quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I cannot emphasise enough that an Anglican church is part of an episcopal and sacramental Church which has sacramentally ordained priests to administer those sacraments to the faithful. That is his job and if your congregation does not have its priest then they cannot function properly as a full part of the Anglican church.

---

I think this is down to what a demonination recognises are a valid 'church' rather than a church as a body of believers.

I am sure that there are many churches (body) who would survive and would grow stronger if the leadership suddenly disappeared. Whether they would still form a properly constitued church in the eyes of their denomination, that is a different matter.

In the CofS, if all the people in leadership within a local church died, then an interim moderator would be appointed by 'head office'. The moderator would then get the church to nominate new elders. When the new elders were in position and they would put out a call for a new minister. Within the CofS the standard is that there will be a minister, kirk session (parish council?) and elders. If that were to break down then new people would be found to fill these roles.

Cosmo - we could really use an "Anglican" thread in Purgatory for that sort of thing. Like at what point an EP or AC church should cease to be anglican.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
Question for you Communion is central types:
What do you make of the Salvation Army - which does not practice communion or baptism - Do you recognise them as a church?

---

not as a church. part of the church though, in the wider body of believers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel of the North:
not as a church. part of the church though, in the wider body of believers.

Angel, fudging...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve:
I would be interested in your biblical basis for rejecting shared leadership, coot, as I am equally convinced that shared leadership is a biblical mandate. This does not mean that things are not "edifying and orderly", or that those doing the leadership are not "anointed".

---

Just ignore that bracketed bit.

There were aspects of collegiate leadership (different to the 'shared leadership' concept of your church, I think?) in the way the apostles operated, but instances of the one convicting the many, and appeals to personal authority esp. Paul (or circumcision would still be mandatory I guess).

However that was during my chariamatic phase and what about singing the same song over 52 times so that we really understand the words (as if "Jesus I love" was difficult to understand).

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
The epistles show us the Church in action with overseers, presbyters, deacons, and elders.

---

The question is, what do those terms mean? How far do you go to institutionalising them?

quote:

---

And if 'shared leadership' sifts out into these categories I don't find any contradiction

---

Depends on what the various categories actually are interpreted to mean. We have deacons in a Baptist church, but they're very different to the Anglican position of the same name, for example.

quote:

---

- but if not, it is a secular affectation.

---

No it isn't. it's different interpretation of what is - let's face it - a very vague part of scripture.

quote:

---

If it's any help to this poor little thread - I refer to my above post and suggest a trait of some evangelicals is consideration of the early church as a model for how our church today should be run.

---

Unfortunately, it's often those people who tend to abuse authority (see above) who claim 'continuity' with the NT church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
OK so what would make them a church?
What I am interested in is what are the essentials that make a group of christians a church?

---

Or it leads to the bizarre situation of having Luke 24:1-12 as the only reading in a Carol service - for those of you without a handy Bible (or a good memory) that's Luke's account of the Ressurection, I just sat there laughing silently and thinking 'Pam?' and 'Why?' (seeing as I had to listen to it twice, first in Welsh and then in English). I still haven't worked out why we had that - the preacher didn't mention it at all, though he did talk about God as Emmanuel and so had slightly more Christmas reference than the bloke last year.

Or the first occasion on which I really noticed this lack of liturgical year, my friend's baptism, on the 2nd Jan 2000. Here we are 8 days after Christmas, I'd been in an Anglican Church that morning singing Christmas carols, a service with 'non-christians' in and there is absolutely no reference to the season at all. Just an hour long sermon which was pretty standard evangelical 'gospel' for the uninitiated, 4 hymns (admittedly chosen by the candidates), and the testimonies before the baptism.

Or Maundy Thursday sermons with no reference to Maundy Thursday, or very interesting reflections on symbols and culture during a 3 hour service on Good Friday but ones which didn't really relate to the crucifixion, or Good Friday hymns on Easter Morn.

So why is that E/P's ignore the liturgical year or don't emphasis the great festivals?

quote:

---

Carys
So why is that E/P's ignore the liturgical year or don't emphasis the great festivals?

---

Christmas, Pentecost, Easter and Lent tend to get appropriate readings in our church (and, I would hazard, in both Methodist and Presbyterian churches).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

So why is that E/P's ignore the liturgical year or don't emphasis the great festivals?

Carys

---

A personal view - not intended to represent the view of any particular E/P group...

