|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Priest is a Walking Sacrament
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Pope Peter, proto-Protestant? I think not.
Ingo you surprise me ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Back to the OP I imagine that Farrer is trying to move away from the Priest being a walking dispenser of sacraments, but what I wonder is how a priest (or elder or whatever) is somehow more sacramental than any other Xtain, I can accept "differently" sacramental but I can't see "more".
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
When I first read this I thought it sounded silly and rather precious.
I've thought about it some more and it still sounds silly and plain wrong.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As reflected in most of the alternative translations you offer above, there is no word in verse 2 for "charge". The only place in the context where there is something approaching it is in verse 3, corresponding to "your lot", in a negative context of not lording it over the hapless bunch which God's lucky dip has thrown up around you.
Now having looked at an interlinear bible: "shepherd-you the in/among you flocklet of-the God supervising", my earlier comment was spot on. All that is happening here is a difference in how literal or conceptual the translation is made, with practically no difference to the meaning. If I shepherd the flock in/among me, supervising ("episkopountes") it, then clearly I am in charge of that flock and tend to it. This is simply a more common English rendering of the same concept. Or if you absolutely must word-match, the word that corresponds most to "in charge of" is the Greek "en".
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I also note the near-universal use of "among" rather than "over" in these translations for the Greek preposition "en"; and while there is the verb "shepherd", unless I'm mistaken you'll be struggling to find anywhere in the NT where anyone in the church apart from Jesus is referred to as a shepherd).
There is John 21:15-17, of course. And this imagery does not drop out of thin air, but stems in particular from Jer 23:1-4. Finally, the word "chief Shepherd" in 1 Pt 5:4 obviously strongly supports the view of the elders of the church as shepherds in the preceding verses, because this term "archipoimenos" indicates an overseer of multiple shepherds where the flock is too large to be handled by one.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd like to see your case for "oversight" as described here being equivalent to "priesthood" (of some on behalf of others).
It is not simply "in this specific text alone", it is in the context of the bible and indeed of Jewish practice. To be concrete, the NT situation exactly mirrors the OT one. As you can read in Exodus 19:6, all of Israel was considered a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". This is the universal priesthood of the faithful. Yet of course this did not stop the Jews from also having a ministerial priesthood, and indeed a high priest. This differentiation is by the way also there in Exodus 19, see in particular verses 21-22 & 24. Precisely this pattern persists among Catholics, who have their High Priest Jesus Christ, a ministerial priesthood in charge of the sacraments and oversight of the faithful, and a universal priesthood of all the faithful.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by IngoB;
quote:
Pope Peter, proto-Protestant? I think not.
With you on this one for once; Peter was definitely not 'proto-Protestant'. Taking I Peter as a whole, more like proto-Anabaptist!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that the Petrine corpus contains some of the references most commonly used by those who argue for baptismal regeneration ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
clearly I am in charge of that flock and tend to it.
To my mind there is a subtle and important difference between seeing oneself as "in charge" and "having charge of" (ie bearing a responsibility for). I think the NT is overwhelmingly in favour of the latter, and emphasises that this is "among" rather than "over" the flock. quote:
There is John 21:15-17, of course
I'll grant you that one, but I don't think you'll find any reference to a local church overseer as a shepherd.
Yes, there is the implicit idea, but I tend to believe there is a reason the NT stops short of describing church overseers as shepherds.
quote:
quote:
I'd like to see your case for "oversight" as described here being equivalent to "priesthood" (of some on behalf of others).
It is not simply "in this specific text alone"
Oh yes it is, because that is the context you quoted to call into question Peter's being "proto-protestant".
[ 23. September 2014, 16:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Except that the Petrine corpus contains some of the references most commonly used by those who argue for baptismal regeneration ...
Like 1 Peter 3;21 which specifically rejects the idea of the washing alone sufficing, and refers to 'the pledge of a good conscience towards God'? In any case the key proto-Anabaptist references are about church/state relations on which Peter is clearly neither Protestant nor Romanist....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[tangent]No, like the first part of that very verse and the one immmediately preceding it which talks about everyone in the Ark being saved thanks to Noah, which is a symbol of the baptism that saves us[/tangent]
[ 23. September 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
To be concrete, the NT situation exactly mirrors the OT one. As you can read in Exodus 19:6, all of Israel was considered a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". This is the universal priesthood of the faithful. Yet of course this did not stop the Jews from also having a ministerial priesthood, and indeed a high priest. This differentiation is by the way also there in Exodus 19, see in particular verses 21-22 & 24. Precisely this pattern persists among Catholics, who have their High Priest Jesus Christ, a ministerial priesthood in charge of the sacraments and oversight of the faithful, and a universal priesthood of all the faithful.
Except that the NT seems not to refer to local church leadership as being specifically "priestly".
