|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Full Ministerial Priesthood of All Believers?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm wondering whether or not every baptized Christian (and, since everyone should be baptized, every human being) should be a bishop. I mean this in the Catholic sense - having the fullness of the ministerial priesthood and being able to celebrate every sacrament, including ordaining other deacons, priests, and bishops.
Quite a few protestants believe that the only priesthood available to humans is the baptismal one, and that people are called to different roles in the Church but that there is no separate ministerial priesthood set apart from other believers. Consecrating all Christians as bishops would provide Catholic Christians with a similar situation. Those people who have more authority than others in governing the Church could be elected, including a Pope.
There would no longer be a need for large churches and large congregations in order to have celebrations of any sacrament. Sundays, Holy Days, and Special Occasions could prompt larger gatherings but all that would be needed for full and solemn celebration of anything would be several Christians. Every house could have an altar and a tabernacle. No one would hardly ever need to worry about being able to receive communion, go to confession, have last rites, etc. There would be a lot of schism as bishops let their authority go to their head but that has been happening for all of Christian history anyway - I don't think the unity of the Body of Christ could any more damaged than it already is. There also would be a whole lot of sacrilege done to the Blessed Sacrament and in other ways as people got "creative" and broke the rules but that has also always been happening. I think the benefits might outweigh the risks.
Not everyone is called to everything, but once everyone was consecrated bishop then we could figure out who was better at preaching and all kinds of other roles. The point is that no impediment of lacking holy orders would ever be in the way of someone providing ministry to someone who needs it.
Baptism, confirmation, and first eucharist could all be received in infancy and then once a child was old enough s/he could be ordained to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate in stages. This resembles what boys do in the Mormon church, although they have two orders of priesthood and bishops are just men with the Melchizedek priesthood who are in a managerial and pastoral role over their congregations. Of course, the Mormons have a different understanding of many things than Catholics and Nicene/Chalcedionian Christianity in general but I was just pointing out a similarity.
I am sure that plenty of heretics have had this idea before and I am not sure if it is a good idea or not. I think it is better as a thought experiment than as an actual proposition for action.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
And this thread isn't about women's ordination. It's about everyone's. For those of you who don't believe in women's ordination, pretend that this thread is about the ordination of all male believers and it would still be about the same issue. I don't think this is a Dead Horse thread.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
You've not been listening to G&S again, have you?
The Earl, the Marquis, and the Dook,
The Groom, the Butler, and the Cook,
The Aristocrat who banks with Coutts,
The Aristocrat who cleans the boots,
The Noble Lord who rules the State,
The Noble Lord who scrubs the grate,
The Lord High Bishop orthodox,
The Lord High Vagabond in the stocks –
They all shall equal be!
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
If you don't like the idea of everyone being a bishop (because bishops cannot be married in your tradition or whatever other reason), then change my OP so that everyone is a priest and only a few people are bishops. It's still pretty much the same discussion.
And I am posting this in seriousness. I am not trolling.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm wondering whether or not every baptized Christian (and, since everyone should be baptized, every human being) should be a bishop. I mean this in the Catholic sense - having the fullness of the ministerial priesthood and being able to celebrate every sacrament, including ordaining other deacons, priests, and bishops.
Yes!
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Quite a few protestants believe that the only priesthood available to humans is the baptismal one, and that people are called to different roles in the Church but that there is no separate ministerial priesthood set apart from other believers.
Yes!
But I'm a low-church non-conformist Protestant, so don't have much to say with reference to how this might work in the Roman Catholic Church...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
[quote]Originally posted by stonespring:
Those people who have more authority than others in governing the Church could be elected, including a Pope.
This, it seems to me, is where your scheme breaks down. You acknowledge that there should be people who have a role in governing the church and who are selected and appointed by some means. At the moment (certainly within an RC framework and actually within most traditions) those people are the clergy. Make everyone clergy and then you need to generate a new class of such people - clergy mk 2? New presbyter is but old priest writ large and all that...
seasick, new presbyter ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
You've not been listening to G&S again, have you?
The Earl, the Marquis, and the Dook,
The Groom, the Butler, and the Cook,
The Aristocrat who banks with Coutts,
The Aristocrat who cleans the boots,
The Noble Lord who rules the State,
The Noble Lord who scrubs the grate,
The Lord High Bishop orthodox,
The Lord High Vagabond in the stocks –
They all shall equal be!
Or, quote:
When everybody's somebody,
Then no-one's anybody.
I think I can tease a couple of ideas out of this that I actually find quite attractive.
First, that bishops should cease to be "princes of the Church". It's a common disease in the CofE, for instance, that the bishop is the posh bloke with the big house, etc. The one who's feted and fawned over wherever he goes and wears all the glitziest tat. Why is the bishop not the man or woman in the council flat, with nothing but an amethyst ring and a wooden crozier to their name, who turns up to the confirmation service by bus?
