I respect it. And I bet you also know what we believe, and why. My point is, that Enoch's question comes from the assumption that having bishops is the default position.

Thing is, as far as the universal church goes, bishops are the default position. Getting rid of bishops is an innovation that has to be justified. That's not to say it can't be justified. In all honesty I don't actually know what the CofS believes in terms of church governance. I know what the current structure is, I know that many of the reformers had no objection in principle to bishops even if they didn't share the traditional view of apostolic succession (some Anglican evangelicals are in that position) or the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
See, I know all that. I know what you believe, and I respect it. And I bet you also know what we believe, and why. My point is, that Enoch's question comes from the assumption that having bishops is the default position.
Thing is, as far as the universal church goes, bishops are the default position. Getting rid of bishops is an innovation that has to be justified.

I once met a trainee minister, who began (literally began!) our first conversation with, "How do you justify being a woman minister when scripture forbids it?" My reply then was that I didn't have to justify it, not to him, not to anyone. The Church had ordained me minister, and my ordination was his problem, not mine.

In the same way, our absence of bishops is your problem, not ours. It's how we are, and we are happy with it. We can justify our position to ourselves, and we don't have to justify ourselves to anyone else. Explain, yes - I will happily explain our polity to anyone who is genuinely interested, and who approaches ecumenical discussion with an openness to learning from each other. That way we can compare and contrast, find our common ground and our non-negotiables, and work things out from there in mutual respect. But we are under no obligation to justify our polity to anyone who starts from the position of, "We're right and you're wrong. You've got to change to fit in with us."

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

You don't owe anyone anything, but if you can't account for how dispensing with bishops is a legitimate local variation of polity that doesn't impair the substance of what the ministry and sacraments are, there's no point in getting exercised when "mutual recognition" is not forthcoming.

I'm afraid this is the very attitude which causes me to be wary of Protestantism: we can invent whatever structures we want and it's nobody's business but our own, because whose to say the only way it was done for the first 1500 years is any better than any other. It all rather smacks of teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs. If you are, as the Kirk (in my understanding) claims to be, a part of the church catholic, it is everyone's "problem".

Given how many Presbyterians died for conscience to confess their conviction that their teaching elders were not priests with the power to offer a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and to bind and loose sins, I would have thought it rather patronizing to say to them, "But of course it's all really the same thing" (not entirely unlike the trend in some newer calendars of saints to presume that the righteous of other faiths were "really" manifesting Christ unawares). So the outrage when Anglicans in general, or Anglo-Catholics in particular, do not do so catches me somewhat off guard.

It's all well and good to say "pro-presbytery" is a "positive" position. But Anglicans do have synods, and I'm not aware of any mainstream opposition to them in the past century. It's not a case of each having something the other lacks.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
You don't owe anyone anything, but if you can't account for how dispensing with bishops is a legitimate local variation of polity that doesn't impair the substance of what the ministry and sacraments are, there's no point in getting exercised when "mutual recognition" is not forthcoming.

But that assumes that Bishops, as we have them today, are the same as those in the very earliest expression of Church. Our position would be that the "strong" idea of Episcopacy grew up over a period, and what we today call "bishops" were originally nothing more than recognised translocal leaders in the style of Baptist Regional Ministers or Methodist Area Superintendents.

Therefore we would contend both that it is transmission of Apostolic teaching, rather than Episcopacy and ordination, which constitutes the "esse" and the Succession of the Church; and that it isn't so much a case of our churches dispensing with Bishops, but of churches such as yours in effect [I]creating[i/] them.

[ 14. January 2016, 16:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
You don't owe anyone anything, but if you can't account for how dispensing with bishops is a legitimate local variation of polity that doesn't impair the substance of what the ministry and sacraments are, there's no point in getting exercised when "mutual recognition" is not forthcoming.

Of course, "the substance of what the ministry and sacraments are" is something about which there is little consensus between different branches of the faith. Even within the good old CofE there would be a considerable spread of opinion about the nature of the sacraments and the role of ordained ministers within the life of the church, though the SEC would almost certainly have much more in common with the CofE on those questions than the CofS.