Also how does a universal priesthood operate in constrast to a ministerial one? Is it that we can all intercede and pray for example or something more?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'll grant you that one, but I don't think you'll find any reference to a local church overseer as a shepherd.
Eph 4:11-12 (RSV-CE): "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors [actually: "poimenas", "shepherds"] and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ."
To me you are anyhow playing silly games here. My faith is based on scripture and tradition, not on scripture alone. But scripture is pretty clear on this issue, and indeed 1 Peter 5 is not merely "implying" that elders are shepherds, but positively ordering them to be (using NAB-RE):
"So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter ... Tend [actually "poimanate", "shepherd" as verb] the flock of God in your midst, [overseeing] not by constraint but willingly, ... And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory."
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh yes it is, because that is the context you quoted to call into question Peter's being "proto-protestant".
Scripture is never to be read in isolation. But anyhow, I simply pointed out that the supposed primary locus of the priesthood of all believers also establishes the shepherding elders, and thus the ministerial priesthood, and its relationship to the Chief Shepherd, the High Priest. Because, well, it just does. Admittedly, not in such detail as to justify by itself some particular view of the priest's ability to consecrate a host or some such. But in sufficient detail to not let the priesthood of all believers stand against such a view.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Of course, one should ask oneself what 'shepherd' (either as a noun or as a verb) means in this imagery. Does it mean someone whom the sheep need to obey unquestioningly? Or is it someone who risks his life fencing off the wolves?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course, one should ask oneself what 'shepherd' (either as a noun or as a verb) means in this imagery. Does it mean someone whom the sheep need to obey unquestioningly? Or is it someone who risks his life fencing off the wolves?
Sheep don't obey unquestioningly, do they? Sheep are strongly encouraged to go in the right direction, but sometimes one goes astray, and sometimes they're wilful: one finds a way out and others follow, thinking the pasture is better elsewhere.
Sheep need to be nourished, nurtured, and respected as well as being protected from wolves. The shepherd would lie across the gateway of the pen, to keep watch, as I understand it. (Hence 'I am the gate'). Above all, the shepherd must care about every single sheep.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The priest is a 'walking sacrament'....
In the modern CofE, what practical difference does such a doctrine make? Churchgoers are fewer than they were and less frequent in attendance, and the rest are less and less inclined to seek the special ministrations of the clergy. This suggests to me that most of us remain to be convinced that our 'priests' are specially invested with vital powers. Would such a statement be made in order to remind Anglicans that their priests do in fact have such powers? It seems to be a strange thing to forget, if people really believed it in the first place.
It's said that in our postmodern age people give their own meaning to religious rituals, symbols and structures. Maybe in that sense the chaplain in his (or sometimes her) dog collar has a particularly weighty spiritual presence in the lives of people for whom official Christianity is a distant haze at best. Perhaps the non-religious person with very intermittent spiritual demands has a greater awareness of the priest as a walking sacrament than the Christian who has access to other spiritual resources.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I may be - probably am - thick, but I've now lost the thread. The OP was whether we agreed or disagreed with the statement that a priest is a walking sacrament. It seems to come from Austin Farrer. Most of us have disagreed with this fairly vehemently.
We now seem to have got onto a notion as to whether some are appointed to be shepherds or not. I thought virtually everyone agreed that this is so, even in ecclesial communities which have no paid clergy. Even though I have covered myself by saying 'virtually', I don't actually know of any ecclesial community where this is not the case, or where the terms 'pastor' and/or 'pastoral' are not used. But I can't see what bearing at all that might have on the phrase 'walking sacrament'.
Incidentally, it seems to be a striking Christian universal that whatever one's theology of priesthood/ministry, high, low, sacerdotal or not, and wherever you live, it's taken for granted that this is combined with an understanding of what being pastoral involves that is surprisingly consistent even allowing for cultural adjustments.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Raptor Eye: Sheep don't obey unquestioningly, do they? Sheep are strongly encouraged to go in the right direction, but sometimes one goes astray, and sometimes they're wilful: one finds a way out and others follow, thinking the pasture is better elsewhere.
Sheep need to be nourished, nurtured, and respected as well as being protected from wolves. The shepherd would lie across the gateway of the pen, to keep watch, as I understand it. (Hence 'I am the gate'). Above all, the shepherd must care about every single sheep.
You're referring to John 10:1–21 of course, and I do think this text is relevant here.
The sheep get to evaluate the one who comes in as a shepherd. They'll follow the real shepherd because they recognize his voice, they know he'll protect them, that he'll even give his life for them. It's on this basis that trust is built.
They don't follow him because the shepherd tells them to, or because the shepherd has been ordained, or because church structures say they should. The sheep have the final word here. The shepherd has to earn their trust. There's no blind obedience here.
