|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Priest is a Walking Sacrament
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
This thread has run its course if we're no longer discussing the walking sacrament concept. But the idea might work for me if it meant that the minister, thanks to his/her scholarship and extra time for reflection, was simply there to remind us of Christ's life and works, just as the bread and wine simply serve to remind us of Christ's sacrifice. This perspective probably isn't helpful if you have a high view of the communion table (or of the sacraments in general).
However, the Pentecostals I know don't seem to celebrate communion very often at all, or talk about 'sacraments'. If they do put their clergy on pedestals it's got nothing to do with that. This has led me to wonder about the supply of Pentecostal clergy. If they get so much adulation one would assume that there's fierce competition for all the posts available. But is this true?
One American commentator suggests that the fashion in the USA for 'megachurches' might be reducing the numbers of Pentecostal or charismatic clergy willing to work in the small, untrendy congregations. (The interest in 'celebrity Christians' must also work against churches that don't have the 'right' profile or location.) It's easy to imagine that even in the UK, where the options are fewer, the competition for posts is focused on a particular type of congregation, and that a high percentage of less favoured churches might have to go without the goal-driven, dynamic and powerful leader that they supposedly dream of. People like this can't be in huge supply in our society.
(BTW, one account I've read suggests that Pentecostal pastors have less burnout than others, but I suppose it depends on all sorts of factors; Pentecostalism is a worldwide movement, after all. I can imagine that in the UK, a combination of ethnic, cultural and social isolation must make it very difficult for some people to maintain their Pentecostal hyper-supernaturalism, especially if they have to be a role-model for others.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Simply'? 'Simply?'
What is this 'simply' of which you speak?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Whatever the case, I don't think Pentecostal pastors get a great deal of 'adulation' as you put it - other than the celebrity, megachurch ones.
No, the rest of them tend to have a pretty hard time of it - and yet are expected to deliver the goods and keep on smiling.
A 'dependency culture' doesn't necessarily imply adulation - although it can involve that, of course.
It's generally a lot more subtle than that.
The only reason I raised the issue was that there seemed to be an assumption by some posters that a higher level of sacramentalism implied a higher level of dependency and/or adulation of the priest/minister.
I was suggesting that this doesn't necessarily follow and that - from my own experience - it's the charismatic evangelical churches that are more likely to create a dependency culture.
That isn't to say that other traditions can't and don't.
--------------------
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
Well, if there is indeed a 'dependency culture' at the heart of Pentecostalism then the pastors obviously buy into it when it suits them. They're the engineers of their own downfall. In a sense this is true of all clergy, since, as you say, similar problems are present wherever there's a professional class of priests. They all seem to start off by upholding the system that pays them, regardless of what happens later.
I feel that many clergy can't really cope with all the burdens that the modern church and the wider society would like to place on them, let alone provide the personalised guidance that the Christian (and the spiritually curious) 'consumer' expects in other aspects of their life. This being the case, it doesn't make much sense for any of us to rely on them too much, if we don't have to. Anyway, the role will probably have to be reinvented in coming decades, because there simply won't be enough clergy, Pentecostal or otherwise, to fulfil traditional expectations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
The "walking sacrament" phrase, although from a rather dated 1930s Anglo-Catholic point of view, can easily be translated into a more Protestant/Evangelical/Pentecostal sense if it is taken to mean the priest/minister/pastor is, by mere virtue of holding their office, "special" and somehow "hallmarked by the Almighty". This is, BTW, a concept which, in any form, I would challenge. Despite both my upbringing and affiliation, I see a lot in the Reformed idea that ministers and elders are both part of the ministry and it is the congregation which calls the minister and it is for it that he/she is ordained. I think the traditional Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Anglo-Catholic concept of the priesthood is an old wineskin which burst for me a long time ago and no longer contains anything of value. I am also interested reading the mainly UK Shippies' views of what C of E; Methodist (we now have the Uniting Church here) and Pentecostal ministers are like. The parallel here is not exact. Pentecostals here seem to vary a great deal. I know Pentecostal ministers here, both male and female, who do not conform to the stereotypes which some posters have. I also find that Protestant and Evangelical theology here is much better, by and large, than that coming out of the traditional Anglican places.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You're having me sputtering into my coffee, Sir Pellinore ...