Although some E/Ps may not follow the liturgical year, I would suspect that the large majority would recognise the major festivals.

As far as the "seasons" are concerned, one reason for not following them might be the degree of artificiality to some of them. Advent looks forward to the return of Christ, but it could be argued that this could just as sensibly be concentrated on after Ascension as before Christmas. Lent is often connected with the forty days that Jesus spent in the wilderness, but this happened after his baptism (which in the liturgical year is generally celebrated in early January, although the bible doesn't specify the date), so why isn't lent in January/February? (The answer, in case your wondereing is that lent is a development of the period of fasting and prayer that preceded baptism in the early church. Baptisms usually occured at Easter so lent became a pre-Easter season, even for those who were not preparing for Baptism).

Of course, many evangelical churches (especially those within major denominations like Methodists, URC, Anglican) would follow a lectionary such as the RCL, without feeling the need to use those readings if other passages are deemed more appropriate for a given service (eg: a baptism).

Naturally, I feel a pang for the neglect of the rubrics.

But what I want to know is, does a parish like this transgress against Canon Law? Any church lawyers out there who can tell me (or are all our church lawyers A/C)?

not being married, i can't say i've experienced being given advice on how to make my spouse a christian, but then also from my experience, the only "advice" you'll be given for anyone u care about who isn't a christian is "keep praying for them" (intended more as an encouragement).

i think most of us E/Ps recognise that only God can change someone's heart. it has very very very little to do with us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
But what I want to know is, does a parish like this transgress against Canon Law? Any church lawyers out there who can tell me (or are all our church lawyers A/C)?

HT

---

quote:

---

Personally I think there is a richness gained from following the liturgical year, it would be something I would be sorry not to have (if only people would stop celebrating Christmas during Advent - but that's another thread).

---

That's where I am. The biggest problem I have is with evangelicals within a liturgical tradition who only pay lipservice to the liturgical year because there are those in the church who expect it (though they mightn't be proper christians, maybe that's unfair but it's the feeling I got at times) not because they see an inherent value in it. Thus if you make some comment about sticking to it, you get told not to get hung up on such things.

(I'm with you too on not celebrating Christmas in Advent)

quote:

---

I would expect most churches (even the most extreme conservative evangelical) to recognise the major Christian festivals; Christmas, Easter and Pentecost.

---

And in my experience they do, on the day at least, but not for much longer and that's what I find strange. I remember one Eastertide, the Anglican church which I attended at Uni, stopped singing Easter hymns on Low Sunday. It was wonderful a couple of weeks later, at the joint evening service with the local Methodists to be singing Easter hymns again.

quote:

---

On the other hand, many of the other parts of the year will only be referenced if it suits where the church is going. Again, it reflects the Protestant's wholistic view of the year, I guess, that for good or ill no one part is necessarily more holy than another unless we choose to make it so.

---

That makes sense (within the protestant understanding of the world), though I mightn't agree. For a start I don't think that the liturgical year means that one part of the year is more holy than another; it's just that we cannot concentrate on the whole of what we believe at any one time and so by going through the festivals and fasts and 'ordinary' time we focus on different elements in turn, and over time our faith is nourished - at least that's my experience of growing up with the liturgical year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I am glad to know that the Anglican Communion is broad enough to include a parish like Steve's.

Naturally, I feel a pang for the neglect of the rubrics.

But what I want to know is, does a parish like this transgress against Canon Law? Any church lawyers out there who can tell me (or are all our church lawyers A/C)?

HT

---

Of course, it doesn't matter whether or not the church lawyers are A/C or not; Canon Law is applicable to everybody, A/C or Evangelical.

I don't know which parish it is that Steve belongs to. As long as his parish has Holy Communion every Sunday and principal feast day (except by agreement of the the Vicar and the PCC and the authorization of the Bishop and that Holy Communion is readily available at another church in the benefice) and that the Celebrant wears either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole then they will not be breaking canon law. There are, of course, other bits of relevant canon law to a parish church but these are the two most important clauses.

I've been invited to a bible study series at college, which has been described to me (from various sources) as a conservative evangelical look at the bible. The people involved are lecturers and a few postgrads, no undergrads. The suggested preliminary reading is something by John Stott. My question is: what is likely to go on in such a bible study? What sort of things will be talked about? What does "doing" a book of the bible (Acts, in this case) mean in this sort of a context?