Secondly, the thought that our religion could be played out in each household of believers. Well, of course, it already could, if people wanted. But not by celebrating the Eucharist: rather by celebrating the Daily Office together. But at the moment, I think, it's hard enough even to get people to do that. YMMV.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Is this one of those topics where you're deliberately trying to pick a fight and/or watch others fight it out for your own amusement?
Accusations of trolling aren't allowed in Purgatory. That's different to criticising the provocative nature of a particular post. Post, not person, is the usual divide on any form of personal criticism. You drifted across the boundary.
Trolling is a serious matter, which is why it is for Admin to determine, based on a posting pattern. It normally leads to planking. Accusations of trolling can even get you into trouble in Hell.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
While not exactly Christian, the Latter Day Saints confer priesthood to all adult males in their church, and I think it's mandatory for have weekly home worship for families led by the elder male.
Sounds similar to what you are imagining.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Stonespring: Have you ever been part of a denomination that worked this way? How did it work out?
In denim actions like The Brethren, the was no formal clergy! but seniority was the requirement - and maleness in their case. But I think they would avoid the term sacrament.
[ 10. January 2014, 15:24: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Denim action is ipad auto-buggerups for denominations. Sorry'
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Sounds like chaos, if you ask me, and as someone pointed out above, you end up creating a new class within a class, the result, pointless.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
This would be a serious distortion, because the gathered Church is supposed to represent all the orders from laic 'up' (/across). Were everyone a bishop, you would have many princes and no people, many shepherds and no flock. Removing the hierarchy (which your communion, and much of mine, and many others, believe to be divinely instituted) would be to mar the beauty of Christ's Spouse, like lopping of a limb or multiplying noses.
This is without mentioning that the essence of episcopacy is Leadership: they are Shepherds and Fathers to us: a sheepfold cannot lack sheep, nor a family mothers and children.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sounds like chaos, if you ask me, and as someone pointed out above, you end up creating a new class within a class, the result, pointless.
We are going to have clericalism, inequality, injustice, etc., no matter what - maybe in a few milennia will get a little closer to the Kingdom of God but this side of the eschaton we will never have perfection.
Archbishops, ordinaries, metropolitans, primates, patriarchs/matriarchs, Cardinals and Popes are not Holy Orders. They could be names used for those who have greater authority in such a Church as I am describing. Or you just make everyone a priest and let only a few be bishops.
The really important thing is that the eucharist, confession, anointing of the sick, and priests to celebrate baptisms, weddings, funerals (although you don't really need a priest to do those last three things in the RCC (you need a priest for weddings in Orthodoxy)) - all of these things could be everywhere all the time. People would not need to go to Church because the Church would always be where they are. And this would be the basis from which we could start all the other work of the Church. People still need to come and work and worship together with strangers and people they do not like. But they don't need to be an anonymous pew-warmer attending a rushed Mass where the priest (one of a rapidly decreasing number) hardly interacts with anyone before or after and hardly tries to preach anything relevant for fear of upsetting the blandness that keeps the crowd of anonymous pew warmers complacent. My suggestion is not the only or the best way to fix this. But I am proposing it as a thought experiment because of problems like this.
Inidividualism is pretty bad in modern society but selfishness itself is nothing new. The Church is already in complete chaos and anyone who claims otherwise has their head buried in the sand of their happy little corner of it. So having a universal ministerial priesthood (I'm leaving the bishop thing aside now) would not add much if at all to that chaos.
And don't just talk about the RCC! Imagine this in Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc. I know that many other denominations don't believe in a ministerial priesthood so the discussion is a bit moot for them.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This would be a serious distortion, because the gathered Church is supposed to represent all the orders from laic 'up' (/across). Were everyone a bishop, you would have many princes and no people, many shepherds and no flock. Removing the hierarchy (which your communion, and much of mine, and many others, believe to be divinely instituted) would be to mar the beauty of Christ's Spouse, like lopping of a limb or multiplying noses.
This is without mentioning that the essence of episcopacy is Leadership: they are Shepherds and Fathers to us: a sheepfold cannot lack sheep, nor a family mothers and children.
Ok, so make everyone a priest instead and explain why that is so wrong.
Also, not every priest has to do all the things that priests do now all the time. In such a Church as I am suggesting, there still would be specialized leaders, preachers, teachers, judges, counselors, confessors, missionaries, financial administrators, musicians, etc. (I know that laypeople already do many of those things in the Church.) But if everyone were a priest, then you would never need to worry about the priesthood being overwhelmed by being so many things to so many people (which gets worse every day as the number of priests declines). Also, there would be much fewer cases of people prevented from accessing the sacraments - and not just the Eucharist - because of illness, old age, inability to travel, isolation, etc. We would still need leaders but having a Church full of priests would help fill in the gaps where the leaders could not be all the time.
