quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Or was St Peter wrong when he called the body of Christ a priesthood in its own right?

---

The Church is a Priesthood - doesn't make us all priests. The Churches corporate Priesthood requires representation by ordained Priests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
The Churches corporate Priesthood requires representation by ordained Priests.

---

These eggregious creatures are even MORE of an expense upon the church, what with their bloated salaries, expensive palaces and all that money expended on mitres and such tat.

Nightlamp suggests that anyone could regularly consecrate the elements and a bishop would not be needed even for this.

And assuming you could say that St Paul's epistles suggest bishops can go as well, then I have to ask you if we should also dispense with that most obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

And if you throw His Grace upon the dustbin of history, how are we to then know that we are Anglicans at all?

Tricky Hooker

In our parish since a layperson can, with the permission of the rector, do anything a layreader can do -- no lay readers. Why bother. (But note that in Canada, layreaders can only read lessons, preach under the guidance of the rector, lead a service and serve communion).

In our parish the preacher reads the gospel -- if a lay preacher, then a lay gospeller. The point is to strenghten the link between the reading and the sermon that comments on it and teaches about it

Hooker's Trick made a comment in connection with sermons that may have implied a position with which I am familiar that says only the ordained can preach -- laity give homilies. Today I believe the distinction is meaningless -- unless lay preachers are going to read from one of the two Books of Homilies. He also may have implied (sorry if I have drawn the wrong conclusion) that lay homilists are likely to be bad preachers, presumably because they are not ordained. In fact, in my experience, lay preachers are just as likely as the ordained to have received careful training in preparing and delibvering sermons, and are more likely to be people who have the gift of preaching, since they are being called to it, not doing it as part of a larger package.

Finally, on priests -- one English word translating two vastly different Greek words. In Hebrews, Jesus is said to be the "hieros" for us -- in the place of the sacrificing priests of the old dispensation. No one else does that now. When we talk about priests today, we are using an English word developed from the Greek word "presbyteros" or Elder, which would be an equally valid English equivalent.

But those who read some of the connotations of hieros into the word priest today are running outside the way the office developed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So Dyfrig, would your reading lead you to believe that we could dispense with bishops as well?

---

No it doesn't - and you know that. However, you and I are using "bishop" in different ways. You are using it in terms of some ontological office - me, knowing that you need people to take decisions and carry cans (I work in local government) see Paul recognising a need for people within a community (any community, not just the Church) to do the same. Of course you will need an overseeing role. But that role derives from skills, abilities, pastoral care and general wisdom, not simply from the name of "bishop".

These eggregious creatures are even MORE of an expense upon the church, what with their bloated salaries, expensive palaces and all that money expended on mitres and such tat.

Given that I didn't mention the money at all, I find this a strange argument. You asked if we needed "Vicars". And my answer is no we don't - we need able people who are close to God who can lead people closer to God. ("Vicar" is just a functional title inherited from Roman society. It has no Christian meaning in and of itself.)...these are the criteria for both the diaconate and the episcopacy in the NT - Godly people who could do the job. The label for the job follows from the job. You seem to think that the application of "bishop", "vicar" or "deacon" makes someone these things - this is wrong. When I was admitted as a solicitor this did not change any ontological "solicitorness" within in - rather it recognised the study and training I had understaken - neither does the word protect me in future: I still have to work at the solictoritudidousness.

Nightlamp suggests that anyone could regularly consecrate the elements and a bishop would not be needed even for this. It is the community that consecrates - you should know that. And if the community has at its president a non-cleric who fulfils the criteria for an episcope, what does it matter? Seriously, what magic is there in the consecration of a bishop?

And assuming you could say that St Paul's epistles suggest bishops can go as well, then I have to ask you if we should also dispense with that most obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Ooh, let's see - couldn't possibly be Jesus Christ, could it? Again, you're missing the point - there are lowerarchies of service, that's patently obvious. This discussion is not one about whether you can dispense with a system - rather upon the setting up of that system, just because we've always done it (well, we've done it since the 3rd century and we'll broadcast our version of church order back into the NT even if it kills us). There is much criticism of "modern" (I always find if funny when the Church is described as "modern" - trans. it means the Church has picked up the ideas that were around 20 years ago) methods: but we have always done this. The difference being that the rate of current change makes it obvious that we do, whereas in slower times it was as clear the Church had borrowed most of its structures and administrative attitudes from secular society.