How much the exegesis of the study can be applied to the lives of those in the group depends very much on the quality of the material and the group leader. John Stott's on the sensible end of conservative although of course not to be agreed with 100%).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
As long as his parish has Holy Communion every Sunday and principal feast day

and that the Celebrant wears either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole then they will not be breaking canon law.

---

I know that the Eucharist is celebrated at HTB and All Souls Langham Place every Sunday.

Somehow I'd be surprised to see a scarf (other than the Burberry variety) in either place.

What do they wear?

HT

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Wood - cheers. I think my main question is: is it going to be someone who thinks they have the answer (or thinks they've read the right answer) telling us what it is, or does discussion and thinking for oneself enter into it at all? And will scripture get compared only with other bits of scripture, or will it be tied in with the rest of Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Wood - cheers. I think my main question is: is it going to be someone who thinks they have the answer (or thinks they've read the right answer) telling us what it is, or does discussion and thinking for oneself enter into it at all? And will scripture get compared only with other bits of scripture, or will it be tied in with the rest of Christianity?

---

Depending on the group, you might well have ten people who know they have the right answer, or ten people genuinely trying to find the right answer.

If they have stated that the group is conservative evangelical, they will probaby be fairly sure that there is a right answer (because scripture is correct if correctly interpreted).

If the group is made up mainly of lecturers, they are going to be pretty used to giving the answers. I would have thought that there would be plenty of input from the group (not just a leader) as I can't imagine that many academics listening to one person without wanting to disagree.

The book is likely to be studied strictly in comparison with the rest of the bible, the wider experience of Christianity probably won't be high up the agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
As long as his parish has Holy Communion every Sunday and principal feast day and that the Celebrant wears either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole then they will not be breaking canon law.

---

Yep. With a few exceptions, you can take communion a number of times each Sunday, and at least some of those the clergy are formally attired.

None of which really impinges on what we do with hte rest of our time, which suggests to me that canon law, in this respect is becoming totally irrelevant. The majority of the conregation are, apparently, untouched by the requirements of the church.

I found this quite convincing. The main point was that no one way was right or wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
I think my main question is: is it going to be someone who thinks they have the answer (or thinks they've read the right answer) telling us what it is, or does discussion and thinking for oneself enter into it at all?

---

quote:

---

And will scripture get compared only with other bits of scripture, or will it be tied in with the rest of Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
I think my main question is: is it going to be someone who thinks they have the answer (or thinks they've read the right answer) telling us what it is, or does discussion and thinking for oneself enter into it at all? And will scripture get compared only with other bits of scripture, or will it be tied in with the rest of Christianity?

---

Everybody who has said that it very much depends on the group, is of course right.

One thing you may meet, is that there will be a couple of people in the group who will seem to think they know everything and will tend to dominate the discussion. Our CU used to be like this a while back. I stopped going, cos I didn't find it helpful to bbe told "the right answer" all the time.

After a while I went back, and instead of keeping quiet, I asked all the really, really difficult questions that every passage draws out. This (a) prevented anyone from thinking they knew everything, (b) pleased the quieter members of the group, who will often say "That's just what I was wondering and (c) made the discussions much livelier. I think there are people in the group who look down on me - despite my GLEness - because I have more questions than answers, but I think overall the group is better for being pushed beyond its "comfort zone" and I am learning a lot. Having a more questioning attitude also makes the group more accessible to outsiders.

I think what I am saying is that if you find this group a bit closed in its attitdues initially, then still make your points and ask the difficult questions. It will enliven the discussions - even if noone agrees with you - and will also be helpful to other people.

All the best,

quote:

---

Before I started leading Bible Study groups for CU we had a very useful training session. The first thing we were told was that as leaders it was our job to facilitate discussion and not give answers. We were also given advice on how to handle others in the group who think they have all the answers (ie: shut 'em up to give others a chance) or those who don't contribute (everyones' contribution is valuable, even a "I don't understand").

---

Unfortunately in some CUs these have turned into giving out "answer sheets" for the little bible study groups.

How does the model of leadership differ between different "heights" of churches - something that's come up on "conversations" thread.

quote:

---

I stopped going, cos I didn't find it helpful to be told "the right answer" all the time.