Plus, my reading of Paul's description of Christ's Body the Church does not mean that just because someone is more part of the foot than the head (or is just part of a seemingly insignificant skin cell) does not mean that that person is not called to leadership or even priestly duties of some sort at some times. We can't all be chefs in the kitchen. But we can all know how to take up the reigns of basic chef-dom in an emergency where all the other cooks are incapacitated or absent.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Coming in as a Shipmate. As a 40-year veteran of "priesthood of all believers" churches, maybe what I have to say will help?
Firstly, equality of worth is not the same as identity of role. Secondly, fittedness for any role is a matter of talent, gifting, calling, training and testing. Thirdly, all the giftedness in the world can be misused if the character is not there. The developing Christ-likeness. Which in my understanding is the most important factor.
Whether you believe in a God-given hierarchy or a functional working out of who has got the gifts and character, or both, everyone cannot do everything. Including taking responsibility.
So you end up with some kind of hierarchy anyway. If you are very lucky, you will find at least some people in responsible positions as priests, or elders, or leaders by some other name, who are sufficiently Christlike to know that they have taken on the responsibilities of servants. They have come among you "as ones who serve". People who don't give a fig about status but are concerned for principle. And are accountable to the congregation they serve as well as any in a cross-church structure who have responsibility for their care.
I think this is what it means to have the "living stones" "fitly framed together".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Why is the bishop not the man or woman in the council flat, with nothing but an amethyst ring and a wooden crozier to their name, who turns up to the confirmation service by bus?
A bit like Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires then?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sounds like chaos, if you ask me, and as someone pointed out above, you end up creating a new class within a class, the result, pointless.
We are going to have clericalism, inequality, injustice, etc., no matter what - maybe in a few milennia will get a little closer to the Kingdom of God but this side of the eschaton we will never have perfection.
Archbishops, ordinaries, metropolitans, primates, patriarchs/matriarchs, Cardinals and Popes are not Holy Orders. They could be names used for those who have greater authority in such a Church as I am describing. Or you just make everyone a priest and let only a few be bishops.
The really important thing is that the eucharist, confession, anointing of the sick, and priests to celebrate baptisms, weddings, funerals (although you don't really need a priest to do those last three things in the RCC (you need a priest for weddings in Orthodoxy)) - all of these things could be everywhere all the time. People would not need to go to Church because the Church would always be where they are. And this would be the basis from which we could start all the other work of the Church. People still need to come and work and worship together with strangers and people they do not like. But they don't need to be an anonymous pew-warmer attending a rushed Mass where the priest (one of a rapidly decreasing number) hardly interacts with anyone before or after and hardly tries to preach anything relevant for fear of upsetting the blandness that keeps the crowd of anonymous pew warmers complacent. My suggestion is not the only or the best way to fix this. But I am proposing it as a thought experiment because of problems like this.
Inidividualism is pretty bad in modern society but selfishness itself is nothing new. The Church is already in complete chaos and anyone who claims otherwise has their head buried in the sand of their happy little corner of it. So having a universal ministerial priesthood (I'm leaving the bishop thing aside now) would not add much if at all to that chaos.
And don't just talk about the RCC! Imagine this in Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc. I know that many other denominations don't believe in a ministerial priesthood so the discussion is a bit moot for them.
Bah! Well then, why don't just start your own community according to those principles? Someone has probably already thought of that, done it and no doubt failed. I want no part of that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Some mis-understandings in your OP.
1. The Bishop position isn't just about sacraments. Believing all believers can do all sacraments is not the same as believing all can be capable Bishops.
2. Various Protestants believe various ways.
2A. Some churches think clergy have special spiritual powers not available to others.
2B. Some churches limit sacramental behaviors such as preparing Holy Communion to clergy not because of any theology but merely as a matter of orderly church proceedings.
2C. Some churches allow or encourage any active Christian to perform any sacramental role allowed by law. (Secular law limits which church members may perform valid marriages). Active Christians, those showing consistent interest in the gathering and sacramental rituals, not just any baptized person even if they declare themself an atheist. You want the person undertaking a work on behalf of all to take that behavior seriously.
3. Various churches use the word "Bishop" in various ways.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Some mis-understandings in your OP.
1. The Bishop position isn't just about sacraments. Believing all believers can do all sacraments is not the same as believing all can be capable Bishops.
2. Various Protestants believe various ways.
2A. Some churches think clergy have special spiritual powers not available to others.
2B. Some churches limit sacramental behaviors such as preparing Holy Communion to clergy not because of any theology but merely as a matter of orderly church proceedings.
2C. Some churches allow or encourage any active Christian to perform any sacramental role allowed by law. (Secular law limits which church members may perform valid marriages). Active Christians, those showing consistent interest in the gathering and sacramental rituals, not just any baptized person even if they declare themself an atheist. You want the person undertaking a work on behalf of all to take that behavior seriously.
3. Various churches use the word "Bishop" in various ways.
I agree with and already knew all that you write and I am sorry for seeming that I didn't in my OP.