And if you throw His Grace upon the dustbin of history, how are we to then know that we are Anglicans at all?

So you define your spiritual life in relation to the Church structure as opposed to God, do you?

Or is the dispensation of the clergy part of the master plan for world ecumenism?

Whilst it is admirable that we have symbolic action - after all, church liturgy is meant to enact in symbol a pre-existing state of affairs, i.e. the presence of God with his people - there seems to be a slight naivety here about the power and effect of symbolism.

Symbols don't just mean what the person who defines the symbol wants them to mean. The locus of meaning (and, as a side issue, the locus of God's activity) happens not just because I, or the vicar, or HT say "The gospel is red by the priest because it symbolises the proclamation of Jesus Christ". The meaning and effect of the symbol occurs also in the viewer/listerner/congregant. So whilst we may , with the best will in the world, define our actions as open, life-giving, gospel-vehicles, it is hubris of the lowest order to think that our definition is the only possible one (otherwise why would we accept at least four ways of reading scripture?). To one set of people, those in the know and the professionals, symbols may mean "good" and produce good fruit - to others it may mean control, denial of God-given freedom, even oppression.

The effect of a symbol (e.g. an ordained person doing everything in a service) therefore should not just be considered from what the actor intends it to mean - reflection must also be given to hwhat it actually does. Let me give you two examples, one general, on personal.

Apartheid. It's just a word. I think it means separateness. Those who supported it - and FW de Clerk still holds this view - so this not as a policy of oppression, but of "separate development", the argument being that you shouldn't force two peoples at such different perceived levels of development to live together in a modern democracy. Part of the argument (in the same way that people have argued for control-mechanism throughouthistory) is that apratheid was "good" for the black majority and eventually they weould benefit from it. However, to be on the receiving end of it was not such a good thing: lack of participation in society, poverty, lack of accessm to amenities we would take for granted. So, depending on where you are in the pecking order of society the word "apartheid" has different effects and meanings - thus we must be very careful of any symbol which claims to be "good". It must held up to the light of the gospel and interrogated.

How are you using the word "priest" here, S3? Do you mean a community of people, all of whom are regarded as having a part in the priestly role? In which case, I won't argue with you. Or are you using it to define a group within that community? In which case, that is not a "church of priests", because the church is more than just the "professional" priestly caste. It smacks of the old fashioned way of looking at ordination - "entering the church", as if to imply that entry into God's community happens at Ordination rather than Baptism/Confirmation/Appropriate initiation ceremony.

Whatever the head minister is is what people will emulate, and a Priest is a very different thing to a Leader.

Well, let's work this out. Are you saying people will emulate someone's holiness or God-centred life? Well, the people who've influenced me most in that direction haven't been "priests" in the professional sense at all. And I seek to follow our clergy's good examples because they are attempting to be Christ-like, not because they are professional priests. Examples of piss-poor Priests are as easy to find as abusive Evangelical leaders.

Suitability for the Ordained Ministry is discerned by the Bishops as part of their teaching and jurisdictional roles. It is of necessity limited to the few. After all, the priest stands in the place of Christ when he offers the Holy Sacrifice and remits sins in Penance. The Scriptural warrant for this surelt originates when Christ gave Peter his Church to build.

A much wider net is available to all the people - who are called to office, so to speak, in their Parishes - either by their Rector or the vote of Vestry ? Inevitably there may not be the luxury of making a discriminating choice - so if old Joe or Marg has been serving the mass or reading the lesson forever, there probably will be little disposition to disallow them from continuing to do so no matter the fumbling of the cruet or the inaudibility of the lesson that results.

In this bifurcated ministry, then, do we not see a place for everyone ? a small company called to ordained ministry (which indeed may be non-stipendiary and part-time), complemented by a host of the faithful who take Martha's part ?

And does this not reflect the most ancient of Biblical tales, that of God giving each creature his name through Noah ? And is it not further reflected in the Great Commission Christ gave the company of Disciples ?