---

I know the feeling, and also stopped going to CU 'discussion' groups for that reason. However, I never managed to go back and ask the difficult questions. Partly because as I wasn't an evangelical my assumptions were different to the rest of the group and so were my questions. I found that even at the Church home group which didn't have right answers as such, just evangelical assumptions, which I just didn't (couldn't) accept. That's why it's great to have found a good Bible study group here in Cambridge where I can ask the questions I have and we can wrestle with them (and have fun too!)

quote:

---

have carol services for the church community before Christmas if our congregation goes 'home' for Christmas,

---

Grrrrrrrrr. Sorry pet hate, Christmas starts on Christmas day and continues afterwards. If you start singing Christmas Carols pre Christmas you miss out on the wonderful Advent ones. Have Carol services after Christmas because Christmas doesn't stop on Boxing Day. (And I had to sing Christmas Carols on 25th November as that was the last Sunday of Full Term and so we had to have some Christmas stuff)

quote:

---

sing 'Thine be the Glory" not just on Easter day,

---

You don't just sing it on Easter Day within the liturgical calender either as you continue to sing Easter hymns throught the season of Easter (which lasts for 40 days until Ascension Day)

quote:

---

It was regarded as 'made up by man' and not something God wanted celebrated;

---

This is the sort of attitude that promoted the question in the first place. Yes, I know that it is highly unlikely that Jesus was actually born on 25th December but that doesn't mean we can't celebrate then. It's like the Queen, he has an Official Birthday! Celebration is good! Why wouldn't God want us to celebrate?

quote:

---

Grrrrrrrrr. Sorry pet hate, Christmas starts on Christmas day and continues afterwards. If you start singing Christmas Carols pre Christmas you miss out on the wonderful Advent ones. Have Carol services after Christmas because Christmas doesn't stop on Boxing Day.

---

The fact is though that for all normal people (non-churchgoers) Christmas isn't after Christmas day - it's now. If we think the idea of engaging with the people outside our twelve walls is the least bit important we should be prepared to put aside our ways of doing things and run pre-Christmas day Carol services whilst it is 'Christmas' in people's minds.

We shouldn't engage with them too much though - see the 'Should I marry a non-chistian?'* thread.

dave

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
we should be prepared to put aside our ways of doing things and run pre-Christmas day Carol services whilst it is 'Christmas' in people's minds.

---

Of course, it's always best to allow High Street shopping to dictate our theology.

That shoudl pack 'em in.

Maybe we could put up a stall or two in department stores and sell indulgences while we're in the mood to be commercial.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nancy Winningham:
Now, now HT--selling indulgences is one of the reasons that Protestants exist!

---

The PCW is doing a huge range of Advent indulgences this year. Last year we only concentrated on the 'biggies', murder, blashpemy, adultary. But this year we have branched out into gin drinking, excessive internet surfing, and other such leseser activities.

I am HT will appreciate our range of indulgences, and how prettily gift wrapped they are. If you order before Christmas they will come in Advent wrapping papper (recycled un-bleached paper). If you order after Christmas, you will get lovely Christmassy paper, and a free chorister.

quote:

---

Hooker's Trick advised us:
Of course, it's always best to allow High Street shopping to dictate our theology.

---

Theology? I would be interested to hear the theological reasons for refusing to have carol services before the 25th of December.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
Theology? I would be interested to hear the theological reasons for refusing to have carol services before the 25th of December.

dave

---

saying "jesus is born today" when he hasn't.

I think a hell thread is in order....

quote:

---

saying "jesus is born today" when he hasn't.

---

But it is extremely unlikely that he was born on 25th December

quote:

---

Theology? I would be interested to hear the theological reasons for refusing to have carol services before the 25th of December.

---

That the period before Christmas is Advent not Christmas and therefore the appropriate music is Advent carols and hymns not Christmas ones.

Actually I accept Carol Services on the evening of the 4th Sunday of Advent (and even when Advent 4 coincides with Christmas Eve the evening of Advent 3), because that's when people expect them, though I wouldn't sing the final verse of O Come all ye Faithful ('Born this happy morn') because that means singing it during Midnight is extra special. I do know a vicar though who won't have Carols before Christmas Eve (and he's evangelical!)

quote:

---

Carys informed us:
That the period before Christmas is Advent not Christmas and therefore the appropriate music is Advent carols and hymns not Christmas ones.

---

Well - if that's the best theological reason...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
That the period before Christmas is Advent not Christmas and therefore the appropriate music is Advent carols and hymns not Christmas ones.

---

It is of course not a theological reason, but a historical and church order reason. And as with most of these, there is no theological justification behind them as such.

Which is why Wibbs is right, in that we don't base our theology on High Street shoppers. We do exist to serve a community.