Bishops are more than just celebrators of sacraments. Priests are too, but their role is to assist and represent the bishop (in Catholic understanding at least). So as I have said on this thread many times, let's talk about everyone (or most people, or a much higher number of people than now) being priests. That way, there would still be shepherds and flocks, and the members of the flock could all assist the shepherd in various ways.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Imagine encountering a homeless person on the street wearing a crucifix and being able to ask him/her to hear your confession. Then you could buy unleavened bread, wine, and dinner and allow the homeless person to preside at the Eucharist with you and anyone present before having a meal together afterwards.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Why is the bishop not the man or woman in the council flat, with nothing but an amethyst ring and a wooden crozier to their name, who turns up to the confirmation service by bus?
A bit like Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires then?
You know, that hadn't even occurred to me! But basically - yes.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sounds like chaos, if you ask me, and as someone pointed out above, you end up creating a new class within a class, the result, pointless.
We are going to have clericalism, inequality, injustice, etc., no matter what - maybe in a few milennia will get a little closer to the Kingdom of God but this side of the eschaton we will never have perfection.
Archbishops, ordinaries, metropolitans, primates, patriarchs/matriarchs, Cardinals and Popes are not Holy Orders. They could be names used for those who have greater authority in such a Church as I am describing. Or you just make everyone a priest and let only a few be bishops.
The really important thing is that the eucharist, confession, anointing of the sick, and priests to celebrate baptisms, weddings, funerals (although you don't really need a priest to do those last three things in the RCC (you need a priest for weddings in Orthodoxy)) - all of these things could be everywhere all the time. People would not need to go to Church because the Church would always be where they are. And this would be the basis from which we could start all the other work of the Church. People still need to come and work and worship together with strangers and people they do not like. But they don't need to be an anonymous pew-warmer attending a rushed Mass where the priest (one of a rapidly decreasing number) hardly interacts with anyone before or after and hardly tries to preach anything relevant for fear of upsetting the blandness that keeps the crowd of anonymous pew warmers complacent. My suggestion is not the only or the best way to fix this. But I am proposing it as a thought experiment because of problems like this.
Inidividualism is pretty bad in modern society but selfishness itself is nothing new. The Church is already in complete chaos and anyone who claims otherwise has their head buried in the sand of their happy little corner of it. So having a universal ministerial priesthood (I'm leaving the bishop thing aside now) would not add much if at all to that chaos.
And don't just talk about the RCC! Imagine this in Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc. I know that many other denominations don't believe in a ministerial priesthood so the discussion is a bit moot for them.
Bah! Well then, why don't just start your own community according to those principles? Someone has probably already thought of that, done it and no doubt failed. I want no part of that.
This is a *thought experiment*. It's not likely to happen but thinking about it can help us deal with a pretty severe problem with vocations (and with much older problems of clericalism and exclusivism in the Church). Another alternative would be to try to ensure that there is one priest for every 10 faithful (or every 10 people of faith or no faith) in any given area. You could also have even more deacons than priests to go out and minister to the hard-to-reach people, and maybe a bishop for every 100 people. The point is to bring the celebration of the Sacraments to the people in a radical way - or in a way that really shouldn't be that radical.
Note that I am a stickler for traditional Liturgy with chanting and incense too, if possible. I think this is possible (although incense might be hard to have in all places at all times) if people are brought up in their families and communities to value Liturgy and Liturgical music. It would help to be surrounded (and I mean surrounded) by priests (okay, so maybe everyone does not need to be a priest) who celebrate Liturgies every day.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
While not exactly Christian, the Latter Day Saints confer priesthood to all adult males in their church, and I think it's mandatory for have weekly home worship for families led by the elder male.
That the Mormons do it is probably a good enough reason for Christians not to.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm wondering whether or not every baptized Christian (and, since everyone should be baptized, every human being) should be a bishop. I mean this in the Catholic sense - having the fullness of the ministerial priesthood and being able to celebrate every sacrament, including ordaining other deacons, priests, and bishops.
I think the phrase "ministerial priesthood" is confusing because it mixes up two different things.
There is the presbyterate, eldership, the original New Testament idea of Christian priesthood. That includes the sort of administrative/representative/spokesperson role you admit that not everyone is called to. And that's what we ordain people to when we ordain priests in the Church
Then there is the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, a sacramental priesthood of successors to the Old Testament temple priests. Strictly speaking Christianity only has one of these priests, Jesus. The rest of us are in some way involved in this priesthood in solidarity with him - that's what the Biblical "priesthood of all believers" is about. When it comes to celebrating sacraments and rituals in public worship some -most - denominations (including Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, most flavours of Methodists and reformed) limit these ritual roles to ordained elders, some others don't. (the Catholics think they are ordaining priests to a sacrificial Cohenic Temple-priesthood, but they are wrong, So Yah Boo Sucks to them ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
Prooftexting, just cos I can:
1 Peter 2:
quote:
Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by humans yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ ... bBut you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.