I believe that when Jesus asks some people to be shepherds, their main task is to protect the others from the wolves. That's the image of the shepherd that's present in both the Old and New and the New Testament. The shepherd doesn't give orders to the sheep, he earns their trust. Based on this trust, maybe he can even suggest to the sheep what they can do to stay safe. But this trust is evaluated by the sheep.
[ 24. September 2014, 00:19: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... The OP was whether we agreed or disagreed with the statement that a priest is a walking sacrament. It seems to come from Austin Farrer...
I am unsure where the phrase comes from. It sounds to me like something out of 1930s triumphalist ceremonial Anglo-Catholicism - the sort embodied in many of Betjeman's poems. Whilst I love Betjeman, I am not an aficionado of this uber "High" version of the Anglican (or any other) priesthood. I say "Anglican" because it does seem to come from that Tradition. Saying that, I think it distorts the balance within the total Anglican Tradition, because there is an equally valid "Low" concept of Anglican priesthood. In fact, the great ++ Michael Ramsey, a contemporary and fellow student at one stage of Farrer's, would've pointed this out. The genius of Anglicanism is to balance the two and hold them in creative tension. That statement does not allow for that and therefore, to me, is unsatisfactory. I am reminded of a sermon preached years ago at Great St Mary's, Cambridge, by + Christopher Butler, both a former Anglican and a former Abbot of Downside, where, talking of ecumenism, he hazarded the hope that all Christian denominations would bring something of their living tradition to the table. He was very much a visionary and someone fully cognizant of Vatican II, in which he played quite a seminal role and was very much a believer in what it was about. This statement is anything but visionary. It is also hubristic and inappropriate to the modern age. I cannot see Pope Francis coming out with a statement like that. He has too much insight and humility. This statement should be interred at dead of night, with a stake through its heart, hopefully never to rise again.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Agreed, Sir Pellinore.
I don't think one has to be snake-belly low to take issue with the 'walking sacrament' statement from the OP.
It strikes me that there's an inherent tension with any form of church leadership or pastoral roles ... whatever we call these things or whether we understand them in a 'high', 'middle' or 'low' kind of way.
This applies just as much to churches which claim to have little by way of heirarchical structure as it does to those who go in for heirarchies big time ...
Sometimes those churches which appear to be less structured and heirarchical are actually the most controlling and hegemonically heavy - as it were ...
Wherever we fit on the spectrum, as it were, it behoves us to beware of the pit-falls ...
On the baptismal regeneration thing - I was simply using that as an example of how different traditions can derive differing interpretations from the same set of verses - a full-on baptismal regeneration advocate could provide Steve Langton with readings/interpretations of those verses that back up their views - quite easily.
But that's another issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
... This statement should be interred at dead of night, with a stake through its heart, hopefully never to rise again.
I agree.
Does anyone not agree, or is anyone prepared to say they find it helpful, or why?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
The quote from Farrer seems to be confusing two sacraments: the Eucharist and Holy Orders.
Whether it should be discarded completely seems to me dependant on how you define sacrament and the untangling of the two "official" sacraments of Eucharist and Holy Orders.
But the early church didn't confuse the two. They decided the character of the priest was not important to the efficacy of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
In a very broad sense: a sacrament could be defined as anything that displays God's grace. This is the idea behind a sacramental universe:
quote:
Archbishop William Temple expressed this view in his Gifford Lectures of 1932-3 and 1933-4. Temple argued that ‘Christianity is the most avowedly materialistic of all the great religions’ (p. 478). By this he meant that the goodness of creation and the idea of a sacramental universe was God’s chosen way and not that Christians were merely addicted to material things. It was, he said, in things of this world that the reality of God was revealed, ultimately in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in human flesh, but also in the Scriptures and in the Church. Materiality was not the initiative of humans but the initiative of God.
See here.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The quote from Farrer seems to be confusing two sacraments: the Eucharist and Holy Orders.
Whether it should be discarded completely seems to me dependant on how you define sacrament and the untangling of the two "official" sacraments of Eucharist and Holy Orders.
But you can't have one without the other.
The key function of one who is ordained is to offer the encharist. (and to embody a eucharistic lifestyle.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps the non-religious person with very intermittent spiritual demands has a greater awareness of the priest as a walking sacrament than the Christian who has access to other spiritual resources.
Indeed - talk to any newly ordained and they're likely to tell you what a difference to their life has happened once they wear a collar.
People project their notions of God on to you - some will talk to you like a father/mother figure, some will be rude and abusive.
In that sense, the priest is a walking (or sitting in the pub or on the train) sacrament.
This doesn't take away from the priesthood of all the baptised any more that belief in the real presence in the eucharist takes away from the belief that God is in every (other) particle of matter.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The quote from Farrer seems to be confusing two sacraments: the Eucharist and Holy Orders.
Whether it should be discarded completely seems to me dependant on how you define sacrament and the untangling of the two "official" sacraments of Eucharist and Holy Orders.