But, on the subject of "dispensing with bishops" within the context of apostolic succession then most non-episcopal churches do not have the individuals, but the role is still maintained. In most churches, when ministers are ordained there is a laying on of hands - not the hands of an individual called "bishop", but the hands of the other ordained ministers present. That "tactile succession" of authority to preach and administer sacraments is retained, but within the corporate body of all ordained ministers rather than a small number of individual ministers elevated above (or, perhaps more accurately set aside from) the rest.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Cottontail posts:

quote:
This is rather insulting to Presbyterians, who know their own history and their own current realities very well. Again, you are coming from a position where it is our task to get with the programme, and if we only examined our history and our current realities properly, we would accept bishops gladly and repent of holding out so long. That's not how it works.

Actually, I was not thinking of Presbyterians at all. I perhaps should have mentioned that this was from a few years of sitting in committees during the United Church of Canada/Anglican Church of Canada discussions. Some of the UCC interlocutors seemed to be speaking from the 19c, one even believing that the government paid bishops' salaries (I think that this stopped in the 1840s). Anglicans at the table had their own version of confused visions of the past, fixating on bishops being How Things Should Be Done. My contributions on Cyprian as a model for a vision of the role of a bishop were shaken off quickly. These discussions were my first real acquaintance with the unfortunate fact that decision makers often have no understanding of the past nor any notion what current realities might be.

Perhaps Scotland is more fortunate than Canada in this regard!

Cottontail perhaps puts too much into what I have written. It is not a matter of getting with the programme (although I might think that both the CoE and the CoS need to look at where they are going), but putting forward that a meeting of the minds in one way or the other needs to happen. I would agree that some form of recognition is a vital step, but it is only a first step. I referred to the CSI/CNI/CP example as a way of suggesting that the impossible can happen, and if we (i.e., Presbyterians and Anglicans) can't manage it, then how likely is it that we can begin to address far greater divides. I do not think that we should start by stating or restating the inevitability of failure, nor by seeking to reiterate problems rather than finding ways ahead.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

But, on the subject of "dispensing with bishops" within the context of apostolic succession then most non-episcopal churches do not have the individuals, but the role is still maintained. In most churches, when ministers are ordained there is a laying on of hands - not the hands of an individual called "bishop", but the hands of the other ordained ministers present. That "tactile succession" of authority to preach and administer sacraments is retained, but within the corporate body of all ordained ministers rather than a small number of individual ministers elevated above (or, perhaps more accurately set aside from) the rest.

The laying on of hands is certainly not universal within the Church of Scotland. My local CofS ordains elders without the laying on of hands, and indeed the book of common order does not even suggest it.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Cottontail posts:

quote:
This is rather insulting to Presbyterians, who know their own history and their own current realities very well. Again, you are coming from a position where it is our task to get with the programme, and if we only examined our history and our current realities properly, we would accept bishops gladly and repent of holding out so long. That's not how it works.
Actually, I was not thinking of Presbyterians at all. I perhaps should have mentioned that this was from a few years of sitting in committees during the United Church of Canada/Anglican Church of Canada discussions. Some of the UCC interlocutors seemed to be speaking from the 19c, one even believing that the government paid bishops' salaries (I think that this stopped in the 1840s). Anglicans at the table had their own version of confused visions of the past, fixating on bishops being How Things Should Be Done. My contributions on Cyprian as a model for a vision of the role of a bishop were shaken off quickly. These discussions were my first real acquaintance with the unfortunate fact that decision makers often have no understanding of the past nor any notion what current realities might be.

Perhaps Scotland is more fortunate than Canada in this regard!

Cottontail perhaps puts too much into what I have written. It is not a matter of getting with the programme (although I might think that both the CoE and the CoS need to look at where they are going), but putting forward that a meeting of the minds in one way or the other needs to happen. I would agree that some form of recognition is a vital step, but it is only a first step. I referred to the CSI/CNI/CP example as a way of suggesting that the impossible can happen, and if we (i.e., Presbyterians and Anglicans) can't manage it, then how likely is it that we can begin to address far greater divides. I do not think that we should start by stating or restating the inevitability of failure, nor by seeking to reiterate problems rather than finding ways ahead.

Uh, Augustine? Who do you think we got most of our structure from? It wasn't the Methodists. It was the Presbyterians.

My avatar, the Very Rev. Dr. George Pidgeon, served one year as Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and one year as the first United Church of Canada Moderator, to assert historic and institutional continuity.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

SPK posts:

quote:
Uh, Augustine? Who do you think we got most of our structure from? It wasn't the Methodists. It was the Presbyterians.