In the same way, through his Bishops and his people, God gives divers functions to each of us. Old Tusker may not have chosen to be an elephant, but is well suited to be so. Just like old Joe and Marg and you me, who may not have chosen to be flower-arrangers and coffee-makers and lesson-readers and bulletin-duplicaters, but have been chosen to do so, and thus take up our commissions, and occupy our unglamorous but not always uncongenial places in the Divine economy !

However, any person who posts on the debate boards of this Ship must be prepared to substantiate a claim - especially when that claim has a view of the church where priests may perform, laymen may assist and women can do the cleaning.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oldlccboy:
Well now we agree, Dyfrig -

On what? Your view of who or who may not minister is entirely at odds with mine. I do not think we can be further apart on our conceptions of the Church. You don't even believe I have a valid role of service in the church, either as licensed Reader or as lector - you described it as "a thing to be depracated", "an irregular situation" and something that "cannot be".

You're only concession to me is if a priest is putting his clothes on or if there isn't an ordained sub-deacon.

You may not consider yourself to be arrogant - and perhaps you are not, and I am misreading you, for which I apologise - however you have very politely said that any inclination I have about a role of service in the Church, my vicar, fellow-congregants, seven persons appointed by the diocese to act in a discernment role, and my tutors are all wrong according to your theological outlook. And woe betide me if I were I women and I heard any calling other than to the veil or the duster.

but does your argument about the community giving Ministry with care not support the notion of distinctly different callings between the Ordained Ministry and that of the People ?

If the various "ministries" (I'm loathe to use that word as it's usually preceded by the word "My" from the lips of odd people) and gifts that the same Lord, the Holy Spirit, gives to the various People were properly recognised and legitimated by the Church (in the way the apostles blessed the work of the 7 chosen from amongst the people....interestingly, by the people as well) then this would make sense - however, all we have at present is the ordination of certain roles, who are set over and above rather than within that community.

A much wider net is available to all the people - who are called to office, so to speak, in their Parishes - either by their Rector or the vote of Vestry ?

But this is not so - there are two roles in your view of the church. Priesthood, which is powerful, and non-priesthood, which is not. That's it. Your offer of the work available to women are ... well, I cannot find the words to express my exasperation at such a limited view of the role of women in God's world. I shall refer you to the "...Genitalia" and "...Plumbing" threads in the Archive for my views on this.

In this bifurcated ministry, then, do we not see a place for everyone ?

No, we don't.

a small company called to ordained ministry (which indeed may be non-stipendiary and part-time), complemented by a host of the faithful who take Martha's part ?

A curious analogy to draw - after all, Mary was criticised for being a woman who dared to sit at a teacher's feet. Remember what Jesus said to her - it would not be taken from her. Yet, you seem hell-bent on taking away the right to sit at Jesus' feet that He has called many others (men and women) to do.

And does this not reflect the most ancient of Biblical tales, that of God giving each creature his name through Noah ?

Well, no it doesn't because I think you're thinking of Adam - and Adam at that point was alone (neither male nor female) so it is clearly both that the priestly role is both sexes.

Furthermore, I don't actually know what you're talking about - are you referring to human beings' creative power in naming the world around them? Well, on that score the Church can call it's ministers whatever it wants.

Or are you suggesting that the Priest represents Adam and the rest of us a mere animals to be labelled by him at his whim?

And is it not further reflected in the Great Commission Christ gave the company of Disciples ?

And yea and verily - er, no. So Jesus told the eleven disciples that he had left to go and teach and baptize. They weren't priests, either. They were apostles. And - brace yourself here - they hadn't been ordained in accordance with the formularies of the Prayer Book.

In the same way, through his Bishops and his people, God gives divers functions to each of us.

But the church does not recognise those functions - and you appear to be claiming some ontological reason within the Godhead that women can only do the washing up.

Old Tusker may not have chosen to be an elephant, but is well suited to be so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldlccboy:
After all, the priest stands in the place of Christ when he offers the Holy Sacrifice and remits sins in Penance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
Funny, I thought the Holy Sacrifice was offered up on the cross 2000 or so years ago. Thank you for clearing this up for me, oldlccboy.