But you can't have one without the other.
The key function of one who is ordained is to offer the encharist. (and to embody a eucharistic lifestyle.)
Your concluding statement presumes that very "High" concept of the priesthood. There is an equally valid "Low" concept of the priesthood which would say the main purpose of the priest is to preach the Gospel. In this situation you could say the main purpose of the priest is to embody the Gospel. Strangely enough, coming from my background, I would prefer this without sacrificing the Eucharistic ministry. As I said, I think in Anglicanism you have to have the creative tension between "High" and "Low" interpretations because that leads to necessary cross-fertilisation, which is what Anglicanism is about, the creative Via Media. The best Anglican thinkers, I find, are those like ++ Michael Ramsey, who see this. What I regret in my country, Australia, is the move away from this centre, where a priest was recognisably Anglican and not "extreme" to either lunatic Anglo-Catholicism a la FNQ (Far North Queensland), where I heard a priest in Mackay once mention "Holy Days of Obligation" which do not exist per se in Anglicanism or like one of the Jensen Brothers and their acolytes in Sydney who I think had moved well beyond anything recognisably Anglican. I remember the late ++ Frank Woods of Melbourne who epitomised mainstream Anglicanism where these two trends came together. These days you have to go to England to find genuine mainstream Anglicanism in any strength. I regret this.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm more sacramentally inclined than once I was, but I don't find the 'walking sacrament' idea to be particularly helpful - beyond it being the case that all Christians should live a 'eucharistic' lifestyle - if we think of 'eucharistic' in its root meaning of 'thanksgiving'.
Therefore, I would maintain that even non-sacramental forms of Christianity - such as the Salvation Army and the Quakers could demonstrate such an approach to life even if they don't have formal sacraments as such - although I believe it would be better if they did ...
What does it actually mean in practice to live a 'eucharistic lifestyle'?
And how does ordination help that ... insofar that it's not immediately obvious that people who are ordained are more likely to demonstrate 'eucharistic' and a fully-rounded Christian approach to life than those who aren't ...
Putting it crudely, ordination never stopped paedophile priests from carrying out their nefarious activities ...
Now - I could find some aspects to go along with in the statement about 'walking the sacrament' as it were - in terms of walking the talk - but again, this isn't restricted to those who are ordained.
I s'pose the issue is, for whose benefit?
I actually quite like seeing clergy around the town in clerical dress ... I like seeing priests and monks and nuns and so on in places where they go in for such things - but obviously there's more to it than that.
It's been said of this area (where I now live) that people don't have anything against religion - that they like to see it - they'd be quite happy to see us all parading around with banners or crosses and so on - providing that someone else is doing it and not them.
One of the concerns I have is that there's something 'vicarious' going on with the 'vicar' or clergyperson doing other people's religion for them and on their behalf. You don't have to engage with the faith in any way - you simply have to watch your local priest/clergy person strolling along and that's your dose of religion for the week ...
It's treating the priest a bit like the bronze serpents the Israelites made in the desert and put on poles so that when people looked at them they would live ...
Nehushtan was the name - and the Israelites had to destroy them in the end ...
In my more Puritanical days I'd have gone to town on that.
These days, I'd suggest that there is 'something in' the statement in the OP in that the clergyperson can represent and 'channel' God's blessing in some way - as can we all - but beyond that I think it goes too far ...
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Depends on how good looking they are!
This?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps the non-religious person with very intermittent spiritual demands has a greater awareness of the priest as a walking sacrament than the Christian who has access to other spiritual resources.
Indeed - talk to any newly ordained and they're likely to tell you what a difference to their life has happened once they wear a collar.
People project their notions of God on to you - some will talk to you like a father/mother figure, some will be rude and abusive.
In that sense, the priest is a walking (or sitting in the pub or on the train) sacrament.
Is it in that sense the *priest* or the *collar* that is the "walking sacrament"? People are responding to the collar, if you or I put on a collar (they can be bought) we would get the same kinds of responses from people, yes? If the priest does not wear a collar they don't respond those ways, yes? (unless they know his or her position from prior acquaintance).
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I once heard an Anglican priest say that he takes his dog collar off when he travels by train because it's 'a nutter magnet' otherwise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I can empathise with the priest Gamaliel speaks of. Any priest, sadly, if known to be one, is almost immediately a "nutter magnet". I wonder, if this "walking sacrament" stuff, which I dislike and which seems to debase the representative nature of Anglican priesthood and turn it into a semi-Brahminical office, would encourage spiritual codependency? The essence of priesthood/the ministry/being a pastor is to do what Jesus did: set people free. I am unsure whether the conventional Christian churches in this country either fully realise this or want to be part of it.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The essence of priesthood/the ministry/being a pastor is to do what Jesus did: set people free.