Indeed, that is so; I was commenting more on the attitude around structure than the structure itself.

The problematic-in-some-ways Plan of Union provided an interesting way of bringing episcopal and presbyteral polities together. If it had been brought forward ten years later, I think that the results might have been very different.

Still, the Columba Declaration was about two national churches declaring their intentions, and leaving the inconvenient entities out. As an observer of bureaucracies of various sorts over the years, I was not shocked.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I have never seen that Plan of Union. It isn't available online.

And you're talking at cross-purposes here, the United Church's attitude is the same as the Church of Scotland's, bishops are not necessary and while a church may opt for them, they are neither required nor essential.

And sadly, I do not share your optimism on the Plan of Union. The Great Sexuality Debate took off in the early 1980's in the UCCan and smothered other considerations.

Given what happened to TEC recently, I don't think the ACC would have put its relations with the Anglican Communion on the line to merge with the United Church.

And, dear friend, I rather hope I did not understand you to mean that the United Church of Canada is in some what NOT Presbyterian.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I would say that the UCC is presbyterian, but not Presbyterian.

Yes, the Plan of Union seems to have disappeared-- it was dreadful with page after page after page after page of district commissions and transitional provisions, but it had some interesting ideas in it. I daresay copies might be found in the effects of retired clerics.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

I did once manage to obtain a copy from my uni library as an undergraduate but it's been some years. I do seem to recall having the impression that the polity issues were papered over rather over-optimistically, but the general thrust of the trade-off seemed to be that the Anglicans would agree to the ordination of women and the United would agree to the ordination of bishops.

[Edit - this contemporary news article summarizes some provisions, including the creation of "diocesan presbyteries"!]

[ 15. January 2016, 09:20: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

But, on the subject of "dispensing with bishops" within the context of apostolic succession then most non-episcopal churches do not have the individuals, but the role is still maintained. In most churches, when ministers are ordained there is a laying on of hands - not the hands of an individual called "bishop", but the hands of the other ordained ministers present. That "tactile succession" of authority to preach and administer sacraments is retained, but within the corporate body of all ordained ministers rather than a small number of individual ministers elevated above (or, perhaps more accurately set aside from) the rest.
The laying on of hands is certainly not universal within the Church of Scotland. My local CofS ordains elders without the laying on of hands, and indeed the book of common order does not even suggest it.

The laying on of hands for the ordination of ministers is universal in the Church of Scotland. Elders are ordained, but not to Word and Sacrament - theirs is not an apostolic role as such.

And Alan is right: while we tend to think about apostolic succession more along the lines of right doctrine and teaching, nevertheless our ordinations are tactile. Moreover, given that we did not become two separate churches for a couple of generations after the Scottish Reformation, we can trace this tactile succession back to exactly the same ministers, priests and bishops as can the SEC.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:

The laying on of hands is certainly not universal within the Church of Scotland. My local CofS ordains elders without the laying on of hands, and indeed the book of common order does not even suggest it.
The laying on of hands for the ordination of ministers is universal in the Church of Scotland. Elders are ordained, but not to Word and Sacrament - theirs is not an apostolic role as such.

A tangent I suppose, but I find this very interesting. In all of the American Presbyterian churches with which I'm familiar, the laying on of hands (by ministers and elders) is universal for the ordination of ministers, elders and deacons. In the PC(USA) at least, it is required by the Directory for Worship. I wonder when and why we changed from the Scottish pattern.

But that explains why in the painting of "The Ordination of Elders in a Scottish Kirk," frequently seen over here (and given to me by my parents when I was ordained an elder), the elders are not kneeling and hands are not being laid on them.

[fixed code]

[ 15. January 2016, 13:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Would Laying-on of Hands been regarded as "popish"?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Would Laying-on of Hands been regarded as "popish"?

I have seen Baptist ministerial ordination done by the laying on of hands, but do not know if that alone answers your question.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

So have I - but, no, it doesn't answer it, as I was thinking of the Church of Scotland (past and present).

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
So have I - but, no, it doesn't answer it, as I was thinking of the Church of Scotland (past and present).