Revelation 1:
quote:
To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
Revelation 5:
quote:
They sing a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth."
quote:
There would no longer be a need for large churches and large congregations in order to have celebrations of any sacrament.
That's not why people join large churches and large congregations. They mostly join them because they like them. There are loads of churches that hardly ever celebrate Holy Communion, or that allow any member in good standing to celebrate. Some of them have very big congregations. Sometimes a lot bigger than most more sacramentally-minded churches. Some of them tried to base themselves around smaller house groups and found out that they couldn't sustain that model for very long and their monthly or weekly larger gtherings became the main worship event for most of them (not all of them, there are house churches that survived and prospered - but most have probably shifted towards the weekly meeting model over the last few decades - in Britain anyway, things might be different elsewhere)
quote:
Every house could have an altar and a tabernacle.
Every house could right now if people wanted to. What's stopping them? You don’t have to tell your bishop if you want to worship privately at home. Just get on with it. Most people don't seem to want to. And they probably have the Spirit of God in that. The New Testament position seems to be that the Church - the eternal Church that constantly glorifies God in heavenly temple worship - is instantiated on earth in the gathered assemblies of God's people, whether in the old Temple, or in synagogues, or in Christian churches (which were originally perhaps little more than synagogues that contained many members who proclaimed Jesus as Lord). Private worship is surely possible, but its not the main deal, certainly not the ideal. We're repeatedly advised, or even commanded, to come together to praise God.
quote:
Not everyone is called to everything, but once everyone was consecrated bishop then we could figure out who was better at preaching and all kinds of other roles.
That is already true in many churches. Most of them probably. Many many lay people preach, or teach, or have a pastoral role already. Not just the ordained. Preaching is not reserved for the ordained in the New Testament, its a role for anyone called to it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think the phrase "ministerial priesthood" is confusing because it mixes up two different things.
There is the presbyterate, eldership, the original New Testament idea of Christian priesthood. That includes the sort of administrative/representative/spokesperson role you admit that not everyone is called to. And that's what we ordain people to when we ordain priests in the Church
Then there is the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, a sacramental priesthood of successors to the Old Testament temple priests. Strictly speaking Christianity only has one of these priests, Jesus. The rest of us are in some way involved in this priesthood in solidarity with him - that's what the Biblical "priesthood of all believers" is about. When it comes to celebrating sacraments and rituals in public worship some -most - denominations (including Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, most flavours of Methodists and reformed) limit these ritual roles to ordained elders, some others don't. (the Catholics think they are ordaining priests to a sacrificial Cohenic Temple-priesthood, but they are wrong, So Yah Boo Sucks to them )
quote:
There would no longer be a need for large churches and large congregations in order to have celebrations of any sacrament.
That's not why people join large churches and large congregations. They mostly join them because they like them. There are loads of churches that hardly ever celebrate Holy Communion, or that allow any member in good standing to celebrate. Some of them have very big congregations. Sometimes a lot bigger than most more sacramentally-minded churches. Some of them tried to base themselves around smaller house groups and found out that they couldn't sustain that model for very long and their monthly or weekly larger gtherings became the main worship event for most of them (not all of them, there are house churches that survived and prospered - but most have probably shifted towards the weekly meeting model over the last few decades - in Britain anyway, things might be different elsewhere)
quote:
Every house could have an altar and a tabernacle.
Every house could right now if people wanted to. What's stopping them? You don’t have to tell your bishop if you want to worship privately at home. Just get on with it. Most people don't seem to want to. And they probably have the Spirit of God in that. The New Testament position seems to be that the Church - the eternal Church that constantly glorifies God in heavenly temple worship - is instantiated on earth in the gathered assemblies of God's people, whether in the old Temple, or in synagogues, or in Christian churches (which were originally perhaps little more than synagogues that contained many members who proclaimed Jesus as Lord). Private worship is surely possible, but its not the main deal, certainly not the ideal. We're repeatedly advised, or even commanded, to come together to praise God.
The RCC (not sure about Orthodoxy) distinguishes between the priesthood of all believers, the priesthood that all gain at baptism (which is a very important thing in the RCC, especially after Vatican II), and the ministerial priesthood (the one that offers the Eucharistic sacrifice and celebrates some other sacraments in a special way). The non-ordained faithful also participate in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and in the other sacraments when they are celebrated. Baptism and marriage (in the RCC, not in Orthodoxy) can be celebrated without having a priest present. I agree that some RCC leaders have historically underemphasized the priesthood of all believers. But that doesn't mean the ministerial priesthood isn't different (see the long thread on vestments in eccles).
I agree that ordination in many denominations that consider themselves Catholic (like some Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) is not believed to make person part of a priesthood separate to the baptismal priesthood. It is about ministry, elderhood, oversight, etc., as you wrote, and the reason presiding at the Eucharist is limited to the ordained is for reasons of order but not because of the same concerns for sacramental validity that the RCC would have.