---

quote:

---

oldlccboy said After all, the priest stands in the place of Christ when he offers the Holy Sacrifice

---

This is doctrine is held by the Roman Catholic's but only those who have never heard of Vatican II actually agree with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
However, you and I are using "bishop" in different ways. You are using it in terms of some ontological office

---

Now you see, this is me being silly again and getting caught up in nonsense like Pentecost. I should know better than to get sidetracked by the Holy Ghost into flights of fancy about ontological office.

quote:

---

- me, knowing that you need people to take decisions and carry cans (I work in local government)

---

I also work directly for a University and indirectly for the Commonwealth of Virginia. So I agree with you. However, I have never been under the impression that the Commonwealth was founded under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost or that my University is the Body of Christ.

quote:

---

(any community, not just the Church) to do the same.

---

Except that the Church is not "any community" with managers and committees and policy manuals. At least, I would be awfully sorry to discover that people made no distinction between the Church, the Rotary Club, and the Local Authority.

quote:

---

Of course you will need an overseeing role. But that role derives from skills, abilities, pastoral care and general wisdom,

---

That's funny, I thought it derived from the Holy Ghost, but as you see above, I am apparently deeply confused about the efficacy of the Third Person of the Trinity.

quote:

---

Given that I didn't mention the money at all, I find this a strange argument.

---

Apologies. You seemed to be making a functional argument, which I assumed was at least in part financial.

quote:

---

("Vicar" is just a functional title inherited from Roman society. It has no Christian meaning in and of itself.)

---

Now now. You know as well as I do that "vicar" shares its latin root with "viacrious" and means to "represent".

I'm sure that you and I agree in our disdain for the doctrine of "in persona Christi", but however you look at it you can't escape its Christian meaning.

quote:

---

When I was admitted as a solicitor this did not change any ontological "solicitorness" within

---

Well, presumably the Holy Ghost wasn't actively involved in that process. If, in fact, in my absence from England our solicitors are now visited and inspired by the Holy Ghost, my apologies in this matter.

quote:

---

It is the community that consecrates - you should know that.

---

Very well.

Shall we then talk about the equally exclusively sacerdotal function of absolution?

Presumably you don't think the community also pronounces absolution over itself?

quote:

---

Seriously, what magic is there in the consecration of a bishop?

---

If you seriously believe that the Church of England ought to commission its "ministers" through a process of examination and appointment much as we do civil servants, and that this mortal function without the symbolic or real assistance of the Holy Ghost is sufficient for the Church that is Christ's Body, then indeed I appreciate your view but we have nothing more to say on the matter as I will not, and indeed cannot, agree with it.

I wrote then I have to ask you if we should also dispense with that most obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

And Dyf replied

quote:

---

Ooh, let's see - couldn't possibly be Jesus Christ, could it?

---

You got me. Are you saying that Our Lord is an obnoxious symbol of hierarchy and backwardness?

quote:

---

There is much criticism of "modern"

---

I was going to remind you that anything after 1662 is modern to me, but you probably already know that.

quote:

---

So you define your spiritual life in relation to the Church structure as opposed to God, do you?

---

See, it's that inconvenient Holy Ghost thing again. I keep getting confused about God being IN the Church.

quote:

---

A cheap shot.

---

Apologies.

quote:

---

Jesus Christ (remember him? Bloke with a mission from God, you know, the Saviour and everything?)

---

Actually, some of us call him God. You know, us Christians.

quote:

---

"do our structures reflect his gospel?"

---

Ah. This is what slays me. Because we're back to selective literalism. I'm quite certain you wouldn't want, say, our Cosmology to reflect the Scripture. But administration, oh yes, well definitely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
Org Chart,HT?Is that the same as a flip chart?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
The problem with your view tho' HT is that it fails to take into account one problem - the HS, being God, cannot err.

---

Hmm, think we've missed the boat on this one. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is limited to the church - if anything scripture contrasts the uniqueness of Christ to the universality of the holy spirit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cusanus:
Hey, hang on...
You mean oldlccboy is actually being serious? I was unde the impression he was some radical postmodernist doing a parody.

Oops.

---

oldlccboy being serious? I still find it hard to belive, but he seems to think he was. But he was probably just having a laugh. If he knows how to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Hooker's Trick made a comment in connection with sermons that may have implied a position with which I am familiar that says only the ordained can preach -- laity give homilies. Today I believe the distinction is meaningless -- unless lay preachers are going to read from one of the two Books of Homilies.