Sorry-- I was thinking of Protestant-general rather than CoS-specific. I've never been to a PCC or a CoS ordination.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

The Book of Common Worship for the continuing Presbyterian Church in* Canada has the following rubric under the ordination of Ministers of Word and Sacrament:

quote:
The Moderator, followed by other ministers, places a hand on the head of the ordinand

And for the ordination of ruling elders:

quote:
The minister places a hand on the head of each in turn, calling each by his or her Christian name.

I know that there is more freedom to improvise language around a common pattern of worship in the Reformed tradition (both of these services are "A" Service of Ordination), so I don't know know which elements would be obligatory or not.

[*As I learned in my denominational history course at Knox, they take the preposition seriously indeed.]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would say that the UCC is presbyterian, but not Presbyterian.

Just as the Churches of North and South India are anglican but not Anglican? [Roll Eyes]

No, it really is the same comparison, and I take strong exception to such a characterization.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would say that the UCC is presbyterian, but not Presbyterian.
Just as the Churches of North and South India are anglican but not Anglican?

No, it really is the same comparison, and I take strong exception to such a characterization.

Not sure why; presbyterian is polity-- a statement of fact about the UCC, Presbyterian is a denomination, just like the Presybterian Church of Canada.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

But both churches expressly claim - and for some years legally battled over - the heritage of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (hence my references to "United and continuing Presbyterians"). I can understand why it would be a sore spot for the UCC to be told they aren't real, big-P Presbyterians, in light of that history. The Presbyterian Church of Wales didn't adopt that name until the 1920s but one would be hard-pressed to claim it wasn't Presbyterian until then.

[ 16. January 2016, 00:46: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Bingo.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
But both churches expressly claim - and for some years legally battled over - the heritage of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (hence my references to "United and continuing Presbyterians"). I can understand why it would be a sore spot for the UCC to be told they aren't real, big-P Presbyterians, in light of that history. The Presbyterian Church of Wales didn't adopt that name until the 1920s but one would be hard-pressed to claim it wasn't Presbyterian until then.

As I am from eastern Ontario, knowing Glengarry and Stormont quite well, and with family in County Renfrew, I have some knowledge of the history of the UCC and the Kirk (I have relations on both sides of the divide). I did not think it my place to get involved in the PCC/UCC dynamics which are only in recent years (I am told) getting over their soreness, and my comment was simply factual.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

That's just the thing, your position did not reflect the facts.

[ 16. January 2016, 01:23: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
But both churches expressly claim - and for some years legally battled over - the heritage of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (hence my references to "United and continuing Presbyterians"). I can understand why it would be a sore spot for the UCC to be told they aren't real, big-P Presbyterians, in light of that history. The Presbyterian Church of Wales didn't adopt that name until the 1920s but one would be hard-pressed to claim it wasn't Presbyterian until then.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Puzzled by this, I went on the telephone to my Presbyterian relations in Renfrew and have been told that I am correct, so perhaps the best thing for me to do is bow out of this.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Of course they would. It is equally obvious that I would maintain the position that I do. It all comes down to how you view the Events of the '25.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Would Laying-on of Hands been regarded as "popish"?

No. Like I said, all Church of Scotland ministers are ordained by the laying on of hands. It's just elders that aren't in quite the same way. I think there is probably quite a lot of variation in local practice, but I know I certainly put my hand on their head when ordaining elders. It is a minister who ordains elders, however, and not other elders. I think that will be to do with good order as much as anything.

I'm not sure how or why the practice diverged in the PCUSA and the Kirk, but the PCUSA does seem to me to be stronger on the parity of ministers and elders, which probably has something to do with it. I wouldn't have a problem with their practice, though, and think we could learn from it.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
It is a minister who ordains elders, however, and not other elders. I think that will be to do with good order as much as anything.

I'm not sure how or why the practice diverged in the PCUSA and the Kirk, but the PCUSA does seem to me to be stronger on the parity of ministers and elders, which probably has something to do with it. I wouldn't have a problem with their practice, though, and think we could learn from it.

My guess has been that our emphasis on parity of ministers and elders is indeed at play.

FWIW, elders (and deacons) here are ordained by Session, so the minister(s) and members of Session participate in the laying on of hands. Ministers are ordained by presbytery, through a commission composed equally of ministers and elders, all of whom participate in the laying on of hands.

In practice, it is not at all unusual, particularly in the ordination of ministers, for all ministers and elders present to be invited to participate in the laying on of hands. I can say from personal experience that sense of being surrounded can be a very powerful experience for the ordinand.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0