So my OP was directed at people who do believe there is such a thing as a separate ministerial priesthood. I am suggesting that if there is such a thing, it should either be universal or should be radically expanded so that there is one priest for every small number of people. This is suggested as a thought experiment because it is very difficult in the current Church to make anything like it happen, although maybe it might be a good idea someday.
So you and I fundamentally disagree on whether or not there is more than one kind of priesthood that Christians can have. You think that the Scripture quotes you gave refer to the one and only priesthood that humans can participate in, that gained at baptism, while I think that it refers to a baptismal priesthood that is separate from the ministerial priesthood. I don't want to debate that here. For people with your beliefs, the situation that I am describing effectively already exists. You still call some people prebyters and others laypeople, and the presbyters have rights and duties including in worship that laypeople don't have, but you don't think that prebyters are ordained to a separate priesthood the one laypeople gain at baptism. At least that is what I think you are saying.
As for large congregations: some people do benefit more from them and in my example there would still be cathedrals where a bishop (if everyone or a whole lot of people is a priest) has his/her seat. These would be bigger than most places of meeting for worship. There could also be much bigger cathedrals than others, basilicas, national shrines, etc. The whole point is that in some areas in some denominations people don't have much choice for Eucharistic worship other than being in a large assembly because of the shortage of priests. People should have Eucharist being celebrated just a few doors down from wherever they live, and have the option of going to a Eucharistic celebration in a larger space with more people. It is both/and not either/or.
And I said that part of Christianity is getting unlike people and even people who do not like each other to come together in Christ. So Sundays and Holy Days are great times for people to do so in larger gatherings.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC (not sure about Orthodoxy) distinguishes between the priesthood of all believers, the priesthood that all gain at baptism (which is a very important thing in the RCC, especially after Vatican II), and the ministerial priesthood (the one that offers the Eucharistic sacrifice and celebrates some other sacraments in a special way).
Yeah, but they are wrong
quote:
You think that the Scripture quotes you gave refer to the one and only priesthood that humans can participate in...
No, there are two. The temple priesthood - whose last and in some sbneses only member is Jesus, and in which all Christians participate through him; and the eldership or presbyterate, Christian priesthood in the strict sense, to which men and women are called and ordained by their churches, and in which we do not all participate.
quote:
...that gained at baptism
Not really baptism, but election before creation. Or conversion I suppose, if you want to be very Arminian about it. Baptism is an outward and visible sign of that inward and spiritual grace. (And it was a Roman Catholic who said that first, for all that it is best known in englsih-speakign countries from the Thirty-Nine Articles)
quote:
I don't want to debate that here.
TOO LATE, TOO LATE!
quote:
For people with your beliefs, the situation that I am describing effectively already exists.
I knew there must have been some good reason for the Reformation!
quote:
...you don't think that prebyters are ordained to a separate priesthood the one laypeople gain at baptism. At least that is what I think you are saying.
No, the opposite. The presbyterate is a role for which some church members are set aside. The temple priesthood is the special property of Jesus, our great High Prioest.
quote:
People should have Eucharist being celebrated just a few doors down from wherever they live, and have the option of going to a Eucharistic celebration in a larger space with more people. It is both/and not either/or.
It sounded as if you hated large church services and were looking for a way to get out of ever going.
quote:
And I said that part of Christianity is getting unlike people and even people who do not like each other to come together in Christ. So Sundays and Holy Days are great times for people to do so in larger gatherings.
Good. Cos that's important. More important I think than being able to have Communion on tap.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
the Catholics think they are ordaining priests to a sacrificial Cohenic Temple-priesthood
If you are going to disagree with the Catholic understanding of the priesthood at least understand it first. Have a look at the difference between Kohenic priesthood and Melchizedekian priesthood.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Imagine encountering a homeless person on the street wearing a crucifix and being able to ask him/her to hear your confession. Then you could buy unleavened bread, wine, and dinner and allow the homeless person to preside at the Eucharist with you and anyone present before having a meal together afterwards.
Wow...I'm feeling Right On just thinking about it. Homeless people will be able to sleep better on the streets and in shelters just knowing they are able to temporarily absolve young progressives of their liberal guilt. Of course, they'll have to be careful of what they give as penance. Who knows how many other homeless bishops will be more willing to loose than bind?
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos navis
# 5818
|
Posted
Every human community will have leaders, whether they are formally so-designated or not. Formal designation can have the advantage that everyone knows who the designee is, whom to follow and whom to hold accountable.
The priesthood of the ordained presbyterate is indeed the same priesthood we all share. As I read the history, I find it looks as though presbyters weren't formally ordained at first. One became an elder simply be being spiritually "older." But I also suspect that this informal system soon became unworkable.