---

This is a bit old, but I wanted to make a short comment because small details thrill me. That being, historically only priests with degress were permitted to preach ie. give sermons from their own material. Priests without degrees were allowed only to read from the Book of Homilies.

People on the Lay Ministry thread are declaiming the importance of the priesthood/threefold order.

Anyone up to defend the same?

There again is the issue of "well, it'snot in the NT therefore we don't need it".

And the "priesthood of all believers".

I've already written a post telling them what I thought about lay pres, and the danger it holds for the Ang Church, but I was effectively put in my place and told "Your reaction might be valid, but its in your situation, and doesn't apply to the CofE."

Maybe we should all of us 3-fold orderers be volunteering for the dinosaur part of the local museum?

Or quietly allow ourselves to be squashed out of the church...

Of course Dyfrig and his friends are right. Of course the threefold order is irrelevant. It's not biblical and excludes the gifts of many. And of course the Holy Spirit can't be in a hierarchical church which has proven itself not to be infallible. Let alone a church which prefers its ministers to be educated in their ministry... Isn't that the antithesis of "Spirit-led"?

Allow me to apologise and go back to quietly sipping my gin as I wait for the Museum to call to confirm my inclusion in their collection.

Let the work of continuing to reform the church continue, with the vision of the Reformers as its aim and goal - aw sorry, should that be Christ? sorry for my dyslexia, the two of course mean the same thing, don't they.

Let's do away with unnecessary ceremonial and tat - it's too tied up in the whole "dignity of the priesthood", and is irrelevant to christian ministry today. Away with anything that speaks of a division between clergy and laity - from dress to titles, to who is automatically called on in different situations to lead prayers (eg grace, opening of a PCC meeting etc). Oh, and at that, lets do away with robed choirs. Of course, we can keep the choirs, but oh those robes are so offensive to the notion of the priesthood of all believers; if the choir is robed, we should all be robed in order to offer our "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving". And they shouldn't sit in a prominent place. Let them be scattered amongst the congregation.

But then, why not do away with the music side altogether? (Unless one of our number has a gift for playing the guitar or clarinet or something; then they can get up and contribute to our worship by doing a number...)

Coming to think of it, we will need to knock down our buildings (let's not call them churches, because we know WE are the church), because it is incompatible with a congregation focussed ministry to have a sacntuary out the front and have ministers facing the congregation. Buildings "in the round" therefore should be the norm: everyone is equal, the table is in the centre. We are the priesthood of all believers.

Oh hang on a tick. Isnt the word of God more central to life than sacraments, which are just symbols? We can kind of do away with them. Oh I don't mean fullscale, we might do a Lord's Supper once a year or so, because Jesus did say "Do this in memory of me". But we can commemorate him in so many other worthy ways other than sacraments.

-------
I am dreadfully sorry, but other denominations have already done all this.

Still, I'll take my gin and retire to the lounge room. Oh hang on, the telephone's ringing.

"Hello?"

"Museum here. Is that a Ms Nunc Dimittis by any chance?"

"Yes."

"I'm calling about your application to the dinosaur collection of the Museum. I'd like to inform you that we have too many of your specimens already in our collection."

"Oh?"

"And many of them are more interesting than I am afraid you might be."

"Who do you have there?"

"We have Papasothaurus, Cantuarepiscoposaurus, and many other colourful dinosaurs. Unfortuneately grey species with text written all over them are just not special enough to take up room here."

"What do you suggest I do then?"

"Drink the rest of that bottle of gin?!!"

"OK. Thanks for letting me know."

"Or of course you could just meld into the more contemporary forms of your kind. I understand they make good domestic pets."

"Oh. Thanks."

*click*

Nunc, as the last post resulted from things said in the Lay Ministry thread in Hell these comments really should have been posted in Hell.

If anyone would like to join in the discussion in Hell please feel very free. If you haven't posted in Hell for a while please remember to read Hell's guidelines as their guidelines are different from the rest of the boards.

[biretta off]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
The problem with your view tho' HT is that it fails to take into account one problem - the HS, being God, cannot err. If the Church is the locus of the HS ("where the Church is, the Spirit is") then the Church's actions, guided as they are by the Holy Spirit, must also be perfect.