I'd be pleased if I saw ANY theology coming out of Pentecostal and evangelical circles ...
More seriously, and hopefully without sounding patronising, I do think that the charismatic evangelical scene is 'coming of age' to a certain extent - and I do believe that if the vibrancy and enthusiasm of these movements can be harnessed to the old and tried and tested 'spiritual disciplines' - which is where South Coast Kevin seems to be heading - the two things can run in tandem to everyone's benefit.
I'd also go along with stuff that comes from the more 'reflective' end of the charismatic evangelical spectrum any day of the week compared to the 'let's be nice to everybody and everything will be ok' mush that comes from some traditional Anglican quarters.
So, any comments or criticism I might make here of the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene has to be seen in that light.
Meanwhile - a few further reflections.
On the 'dependency culture' within charismatic evangelicalism and Pentecostalism ... I think this is an inevitable corollary of the way these groups 'do church'. It's a very immersive, time-consuming and all-embracing way of doing and being church - to the extent that adherents end up with precious little time to do anything else or be involved with anything else.
When I was in a restorationist charismatic fellowship almost my entire non-working life revolved around church - I almost completely lost contact with everyone else apart from a few non-Christian friends, work colleagues and neighbours etc.
It creates a dependency culture by one's entire social life being absorbed/taken up by churchy activities. I literally ate, slept, breathed and shat church.
I do think there's a place for close fellowship, but there can be something very overwhelming and suffocating about these forms of fellowship - in a way I've not seen anywhere else.
That's the point I'm making. All forms of church have their upside and their downside. They all cast a long shadow.
A close-knit fellowship is great on many levels and in many ways - but the downside is that it can become claustrophobic - and, I'd suggest, limits people's ability to think and act for themselves in some cases.
Whatever the case, leaner and fitter and more flexible is the way we are all going to have to head - it's inevitable.
I don't actually see why we can't work all that out whatever our churchmanship - low, high, MoR or all stations in between ...
After all, as SvitlanaV2 says, many Pentecostal pastors/ministers operate a 'tent-maker' model, working in secular jobs. So do many Orthodox clergy here in the UK.
Whether we are nose-bleed high or snake-belly low or somewhere in between, I don't see how churchmanship in and of itself militates against flexibility.
I'm thinking of RC 'worker priests' in France for instance.
As far as the Orthodox go, they tell me that their priests are members of the congregation in the same way as Jewish rabbis are or Baptist ministers are - come to that - for all the beards and fancy vestments.
They seem able to combine a high degree of sacramentalism with a fairly informal approach in many ways - for all the kissing of priestly hands and so on that goes on.
On another thread, I've alluded to Justin-Lewis Anthony's 'If You meet George Herbert on the Road, Kill Him' - which purports to be a radical re-examination of the roles expected of Anglican clergy.
See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/meet-George-Herbert-road-kill-ebook/dp/B00AYY2RFS
It's certainly a good read but whether it achieves its stated aims is a moot point.
It's a while since I read it but within a charismatic evangelical framework, I think Ian Stackhouse's 'The Gospel Driven Church' contains some sound advice and models for pastoral ministry.
For all I've carped about certain characteristics of the charismatic modus operandi, I do think that some of the less stereotyped leaders and congregations do have a huge amount to offer right across the board.
These are tricky issues. One of the fads that was popular during the late 1990s - a particularly faddish decade in charismatic evangelical circles, I think - was for churches to 'deconstruct' themselves and become more 'organic'.
Those churches I knew which went down that route simply fizzled out ... or else had to rein things back in to a more regular format.
I'm sure there must be ways of sustaining church that don't involve massive commitment in terms of committees and unwieldy infrastructure on the one hand nor the kind of 'all living in one another's pockets' charismatic claustrophobia on the other.
