|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Non-episcopal denominations and Anglican orders
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Agreed. I think the point being made is that ordination (and I have to admit that "commissioning" is a word that does often rear its head in Baptist circles) cannot be seen independently of the call to a congregation: there cannot be a "batch" of ordinations done together at some central point, they usually take place within the condext of an induction service.
You forgot to ad YMMV, or something like it, surely?
In Methodist polity, ordination is utterly separate from the call of the congregation - in fact, we don't have single congregations issuing calls, at all, and all our ordinations are done centrally - or, as you so quaintly put it, in one batch.
Our ministers are ordained by the whole people called Methodist, nationally, as represented by the Conference and its President, and are sent/stationed to Circuits, not individual congregations, by the Conference.
There is an element of "invitation" from the Circuits, of course, but the authority to place ministers in Circuits belongs exclusively to the Conference (or its delegated authority, the Warden of the Order, in the case of Diaconal ministers), and our ministers may be re-stationed at any time by the Conference: thus a friend of mine who went to the Conference of 1994 as a representative of the Southampton District, and by the time he went home was stationed in Cornwall!
Maybe better if you add in the word Baptists – where one (call to ministry) would be seen as being confirmed by the other (called by a congregation to be their minister). You can’t have one without the other - some Ministers have a combined Ordination / Commissioning service at the church that called them whilst others have the Ordination service at their home church shortly followed by the Commissioning service at the church that’s called them. That’s why “batch” ordinations wouldn’t be appropriate for Baptists – but are fine for other denominations. [No value judgement intended].
The Baptist accreditation process does seem to be more centralised. After someone has completed their NAN (?) period of three years, they receive their accreditation – and the right hand of fellowship - at that year’s Baptist Conference along with all the other probationary Ministers and are now fully accredited. I shall have to ask at home what difference this makes in practice.
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
Tubbs
[ 18. September 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't know if anyone knows the details of
Dave Tomlinson's career, but it might be illustrative of people who become ordained Anglicans after being a house church leader.
I've come across him a few times, I can't remember if I've read the detail about how he became an Anglican.
[ 18. September 2012, 12:40: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
They would not be treated as being ordained.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
They would not be treated as being ordained.
But would they be expected go through the whole process again or fast tracked in some way?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
IIRC I met one such at, I think, Lincoln or Cuddesdon some 20 years ago, who was on a one-year course before ordination. AIUI there would be a requirement to go through the usual two levels (deacon, then priest a year later) of ordination: at about the same time I knew a CofE curate, formerly URC presbyter of probably 15 or 20 years standing, who had to do this. That does seem a little mean to me- but wasn't the present Dean of Trinity Hall, an ex Methodist, deaconed and then priested in pretty quick succession?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
They would not be treated as being ordained.
But would they be expected go through the whole process again or fast tracked in some way?
Tubbs
In Canada, they would normally have to go through ACPO (is it still called that?) with its interviews and personal and psychological testing. Generally, convert clergy agree to live as lay members in an Anglican parish to get a feeling for how the tradition works for them-- this can be a few months, or a couple of years, depending on the cleric, the bishop, and the circumstances.
Much would depend on their theological and pastoral training. If they had a standard MDiv (such as can be had from the U of Toronto theology faculty, where most non-denominationally specific courses are shared), then there would like be a series of courses on Anglican-specific theological and liturgical subjects. In exceptional circumstances, this might be done by mentorship, rather than by enrolment.
If they had been at a Baptist-specific seminary, then I imagine that a bishop and advisers would look carefully at the content of the theological and pastoral courses before deciding what would need to be supplemented. By and large, the seminaries of the more established Baptist churches provide scriptural and homilectic training which leaves most Anglicans gasping in the dust and could easily make the new priest an instant mentor to their seniors.
While some of the less-formal backgrounds might move a bishop to ask them to do a new 3-year MDiv, as a wild guess, they would require a year, perhaps two at the most, of supplementary training, rather than the regular three years. In that sense, they can be expected to be fast-tracked. There might be a case of an eminent theologian or pastor who would be fast-tracked even more quickly but I can think of no examples.
In the two cases of which I am aware, everyone has behaved carefully and soberly, supervising authorities facilitating (and sometimes generously financing) transitions.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think former RC clergy who transfer, while not being re-ordained, have to have a similar training and curacy post.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IIRC I met one such at, I think, Lincoln or Cuddesdon some 20 years ago, who was on a one-year course before ordination. AIUI there would be a requirement to go through the usual two levels (deacon, then priest a year later) of ordination: at about the same time I knew a CofE curate, formerly URC presbyter of probably 15 or 20 years standing, who had to do this. That does seem a little mean to me- but wasn't the present Dean of Trinity Hall, an ex Methodist, deaconed and then priested in pretty quick succession?
Yes he was, without even having resigned from full connexion first. It was a fair old two fingers up to the Conference from our friends in the Church of England.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Best thing I suppose would have been to have him consecrated as a Bishop in the Church of South India.That would have encompassed both identities.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada signed a Basis of Union in 1974, the new church was to be called the Church of Christ in Canada. The United Church did agree to have bishops, I don't know what else was agreed to, I've never seen the document and it doesn't circulate on the Internet.
I don't know what that document said about United Church orders. Women's Ordination was also an issue because the United Church did ordain women at that time and had since the 1930's, we had more than a few on the active role.
IIRC John Holding said the question wasn't discussed much, but it was not a theoretical question, it was substantial.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada signed a Basis of Union in 1974, the new church was to be called the Church of Christ in Canada. The United Church did agree to have bishops, I don't know what else was agreed to, I've never seen the document and it doesn't circulate on the Internet.
I don't know what that document said about United Church orders. Women's Ordination was also an issue because the United Church did ordain women at that time and had since the 1930's, we had more than a few on the active role.
IIRC John Holding said the question wasn't discussed much, but it was not a theoretical question, it was substantial.
I write from a pensioner's failing memory as I long ago jettisoned the document, as it was a very long legalistic piece, with pages upon pages on the constitution and size of Districts (the new word for diocese), and intricate committee structures. One of the major stumbling blocks for the new body was that the Act of Union would have included a ceremony which was intentionally ambivalent and could be read as a re-ordination of all entering clergy, or as a commissioning of them into the new church. It was intended to be ambiguous but it was just too obviously so, and caused much bickering and accusations (justifiably, I think) of intellectual dishonesty-- I think that it would have been far better to use the CSI approach. IIRC, the dissent to the document, while not a majority, was significant enough that it was one of several factors which led the House of Bishops to let the process wither rather than to face a split.
O. And women UCC clergy would have become presbyters in the new body.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Thanks to the internet, my suggested solution would be mass mutual "re-ordination" for everybody for the orders they don't have at the hands of Church of South India or North India, preferably both. "Complete the necklace, collect them all!" but it would get the job done.
The United Church and the Anglican Church have long had a number of joint parishes/pastoral charges, I don't know if United Church ministers are re-ordained when called there. Under the national policy for such ventures, something has to recognized as equivalent to the Church Council or Session and there has to be some group that are Elders. Bishops are the Anglican's "can't be without it" thing, Elders are the equivalent for the United Church.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Thanks to the internet, my suggested solution would be mass mutual "re-ordination" for everybody for the orders they don't have at the hands of Church of South India or North India, preferably both. "Complete the necklace, collect them all!" but it would get the job done.
Yes, that's what I've always thought, too.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