---

Dyfrig. You're undone. You and I know that the Church is not synonymous with God. Otherwise we would worship the church and that would make us Ecclesians.

And when I checked my Prayer Book in the relevant part, I found this delightful advice from Archbish Cranmer:

"When the day appointed by the Bishop is come, after Morning Prayer is ended, there shall be a Sermon or Exhortation,
declaring the duty and office of such as come to be admitted Priests; how necessary that Order is in the Church of
Christ, and also, how the People ought to esteem them in their Office."

quote:

---

Now go and check reality.

---

Now go and check your BCP. You don't have to have a Prayer Book to have a church, and you presumably don't have to have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

But ours does.

You're the one who claimed the 3-fold order (as opposed to the community which happens to have a 3-fold order) emanated from the presence of the Holy Spirit, not me.

"you presumably don't have to have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

Which is what I've been saying for the last three days.

"But ours does."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
"you presumably don't have to have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

Which is what I've been saying for the last three days.

"But ours does."

Fine - no probs with that.

---

Well. That was all very anti-climactic.

Now that we're in agreement I shall go off and discuss some tat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Well. That was all very anti-climactic.

Now that we're in agreement I shall go off and discuss some tat.

HT

---

Oh goodie. ( )

When I wrote the Celebrant of Mass offers the Holy Sacrifice (of the Mass) I meant that the Priest stands in the place of Christ and recreates the essential salvific act of History and Faith. This is what I was taught as a boy, and I wasn't aware it was a particularly novel or pre-Vatican II view of the Eucharist; but if the latter, I'd regard it as positive !

If the Eucharist means - more than a pious act of thanksgiving for Christ's sacrifice - more than a memorial of His self-offering - more than the presence and consumption of helpful symbols to inspire us through life - more than the mere repetition of "magic words" uttered by Christ - (not that any of the foregoing as understood by some Reformed Churches are "bad," merely incomplete in their understanding)

then

the "Do this..." surely means that the priest, given the mind of the Church understanding what he is doing, is doing something real, something of substance.
And "this" something can only be the marvelous and mystical recreation of the Sacrifice by which the gate between Heaven and earth is opened as it was at Calvary, and the Divine enters the world under the form of bread and wine, transformed by the whole action and words and understanding of priest and people into the elements of that one all-sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction.

Out of Interest do you believe that when ever a communion service is held by what ever denomination that this is true?

Quote: "See? This is what happens when you pick a fight with an Anglo-Catholic who's (sic) Anglo-Catholic parish priest has taught him how to sit very lightly to ecclesiology."

Although I have "high" hopes for H.T. and have even branded him a closet Anglo-Catholic, he has steadfastly maintained that he is broad church, and he has never given any indication of that he has been corrupted by the teachings (prima facie false in your opinion?) of any Anglo-Catholic parish priest.

His views seem to me to be rather mainstream Anglican, and in spite of the length and number of your posts, I am (probably through my own denseness) unable to discern yours.
Perhaps you could provide a concise statement of your ecclesiology?

Please delete the unnecessary 'of', and also the cheap shot '(sic)'.

People hold various offices within the church and it is simply functional there is no ontological change in Bishop priest Deacon reader or evangelist ect. These people are gifted by the spirit to get on with various roles with in the church.

People in the congregation might not be Recognised by the structure to carry out various roles but so what ministry should evolve from the bottom up.

Why make such a fuss about roles in worship services when most of the work of the church occurs outside?

You asked "Out of Interest do you believe that when ever a communion service is held by what ever denomination that this is true?" By "this" I am unsure whether you are asking whether I believe their service is a true communion service or that they do "this" as I described "this" which clearly they do not. Is it a true service ? Well, I believe it is truly offered in faith and sincerity. It is insufficient. Is it a means of grace for their faithful ? Probably, not for me but for God to judge.

Believing that adult participation was the mature response, I entered the world of "my way or the highway" pastoralism, leaving it only when cynicism threatened to derail my spiritual life. Nothing the most well-intentioned but least well-trained lay person could do from a lectern could possibly be any worse.