--------------------
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
An interesting and extremely informative post, Gamaliel. My own background - originally RC in an Irish-Australian 1950s/60s milieu (although I am not I-A which made me a bit of an outsider as my father was Anglican)- where the priest was definitely an authority figure is quite different to yours in some ways and seemingly remarkably similar in others. Progressing through High Church Anglicanism, through a rather under the radar spiritual movement, which had the same effect on me as your pentecostal church, back to HCA and then RC. I am afraid all this has made me a bit of an "independent". Because I was not Evangelical or Pentecostal I can see their good points. When I was up at Trinity College, University of Melbourne (Anglican and including a theological college) I got to know some of the academics at Ormond College (then Presbyterian now Uniting Church) and Queens College (then Methodist now UC). These were all associated with what was then the Melbourne College of Divinity (now MCD University). I found the Presbyterians and Methodists, by and large, far better theologians than the Anglicans with the possible exception of the late Max Thomas, later Bishop of Wangaratta. Of my three children two are involved with a Pentecostal church: a place where the minister has a job and does not extort money. I find all ecclesiastical careerists and status seekers offputting. They are everywhere. Once again, thank you, you have clarified a few things for me.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A lot depends on circumstances and context. I wasn't particularly happy with certain aspects of charismatic evangelicalism - and the kind of authoritarian leadership structures it appeared to promote - when I was in my '20s and '30s - but there were sufficient compensations there to help me grin and bear some of the less palatable aspects.
That's not to say there weren't any redeeming features - of course there were. I was well into it at the time and gained an awful lot from it - the closeness of the fellowship was particularly rich ... but again that level of closeness depends on circumstances ... what I'd have found welcome and edifying as a single guy in my 20s I found signally unhelpful as a married bloke with young kids during the following decade.
That's how these things pan out.
Just as you probably cut evangelical and Pentecostal settings rather more slack than I would - having grown up 'independently' of them - I probably do the same with more sacramental settings insofar as I wasn't exposed to them later on and can see qualities there that I wouldn't have admired at one time ...
I'd probably be pretty cynical about sacramental settings had I grown up in them and been exposed to the downsides ...
And all traditions and expressions of church have their strong points and their weak points, their upsides and their downsides.
Pentecostal and charismatic churches have particular problems related to being Pentecostal or charismatic.
Non-Pentecostal and charismatic churches have opposite problems related to being non-Pentecostal or charismatic.
That's all I'm saying.
Careerism and jostling for position happens in all settings and traditions.
Provided we're aware of that we can steer our way through. It's when we pretend that our particular outfit doesn't have a heirarchy or doesn't have structures etc etc that we delude ourselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Every time I see this thread my intrusive thinking (bless it!) says: "The Penis is a Walking Sacrament". It also comes up the appalling Bosch image of a German Reformation woodcut of Satan excreting monks in Luther Blisset's Q. "The Priest is a Sack-Uh-S..."., which I wish it didn't and don't endorse, but hey, talk to the voices, no?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
These are tricky issues. One of the fads that was popular during the late 1990s - a particularly faddish decade in charismatic evangelical circles, I think - was for churches to 'deconstruct' themselves and become more 'organic'.
Those churches I knew which went down that route simply fizzled out ... or else had to rein things back in to a more regular format.
I'm sure there must be ways of sustaining church that don't involve massive commitment in terms of committees and unwieldy infrastructure on the one hand nor the kind of 'all living in one another's pockets' charismatic claustrophobia on the other.
Coming from a denomination that has closed and continues to close a large number of churches I find it hard to get distressed by organic communities that fizzle out or that have had to change their modus operandi. Indeed, I wonder whether this isn't actually the (post)modern way of doing church - the way of the future.
Yes, in England, the idea of having a church building that people have attended for worship in the same denomination, with the same structures, for centuries on end, is very appealing, but I wonder if this has been less normative that we might think. The RC and CofE have both opened and closed plenty of churches at various times over the centuries, and it seems that volatility in church communities has always been a feature of Nonconformist and other Protestant church life in England. In my city, the dispersal of congregations isn't simply a late 20th c. thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's when we pretend that our particular outfit doesn't have a hierarchy or doesn't have structures etc etc that we delude ourselves.