Now, in extreme cases we may still fall back on the older system. In an emergency, any Christian may baptize. Beyond that, the proverbial castaways on a deserted island could, and would, make whatever arrangements they deemed best. They could elect a chaplain or assign the eucharistic presidency by rotation, or anything else as long as everything were done decently and in order. In the ordinary way of things, though, I think that restricting the eucharistic presidency to a formally-ordained presbyterate makes things less bad than they would otherwise be.
This doesn't mean that the question that has been raised has no implications for us, however. In some parts of the Episcopal Church there is no shortage of priests. In some places there may even be a glut! I think this is partly due to an incomplete understanding of the priesthood of all believers.
--------------------
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.
Posts: 1443 | From: Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - picture this. Next Sunday at my local parish church, say, the vicar gets up and says, 'Right, folks, we're going to take the priesthood of all believers more seriously. As of next Sunday we're all going to be priests and it's not down to special ordained ministers ...
We'll simply have a rota of people who set the communion out in baskets and you can all come and help yourselves.
Now, get on with it ...'
What would happen?
Well, for one thing, he's very, very low church and doesn't see ordained ministry in 'priestly' terms. Neither does anyone else there, I don't suppose - except me at times when I'm feeling my way higher up the candle ...
Would the regulars suddenly feel empowered and liberated?
No, of course not. They'd soon want things to return to 'normal' I suspect.
You can call everyone bishops, priests, whatever-else-you-like but that doesn't in and of itself make any difference whatsoever.
I like Hatless's idea of sacramentalism without the heirarchy that seems to attach itself to these things ...
It'd be lovely if we could have that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - picture this. Next Sunday at my local parish church, say, the vicar gets up and says, 'Right, folks, we're going to take the priesthood of all believers more seriously. As of next Sunday we're all going to be priests and it's not down to special ordained ministers ...
We'll simply have a rota of people who set the communion out in baskets and you can all come and help yourselves.
Now, get on with it ...'
What would happen?
This just sounds like a vicar bossing his congregation around, and not even giving them any understanding of why the new arrangements are important, nor what his own role should be in the process, nor how the inherited structures of the church will be affected. I'm not sure how this equates to the priesthood of all believers in any interesting way....
But TBH, I don't entirely understand this thread. Stonespring is a RC, and I don't know how the RCC envisions the priesthood of all believers. Protestant theologians might have some sophisticated ideas as to what it entails, but in practice it simply seems to mean that we all have some role to play in the Kingdom of God - so can we all put our names down on a rota, please! I think this is as much as many denominations will be able to manage, so the question is how to make it work better and spread the work around more evenly. Burnout is probably the bluntest argument for the priesthood of all believers.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Um...
OK...
Suggesting that anyone might be a priest seems to cause a major conniption for pretty much everyone. Interesting.
Just to mention the Quakers. Not everyone's cup of tea, I'll grant you. But not total chaos, I think you'd have to agree.
The leadership argument seems to me to be a complete red herring: so there must be leaders. Why must all leaders be priests? Why must all priests be leaders?
As I'd understood it, there was actually an explicit doctrine that said that priestly ministry was not dependent on the personal attributes of the incumbent, so why should anyone be denied that ministry?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think anyone is 'denied that ministry' so much as that we're expected to fulfil our priestly ministry - in which we all share - in different ways.
For some, that will involved doing churchy stuff such as presiding over the eucharist and whatever else that priests/ministers/clergy do.
For others it'll involved their 'normal' calling and vocation - in their families, work-places, voluntary work or whatever else.
@SvitlanaV2 - well, yes, I was deliberately painting a cack-handed picture to make a point.
We are a 'kingdom of priests' as the NT puts it, so the way that works out is through our own 'callings' (to use an old Puritan term) and vocations (to use a more Catholic one).
There seems to be a bizarre situation aboard Ship at times that those who take a 'lower' view of the ministerial priesthood (as it were) are often the ones who obsess the most about what does or doesn't happen during a Sunday service/gathering ...
I'm not including you in that, by the way.
In practical terms, spreading the load and so on - well, yes, I agree.
@Garasu, yes, I have some sympathy with the Friends but for various reasons I'd see them as an interesting experiment as much as anything else and something to dip in and out of and to learn from ... I'm not sure I could be a Quaker (unless I was one of the fellow-travellers or associates or whatever they call them) as I'd miss some of the more vocal/visual aspects of what goes on in other forms of church ...
Which isn't to say that I'd dismiss what happens among the Friends. It's great, as far as it goes.
But I like my Trinitarian formularies and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
There would no longer be a need for large churches and large congregations in order to have celebrations of any sacrament. ... There would be a lot of schism as bishops let their authority go to their head ... There also would be a whole lot of sacrilege done to the Blessed Sacrament and in other ways as people got "creative" and broke the rules ... Not everyone is called to everything, but once everyone was consecrated bishop then we could figure out who was better at preaching and all kinds of other roles. I am sure that plenty of heretics have had this idea before and I am not sure if it is a good idea or not.
Invisible church of true believers - Protestant.