Do we need a priest? Of course. To do what? To be our spiritual leader, something we have neither the time,training nor temperament to do for ourselves. But when the priest can't/won't fulfill that function (I have had at least three alcoholic pastors)what happens to that faith community?

Over and over again, I have observed parishes with clout enjoying the benefit of beatific pastoral succession, while the have-nots get leftovers. Are we really so surprised that cynical voices have arisen from the laity?

And then, if the office of Apostle wasn't important in some ontological way, why did Peter and co feel the need to elect another to fill the place of Judas, someone "who had been with him since the beginning" of his ministry?

I think we need to think about the importance of laying on of hands, and what this is meant to convey.

Most of us with even a traditional Anglican point of view would say that this is tied up in the descent of the Spirit "Receive the Holy Spirit for the work of a xxxxx". If this is so, doesn;t that mean that an ontological change has occurred? Catholics would say, once priested, always a priest, because it is part of one.

Well, firstly the ekklesia is those gathered around Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ radically redefines any claims to power, rule or even servanthood. Therefore any structure must in and of itself reflect this. And I also know that attempts to read back developed ecclesiologies (be it 3-fold ministry, presbyterian, or Restoration interpretations of Ephesians) without acknowledging that they are developed rather than givens leads to anachronism, and eventually disillusion with any claims to authority.

So, what do we see amongst the first Christians, to whom all churches appeal for their model of authority?

Well, we have the "apostles". Now "apostle" of course means someone sent out or away by someone else. The important thing to note is that "apostle", like most words, is not a specifically Christian word - therefore these people were not "apostles" as if that explained everything, but "apostles of Jesus Christ". So we have a category or role of "sent-outness" by Jesus Christ. This role seems to involve basically telling other people about the person who sent them.

However, as the ekklesia that gathers around this proclaimed Jesus Christ increases, certain practical problems entail - brought to a head by the argument over distribution of food between Hebrew and Greek widows. What seems to have happened is that these "apostles" had taken up some of this role too, but had got bogged down in it - therefore (with a little ill-grace, it would appear) they tell the people to find some others who are actually good at administration and service - and 7 are found. Interestingly, the people choose them and they are then blessed by the apostles, which suggests that the appointment was plenary rather than hierarchical. We retain a vestige of this in the selection process and the acclamation at ordination and consecration, but these are ultimate pale imitations of the process - DDO's are always ordained, parish churches are ultimately taken out of the discernment process once a candidate is sent from them, and the ordination service is a virtual fait a complit. The power to ordain to an office is quite clearly with the hierarchy, rather than them acknowledging the choice of the people.

Anyway, I digress. So, we have one group of people sent out by Jesus Christ - apostles - and another "order" which arises out of the practical necessities of a growing community - a "diaconate", a service - but two things are clear:

1. The diaconate is not a stepping stole to "apostleship". They were clearly different things. Therefore, the episcopal churches who claim to have a 3-fold ministry when in fact the diaconate is merely the pre-qualification for priesthood (a bit like me gettig a degree before needing to train as a solicitor) is lying to itself. The Church of England's diaconate is not the diaconate of the early church, and the sooner it notices that the better.

2. Certain people within that diaconate also appear to have had a preaching role - cf. Stephen and the "Philip" who speaks to the Ethiopian Eunuch (is he the Apostle Philip? This is unclear, because prior to this event, when the church is scattered after the death of Stephen, we are told that the apostles remained in Jerusalem, whereas this Philip seems to be part of the diaspora. Unless of course "Apostle" has now narrowed in meaning to Peter, James and John, but I don't know...)

Anyway....where was I?

Oh yes, pontificating.

So "apostleship" isn't the same as "preachign" (clearly there were others who don't appear to be classed as apostles but preached - the four sisters for example.)