Surely it's only a small minority of charismatic (or any other) churches that could seriously claim this, even back in the 90s. Any church with a dedicated minister, paid or not, and a few elders/stewards/assistants etc. has a hierarchy of sorts. It's probably a question of degree and style.
As for the organic church, I understand that it attempts to develop a space where mutual edification is possible, but since the members will be at different stages of spiritual maturity and have different presentation skills, there will always have to be mentoring and guidance. But it shouldn't always be one way; learners should be teaching others, rather than always being subordinate to someone else. Missionaries often realised that new converts were the most successful evangelists in their communities, yet we seem to think that long-term believers can only ever be taught by specialists. But if church stability is the priority (if only for a few generations) then I suppose churchgoers have to think this way.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I can understand your position on this one, SvitlanaV2 and I'm not entirely unsympathetic.
I s'pose what I had in mind with the instances of those churches which had tried to 'deconstruct' themselves and slim themselves down - as it were - in the 1990s was the fact that for so many of them it had the opposite effect to what they intended.
They thought it would 'free' themselves up to 'do church' in new, innovative and invigorating ways - but all the did was to hasten their own demise.
I'm not necessarily thinking of buildings, committees and all that sort of infrastructure here - although that certainly comes into it.
I'd agree that flexibility should be the key-note within postmodernism ... and I'd love to think that we'd be able to transmit and sustain faith without all the periphernalia of buildings, written constitutions, etc etc ...
In practice, though, I'm not so convinced ...
Although churches have maintained themselves through times of intense persecution of course - as per Soviet Russia and Maoist China 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You talk about 'my' experience, but I don't think I'm referring to anything abnormal here.
You should be aware that there are now as many churches outside the CofE as there are within. The CofE experience of running congregations for centuries isn't a majority experience, and it can't represent a standard that everyone else must match - although plenty have tried. There's no 'going back' for many churchgoers who were never in that position to start with.
I know you don't go in for offering solutions; IMO there are no solutions that involve the majority of non-CofE English churches becoming more stable over generations. Not from this point onwards. If you disagree with this, it would be interesting to know why.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... The CofE experience of running congregations for centuries isn't a majority experience, and it can't represent a standard that everyone else must match - although plenty have tried. ...
I've got to say this. I can't help it. I know to us inside, the differences seem very important to us. But looked at objectively, if you were outside, do the other denominations really 'do church' or manage it that differently from the CofE?
If you are a Moslem or have been brought up completely secular, do a Roman Catholic church, a CofE church, a Methodist chapel, a Baptist chapel, a Brethren assembly or a Pentecostal church really look all that different.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't know why you keep doing this, SvitlanaV2 - but you seem to assume that simply because I attend my local parish church I'm out to defend everything there is to defend about the CofE. I'm not.
Of course there are as many - if not more - churches that are non-Anglican. There have long been as many, if not more, Christians in the UK who are not Anglican too.
For instance, in the 1851 Church Census it was found that there was almost an equal number of practising Anglicans as there were Christians of non-Anglican churches - everything from Rome through to the Salvation Army - all the Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists etc etc and including the very minority groups such as the Catholic Apostolic Church and the Swedenborgians.
So I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
I've said upthread that I don't see why a 'higher' view of church and sacrament should - in and of itself - militate against flexibility and innovation. It does appear to, I'll grant that - but there are and have been various experimental attempts even within the very 'high' and sacramental traditions ... I've already cited the 'worker priests' thing in France.
I've acknowledged that flexibility is where we are all headed - regardless of churchmanship.
On one level, I'll admit, I'd love to see a kind of Barsetshire CofE - but without the simony, pluralism and so on - but I know that's not realistic - nor ever was.
So I don't know why you keep harping on about the CofE as if it's a yardstick I'm using with which to judge everything else. It isn't.