Along these lines I recently read a pastor / teacher describe his role as like that of a midwive; someone who is there not to feed people and provide for them, but to facilitate their feeding on God and to encourage / enable their becoming the people God wants them to be.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think the midwife image is a good one ... a bit like the image of the teacher not being there to 'inculcate' or impose but to draw out what's already there ...
I s'pose, though, that a lot depends on what our expectations are of clergy/leaders etc etc ...
The model we are working with will inform our expectations.
I'm not knocking the Pentecostals here, but I've heard that statistically speaking, there are higher levels of burn-out and drop-out among Pentecostal ministers/leaders than there is among other churches and denominations.
I suspect this has a lot to do with the level of expectation placed upon them - they are meant to be one-man (or one-woman) walking revival-generators ...
I'd also suggest that, for all the qualms expressed here on these boards from time to time about an ordained or sacramental priesthood encouraging a dependency culture - it's often the other way around. Many of the charismatic evangelical groups I've encountered are predicated on the creation of a culture of dependency around the leadership or a set of principles even ...
Of course, you can find examples of that in all Christian traditions though.
I'm not sure what the answer is on this one - other than to steer some kind of middle-way.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Both Farrer and Ramsey were abglo-catholics
As opposed to day-glo catholics I suppose?
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
To me, South Coast Kevin and Gamaliel have put some of this rather well.
Just a question to those following this thread who are ordained. Would you regard the thought, should it become your ear worm as you your daily stage of duty run, 'I am a walking sacrament' as,
a. True?
b. Wholesome?
c. An encouragement to ministry as you understand ministry?
d. Good for your self image/awareness etc?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Alright, now I have the image in my head of someone wearing a white collar walking along the street, hearing the following lines in his head to the tune used by army drill instructors:
I am a walking sacramééént!
If you mess with me, you're sure gonna repent!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
I have come to the conclusion that in the Church of England, there are career clergy and there are priests and sadly the former outnumber the latter.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Depends on how good looking they are!
This?
Which one of the two? Father What-a-Waste or Rev Barbie from St Mary's By-the Sea, Malibu (who'd left her biretta and soutane in her beach bag out-of-shot)!
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think the midwife image is quite superb: gets it in a nutshell. It would also tend to act as a hubris restraint as midwifery is not a "glamour" business. Thank you, South Coast Kevin, I had not heard it. Australia is another country where "career clerics" seem to outnumber genuine shepherds/pastors. But, I suspect,'twas usually the case. "Barchester Towers" is alive and well.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not knocking the Pentecostals here, but I've heard that statistically speaking, there are higher levels of burn-out and drop-out among Pentecostal ministers/leaders than there is among other churches and denominations.
[...]
I'd also suggest that, for all the qualms expressed here on these boards from time to time about an ordained or sacramental priesthood encouraging a dependency culture - it's often the other way around. Many of the charismatic evangelical groups I've encountered are predicated on the creation of a culture of dependency around the leadership or a set of principles even ...
For CofE clergy, I presume that recognition from the wider community is more important than the adoration or otherwise of a small group of regular churchgoers. (For their part, Methodist clergy sometimes complain that their congregations don't listen to them, and are unwilling to catch whatever vision it is that they're trying to promote. But this situation doesn't hinder a minister's professional life or his social status.)
The Pentecostal pastor, however, derives all of his prestige from the congregation that he leads (unless he also writes successful books, has a TV ministry or runs for public office. And what percentage of them do any of that?), so he has to work hard to create a congregational dependency on either himself or specific doctrines. Why would anyone turn up if he didn't care? Wouldn't he be out of a job?
CofE and Methodist church leadership generally entails less risk, unless the individual ministers specifically set themselves a difficult goal. But this seems to be a personal choice rather than an imperative for their careers in the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - I think that's the case generally, SvitlanaV2 but would suggest that there is something 'systemic' about the creation of a dependency culture within charismatic and Pentecostal settings.
It may even apply to an extent in all churches that are not 'standard' or 'mainstream' in some way ...
One might even extend it to the RCs and the Orthodox insofar that a belief that one's own Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all the others aren't, rather limits personal choice and options ...
I'm certainly not suggesting that a dependency culture is limited to charismatic evangelical and Pentecostal settings ... but it does seem to be part of the modus-operandi in a way that is less overtly the case within Anglican, Methodist - and I'd say Baptist and URC settings too where the congregational model can spread the load and dilute any tendency for the minister to be the one with all the answers, the grace and power for the hour and so on.
Of course, there's something heroic about the Pentecostal pastor, Bible in hand, taking on sin, sickness and the devil ...
But it comes at a heavy price in terms of ministerial burn-out, the effect on their families and so on.
I'm not saying that being an Anglican vicar is an easy ride - far from it - but at least they don't have the kind of self - and/or congregationally -imposed pressures that come with the Pentecostal model.