Visible Church of true teachers - Catholic.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
There would no longer be a need for large churches and large congregations in order to have celebrations of any sacrament. ... There would be a lot of schism as bishops let their authority go to their head ... There also would be a whole lot of sacrilege done to the Blessed Sacrament and in other ways as people got "creative" and broke the rules ... Not everyone is called to everything, but once everyone was consecrated bishop then we could figure out who was better at preaching and all kinds of other roles. I am sure that plenty of heretics have had this idea before and I am not sure if it is a good idea or not.
Invisible church of true believers - Protestant.
Visible Church of true teachers - Catholic.
Roman Catholic. Allegedly.
Protestants are catholic, Ingo. You know that.
[ 13. January 2014, 13:42: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I wouldn't worry about it, Daron. If you are like the Anglican, Lutheran, or Reformed reformers, you don't believe in this "invisible church" either, so he wasn't really talking about you.
[ 13. January 2014, 13:45: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's a common disease in the CofE, for instance, that the bishop is the posh bloke with the big house, etc. The one who's feted and fawned over wherever he goes and wears all the glitziest tat. Why is the bishop not the man or woman in the council flat, with nothing but an amethyst ring and a wooden crozier to their name, who turns up to the confirmation service by bus?
This is a bit of a tangent, I know ...
A large interdenominational service was held at our church a couple of years ago. Our wonderful and well-liked CofE Bishop was due to preach.
A couple of stewards were placed in the car park to make sure he had a space to park and to welcome him. A few minutes before the service they were concerned because he hadn't turned up.
Actually he had: he had walked down from his house (in the dark), he had nipped in via the back door, and he was in the Vestry getting ready.
No wonder ++Justin has stolen him from us.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Protestants are catholic, Ingo. You know that.
I know that many Protestants will say the words of the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are like the Anglican, Lutheran, or Reformed reformers, you don't believe in this "invisible church" either, so he wasn't really talking about you.
Of course...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Stick to making statements about Roman Catholicism, IngoB, which you actually understand.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Protestants are catholic, Ingo. You know that.
I know that many Protestants will say the words of the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed.[/URL]
A Reformed Catholic (i.e. Anglican) actually believes the ecclesiological elements of the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed correctly. Roman Catholics on the other hand are mistaken in thinking that said creed makes mention of the Roman church in any exclusive sense. It doesn't.
[ 14. January 2014, 16:30: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that the Roman Catholics would presumably believe that everyone else was 'Roman Catholic' - or what became Roman Catholic - at the time the creeds were formulated - but that the rest of us hived off at some point or other ... the non-Chalcedonians in the 5th century, the Orthodox in the 11th (booted out or anathematised - did they jump or where they pushed?) and the Protestants from the 16th century onwards ...
So they'd have no need to regard the creeds in the way you've described, daronmedway, because the claims to exclusivity hadn't arisen by the time the creeds were formulated.
At least, that's how I understand the theory. IngoB can correct me if I'm wrong.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There would have been no need to single out the Roman Church in the 5th century because it was simply another jurisdiction alongside the others - if I remember rightly - Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople ...
The Pope was then the Western Patriarch.
Whether he was more than that is the moot point. RCs would say that he was, Orthodox and others that he wasn't.
But then, Rome would argue that the East was responsible for the 1054 Schism because it was trying to appropriate powers and authority for Constantinople that more properly belonged to Rome ...
It takes two to tango.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that the Roman Catholics would presumably believe that everyone else was 'Roman Catholic' - or what became Roman Catholic - at the time the creeds were formulated - but that the rest of us hived off at some point or other ... the non-Chalcedonians in the 5th century, the Orthodox in the 11th (booted out or anathematised - did they jump or where they pushed?) and the Protestants from the 16th century onwards ...
So they'd have no need to regard the creeds in the way you've described, daronmedway, because the claims to exclusivity hadn't arisen by the time the creeds were formulated.
At least, that's how I understand the theory. IngoB can correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes but they are wrong and daronmedway is right.
And that, folks, is one of the reasons why I don't swim the Tiber (if anybody cares).
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There are some nice things across The Tiber ... I like the banks of it that flow through our town and I like the Benedictine stuff and so on. I like Pope Francis too.
And yet ... and yet ... it's the Papal Infallibility thing which even our local RCs believe to be a painting of themselves into a corner ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@SvitlanaV2 - well, yes, I was deliberately painting a cack-handed picture to make a point.
We are a 'kingdom of priests' as the NT puts it, so the way that works out is through our own 'callings' (to use an old Puritan term) and vocations (to use a more Catholic one).
[...]
In practical terms, spreading the load and so on - well, yes, I agree.
The spreading of the load seems not to be working out very well, on the whole. That's why this is an issue for me.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - but I would argue that it's always going to be an issue. If we all started a new church somewhere tomorrow sooner or later we'd run into problems with who does what and whether the load is spread evenly.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