Later still, possibly by the 60s (or if Deutero-Pauline, even later) we have a reference to the role of oversight (or, given that "skepesthein" means look, literally "overlook" ). Again, like Apostle or even Diakon, not a specifically Christian word. The Early Church had some ideas about the sort of person this should be (see the Pastorals, 1 Clement and Ignatius which show varying approaches to the point). But this overseeing role appears to arise out, again, out of the practicalities of community life (not specifically Christian life). What is further apparent is that this oversight was not practiced anywhere other than within the wider context of the local community. This oversight role appears to be at a much lower level than later medieaval practice would make it, where it started aping Roman administration and later "lordship" models. (You then reach the lowest point of the Church of England in the 18th/19th centuries where you have loads of bishops in places where people don't live anymore because they're all moving to the big cities during the industrial revolution. Or you have comedy bishops like Benjamin Hoadly, who acquires for himself a few of the richer parish livings, gets himself made Bishop of Bangor and doesn't even come within 3 counties of his see for the rest of his career.)

So we have three words being used - epsicope, apostol and diakon - all of which are in common currency beyond the Church and without specific Christian meaning. Therefore the defining factor of the ekklesia is not the words it uses but to whom the bearers of these titles relate, i.e. Jesus Christ. But interestingly, the only "title" that can be derived derived directly is apostol, which is why we have an "apostolic" Church, i.e. one that has been sent out by Jesus Christ.

Two aspects of the early church are pertinent to this issue as well - firstly, what appears to be a clash of style between the "structural" church of Jerusalem, under James, which appears to be very conservative in its practices, and the "charismatic" form practiced by Paul. There were tensions because of this. (Paul is quite an interesting example of Christian ministry - very soon after his conversion he is preaching, and later, after facing opposition from other factions, has to go and justify himself. He basis his claim on two things - his encounter with the risen Jesus and on the fruit of that encounter.)

Anyway, the second point is the recognition that the Spirit that empowers the apostles and teachers also empowers all the other aspects of the church - from its administration to its preaching. So we see that there are various and manifold roles in a church community, all of which can be seen as the working of the Holy Spirit. Thus it can be said that the church treasurer is "ordained", the person who prophesies (preaches) is ordained. Of course, Paul sees this in a hierarchy - apostles, prophets, teachers, administrators, etc - which suggest not 3 Orders, but manifold orders, all of them recongised by the local church as the work of the Holy Spirit. (Interestingly, he doesn't mentioned "episcoipe" at all in these discussions.) What is further obvious is that the roles of preaching, exhorting, healing, administering were not the sole prerogative of one person. Not all are apostles, not all are healers.

So it's clear we have hierarchies - but Paul throws in a bit of a curve ball at anyone who says that hierarchies and order are the be all and end all. In both Romans and 1 Corinthians, immediately following discussion of church order, Paul goes, "But so what?" - these orders must be done in love. Otherwise they are meaningless.

So what can we say of the Church of England?

It's episcopacy is in the wrong place - there are two few of them and then are at the top of a bureaucratic system which robs them of their role, which is oversight within the local community.

It's "priests" have imposed on them all the roles the Church think it should do - preach, teach, heal, administer - whereas it's clear that the gifting of the Spirit at this level is plenary, not individual. So sole parish priests cannot really carry out this role properly. The Church should aim to return to local presbyteries (Team Ministry, anyone?)

And it's diaconate doesn't exist. The role I'm training for, Reader, is (despite the Church's propoganda) not a revivivivification of the old post of Lector (all he did was read the lesson) but rather an amalgam of many roles: preaching, "diaconal" roles in worship, and a pastoral role. The Parish Evangelist, i.e. the one commissioned to go and tell people (an apostle?) is far down the pecking order comared to Paul's list.

So clearly the CofE's ecclesiology is either (a) skew-wiff and can't really claim any continuity other than in use of words or (b) evidence that the Church has the ability (and it would appear the necessity) of creating new orders and dispensing with old ones as the need requires.

Because, ultimately the words don't matter diddly - you can be bishop, pastor, priest, deacon, apostle or countless other things as far as I'm concerned. But are you a bishop over Jesus Christ's people? Are you an apostle of Jesus Christ? Are you serving the people of Jesus Christ? That's my ecclesiology, CG, an ecclesiology of people gathered around the one who said, "He who wishes to be great must be servant of all", "You should not lord it over each other". Whose brother said that when a rich man came into church in his fine clothes should be told to go and sit at the back. An ekklesia gathered around a Person who's understanding of living for God meant taking the risk that you might end up being destroyed. In one of those paradoxes that abound in Christianity, one of the Church's callings is to do things that might lead to its destruction.

HT

[crap typing skills!]