My brother knew an ex-Pentecostal minister who is now working as a fireman. He says that loads of Pentecostal ministers have grave doubts about the message they're preaching and the reality of the 'tongues' and 'prophecies' and apparent healings that fizzle out almost as quickly as they are claimed ...
Yet many of them hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Co-dependency can be unconsciously part of any religious or secular body. I think a certain sort of co-dependent demagogue would be attracted to what he/she perceives as "a position of power". There are many people with (often undiagnosed) psychiatric problems who are drawn to a charismatic individual. In Christianity the paradox is the power does not come from "you" or "me" but from Christ working through you or me. Hubris destroys spiritual life.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - I think that's the case generally, SvitlanaV2 but would suggest that there is something 'systemic' about the creation of a dependency culture within charismatic and Pentecostal settings.
It may even apply to an extent in all churches that are not 'standard' or 'mainstream' in some way ...
One might even extend it to the RCs and the Orthodox insofar that a belief that one's own Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all the others aren't, rather limits personal choice and options ...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, there's something heroic about the Pentecostal pastor, Bible in hand, taking on sin, sickness and the devil ...
But it comes at a heavy price in terms of ministerial burn-out, the effect on their families and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My brother knew an ex-Pentecostal minister who is now working as a fireman. He says that loads of Pentecostal ministers have grave doubts about the message they're preaching and the reality of the 'tongues' and 'prophecies' and apparent healings that fizzle out almost as quickly as they are claimed ...
Yet many of them hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance.
This might just be me reacting against attacks on what I see as 'my kind of church', but these comments strike me as being full of post hoc rationalisations.
It seems, Gamaliel, that you've decided pentecostal / charismatic / revivalist church is bad, and then you pick out specific issues (which might well apply in some way or other to other flavours of church) to justify that view.
I mean, is the creation of a dependency culture really much less of an issue in Anglican, Methodist, Baptist and URC churches? Is ministerial burn-out much less of a problem? Do ministers in such churches not have the same tendency to 'hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance'?
Maybe you're right, but your argument just feels very convenient to me, and employed in order to justify a view that you've come to by other means. Sorry if I'm way off beam, though... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't mind you challenging these assertions in the least, South Coast Kevin.
I'm not singling out Pentecostal and charismatic churches as the only environments where a dependency culture can develop - indeed, I was careful to point out that other forms of church can do the same.
Indeed, if we take the RCs and Orthodox, for instance, one could say that they've got a built-in dependency aspect too - insofar as they each believe that they are THE place to get the real deal ... which - for whatever else that means and implies - suggests that adherents are going to be 'dependent' upon them for the kosher sacraments and teaching ...
I will hold up my hand and acknowledge that having been involved with charismatic evangelical churches very heavily in the past, I am inclined to highlight some of what I now consider to be their weaknesses.
That doesn't mean I'm indifferent to their strengths.
It's just that from both detached observation and personal experience I think that revivalist groups do encourage a form of dependency culture in a way that I've not seen in other expressions of church.
So, yes, there may be an element of post-hoc rationalisation there - but might it not also be the case that I've gradually moved away from those forms of church because I found them to be rather 'limiting' and creating an unhealthily dependent environment?
I'm not saying that pentecostal / charismatic / revivalist churches are 'bad' - simply that there are inherent pitfalls within their particular systems just as there are equal and opposite pitfalls in other forms of church.
I'm not saying we're pretty much stuffed all ways round - rather that we need to be aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of whatever form of church we're involved with. Then we don't get such a sore arse when it eventually turns round and bites us on the backside ... which will inevitably sooner or later - as with any 'human' group or institution.
Churches are both human and divine organisations, as it were. We're going to knock our knees and bash our shins sooner or later. It's best to be prepared for that.
I think that dependency cultures can form in any church community - I'd suggest though, that these are less apparent in more 'mainstream' churches as the expectations aren't generally quite as 'full-on' as they are in revivalist settings.
Ministerial burn-out is certainly a problem right across the board - it's high everywhere. I'm quoting statistics my brother-in-law obtained once which suggests that burn-out is higher among Pentecostal leaders than it is elsewhere.
So it's a problem everywhere, but a particular problem within Pentecostalism and I've suggested reasons why that might be the case.
As for ministers/clergy etc simply going through the motions and hanging on in rather than going out and getting a 'proper job' (as it were) then yes, that happens everywhere too.
My brother's friend the fireman was simply speaking as he found. He still had his faith. He hadn't abandoned Christianity or the church. He just couldn't face dealing with the same 'prophecies' over and over and over again and the same 'tongues' that simply sounded like 'shalabanana-na-na-na' and so on.
I don't know what this view is that I'm supposed to have come by 'other means'. What other means?
I've come to the views I hold by active engagement with real people in real situations - and not simply from posting on Ship or reading the occasional book on the subject.
I could roll up at your Vineyard church on Sunday and do all the 'stuff', use the right language, move the right moves, talk a good act - and you'd be none the wiser. Give me 10 minutes or so with a responsive and suggestible crowd of people and I could have them all flat out on their backs before you could say 'Jack Robinson' or Sellimahonda, aveabacardi'.
I know what I'm talking about, pal. I've been there, I've done it.
Apologies if that sounds a bit harsh. I'm certainly not suggesting that the opposite tendency expressed in the comment posted in the OP - the 'priest is a walking sacrament' is the way to go ... far from it.
Sure, the figures show that Pentecostal and charismatic churches are the ones holding their own and experiencing growth. Great. Glory be. But the stats also seem to suggest that they also experience 'revolving door' syndrome and high levels of ministerial burn-out.
Perhaps it can't happen any other way. Perhaps there's no way around that. Perhaps it's inevitable.
I don't know.
I'm wondering aloud and certainly not aiming to diss your church or anyone involved with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyonesse
Apprentice
# 2567
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Also how does a universal priesthood operate in constrast to a ministerial one? Is it that we can all intercede and pray for example or something more?
I've always seen it as analogous to the tribe of Levi in the OT - most members of the tribe weren't priests, but in order to be a priest you had to be a member of the tribe. Similarly, most of the baptised aren't called to ordained ministry, but in order to be called and selected (and then ordained), you must be baptised - the priesthood of all believers therefore (to me) signifies that the ordained priesthood is open to all the baptised, not just those born into the right tribe.
Posts: 29 | From: Merseyside | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My brother's friend the fireman was simply speaking as he found. He still had his faith. He hadn't abandoned Christianity or the church. He just couldn't face dealing with the same 'prophecies' over and over and over again and the same 'tongues' that simply sounded like 'shalabanana-na-na-na' and so on.
Well, that I will happily concede is a problem which might well be worse in charismatic / pentecostal churches - the pressure on leaders to perform, to be the 'highly gifted' one. But the issues you mentioned in your previous comment; I'm not so sure they apply to charismatic / pentecostal churches more than any other.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know what this view is that I'm supposed to have come by 'other means'. What other means?
Mainly, the pressure to perform, I guess. That pressure (which I certainly agree is an issue) really turned you off from charismatic evangelical church, and now you (ISTM) impute lots of problems and difficulties onto that style of church that actually aren't specific to, or perhaps aren't even more of an issue with such churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mainly, the pressure to perform, I guess. That pressure (which I certainly agree is an issue) really turned you off from charismatic evangelical church, and now you (ISTM) impute lots of problems and difficulties onto that style of church that actually aren't specific to, or perhaps aren't even more of an issue with such churches.
Hmmmm ... I can see why you might assume this to be the case, but I don't think it was purely 'pressure to perform' that put me off - and let's point out here that I'm certainly not put off all aspects of charismatic evangelicalism - far from it.
There were other elements that gave me pause - such as threadbare theology and over-egged claims and so on.
However, whatever the case, I do believe that all Christian confessions and all models of church contain inherent strengths and weaknesses within themselves - that's just the way things are.
The Papacy, for instance, can be seen as a source of strength and stability - yet to non-RCs it can be a deal-breaker ... apparently overweening and controlling ...
Lively and bouncy worship styles can be a strength too - upbeat, contemporary, engaging ... yet this can easily spill over into a manipulative approach and the kind of pressure to perform that's been alluded to.
We can point out both bright and shadow sides to anything to do with church life.
That's all I'm doing. I'm not saying that we're all going to hell in a hand-cart because of it.
[Code fix, because I wanted to see who'd written what -Gwai]
[ 26. September 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
If you are a burnt out, knackered CofE stipendiary cleric who doesn't see many other ways to earn a living, you can just hang on in the post that you have. Perhaps your theology gets vaguer and your performance of your duties more limited an perfunctory, but unless you put your hand in the poorbox or someobody else's underwear, or start some serious fights with people, you can probably get by, doing a minimum. Now, this is not a good thing- in fact, it's positively harmful for all concerned- but it does not involve manufacturing dubious gifts of the Spirit.
This may apply to URC/Methodist etc clergy too. Certainly one thing that all those ministering in a reasonably established denomination ought to be able to expect is some kind of backup or oversight, both managerial and pastoral, to avoid burnout and despair. I know it's not always there where it should be, but the structures are there and should be used to provide that support.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I wouldn't be so cynical as to suggest that these other guys are 'manufacturing dubious gifts of the Holy Spirit', rather, there is an expectation there to endorse almost anything and everything that purports to be a spiritual gift.
So, there's a pressure there for them to 'pass' or endorse things that they probably know deep down are a pile of poo - or at least inconsequential at best.
If these guys (or gals) were to spend their time filtering out the dross like some kind of collander then they'd soon find themselves unpopular and possibly even out of a job.
Our vicar's charismatic and tells me that he'd rather run the risk of letting some duff stuff through than not have stuff in the first place ...
The thing is, though, there isn't any 'stuff' there - it's all twaddle. You don't need a degree in spiritual discernment to see that.
The good stuff goes on anyway, irrespective of all the silly things.
I'm convinced that the reason so many charismatic evangelical outfits make headway owes less to their understanding of spiritual gifts than it does to their energy, oomph and commitment -
One could argue, however, that the apparent 'spiritual gifts' act as motors as well as 'validators' for the latter ... there is something synergistic going on there.
The bottom-line, though, is activism and intentionality - if there is such a word.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know what this view is that I'm supposed to have come by 'other means'. What other means?
These other means, perhaps...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar's charismatic and tells me that he'd rather run the risk of letting some duff stuff through than not have stuff in the first place ...
The thing is, though, there isn't any 'stuff' there - it's all twaddle. You don't need a degree in spiritual discernment to see that.
Here, I think, is your interpretive 'grid' - the supernatural charismatic stuff is all twaddle, in your view, and I think this might be leading you to overplay the dangers and problems with charismatic evangelicalism; including identifying those issues a few posts upthread which I think are actually common across all (or at least most) strands of Christianity.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My brother knew an ex-Pentecostal minister who is now working as a fireman. He says that loads of Pentecostal ministers have grave doubts about the message they're preaching and the reality of the 'tongues' and 'prophecies' and apparent healings that fizzle out almost as quickly as they are claimed ...
Yet many of them hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance.
In the black-led Pentecostal churches the clergy are often part-timers, as they have to do other jobs to get a regular income. Of course, if their churches become very popular then they can switch to a full-time ministry, but at least they start off with work experience in the 'real world', and if they leave the ministry for whatever reason they have the skills to do other things.
As for Pentecostal clergy who aren't convinced about what they're preaching, that's surely no different from plenty of clergy in the mainstream churches! So long as the ministry provides a way to earn a living and to feed one's children the church community takes the risk that any minister might end up more or less just going through the motions. This is one reason why I'm not sold on the idea of having a professional class of priests. But there doesn't seem to be much of an alternative - other than limiting the time one spends with the religious community.
It would be interesting to know how different denominations compare when it comes to the clergy dropping out. Is it hard to walk away if you see yourself as a walking sacrament, or does that sort of identity become too heavy to bear after a while?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Two quick responses ...
@SvitlanaV2 - I can't lay my hands on the references, but I have heard that statistically the burnt-out rate is higher for Pentecostal clergy than it is for other types of clergy ... but the burn-out rate is pretty high all round.
Also, I don't think there are actually that many CofE clergy walking around thinking that they are some kind of 'walking sacrament' either ... it's a view that's been well and truly kicked into touch by most posters on this thread - including some of the more sacramental ones ...
Is it any different, though, to the pietistic comment that was once current that if you carry your Bible to church you preach a sermon a mile (or half a mile or however far) long ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Praying on street corners to be seen by men comes to mind ...
@South Coast Kevin - au contraire - my interpretive grid allows room for charismatic gifts and for the supernatural. It's just that I don't see a great deal of evidence for supernatural inspiration behind what passes for spiritual gifts or prophecy/words of knowledge and so on in most charismatic circles these days.
You want prophecy? I can give you prophecy.
I could come round to your church this Sunday and make a fairly convincing fist of it.
I'm sorry, my friend, but you seem to clutching at straws in an attempt to deflect the implications of what I'm saying - that nine times out of ten the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
I don't see that as something to resist or be bothered about - if we can see the Emporer's hairy arse then we should point it out - and perhaps even apply Occam's Razor to it.
Making sure we work up a nice lather first ...
I'd be all for prophecy and spiritual gifts and words of knowledge and so on if I actually heard one that made me sit up and take notice.
I can't remember the last time I actually heard one that had that effect.
--------------------
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
I've also acknowledged that these kind of problems are common across all Christian traditions ... I've said that several times.
There are problems connected with 'enthusiasm' and problems associated with not having 'enthusiasm.'
It's like the Oscar Wilde adage about there being only one thing in the world worse than being talked about - not being talked about.
I'm certainly not letting non-charismatic outfits off the hook - they've got problems of their own.
It just seems to me that certain forms of spirituality depend on very close levels of interaction that can spill over into a form of dependency culture.
This is particularly true, I think, of charismatic evangelical spirituality. It comes with the territory.
Other problems come with the territory in other traditions and other spiritualities.
You can find dependency cultures elsewhere, of course, but it manifests itself in different ways. That's the point I'm trying to make ... it's a both/and not an either/or one.
--------------------
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