--------------------
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 remember reading, some time ago, that the number of C of E and RC attendees at church in England was roughly the same. At that stage I suspect many of the regular RC attendees were Polish. Of course there were English attendees as well! But I think Poles attend Mass on Sunday from ingrained habit. It is a Polish identity thing to some extent. I would like to see the C of E as F D Maurice envisaged it: a comprehensive national church embodying mainstream Christianity in England as it did for centuries.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's debatable whether the CofE ever did that - Sir Pellinore - or whether it's always been an aspiration.
For a kick off there were always RC 'recusants' and it wasn't that long before various dissenting groups emerged.
I think SvitlanaV2 is right insofar as the Anglican claim or aspiration to be the 'default' church here in the UK is unrealisable ... for all its links with the Establishment.
Anglicanism here copes with that in various ways.
How successfully, is a moot point ...
--------------------
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:
I don't know why you keep doing this, SvitlanaV2 - but you seem to assume that simply because I attend my local parish church I'm out to defend everything there is to defend about the CofE. I'm not.
[...]So I don't know why you keep harping on about the CofE as if it's a yardstick I'm using with which to judge everything else. It isn't.
I feared that you'd take my last post in this way, and I was obviously right to do so. But what I said wasn't necessarily a criticism. Should I be granted a long life, a stable church community will be something I'll appreciate very much. One reason why I'm attending a CofE church now (and therefore have the right to 'harp on' about it!!) is because of its relative stability. But it's highly unlikely that any of the non-Anglican churches in the wider vicinity (some of which are very busy places with bigger congregations) are going to be present in the same way for 500-odd years. This is hardly a controversial thing to say, surely!
Yet there are virtues in being fleet of foot, able to follow shifts in population. If it makes you feel any better, I can criticise the Methodist church on this point: it gets the worst of both worlds, because it has neither the rootedness and stability of the CofE, nor the adaptability of the newer denominations with their rented halls, their younger congregations who are willing and able to gather from a wide distance, or their greatest willingness to take up and try out ideas and practices from outside.
Finally, one advantage of charismatic congregations that form and die out relatively quickly must be that if they have a slightly dodgy theology (as some might see it) it doesn't get transmitted to generations and generations of people in the same unreconstructed form. Members will go off and worship elsewhere, and adapt themselves to other teachings, some of which will be more orthodox.
[ 29. September 2014, 18:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Please don't misunderstand me, SvitlanaV2 - I'm not suggesting that the CofE way of doing things is going to last for another 500 years ...
I also don't have a downer on Methodism either. I'd be very sorry to see Methodism disappear off the church scene ... if indeed it is heading that way.
I'm not offended by anything you say about the CofE or seemingly more 'stable' forms of church - far from it.
I'm not convinced, though, that things that start up and fizzle out within a generation or less are necessarily the way to go ... although perhaps it's an inevitable feature of the way things are going.
An RC priest once told me about a conference he'd attended where it was suggested that the average shelf-life for an RC religious order - the Dominicans, say, or the Cistercians - was around 600 years.
The average shelf-life or 'flourit' for a Protestant non-conformist denomination - Methodism, say, was around 300 years.
Whereas the average shelf-life for some of the 'new churches' was about as long as the life-times of their founder members.
He felt that we were seeing a generation of 'garage-churches' which would fizzle out all too quickly.
My own view is that some of the newer outfits will continue - and morph as they do so. I certainly think that the 'Quakers' of the future - their future equivalent I mean - are even now gestating in the womb of some of the 'new churches'. I fully expect some of these to adopt a more 'quietist' modus operandi over time. I think we can already see that happening.
--------------------
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 am aware of recusants and Dissenters, Gamaliel and the fact that the C of E never completely catered for every shade of Christian opinion in England. In fact I'm glad groups like the Quakers existed and continue to exist, because I think (and I must state this is purely a personal opinion) that they have actually boiled Christianity down to its essence without associated bullshit. This is a contentious opinion but I am unashamed to hold it. I think there is a lot of bullshit (of various sorts) associated with Christianity of various sorts which has very little to do with the simple, direct and effective approach of Jesus, who restored broken lives as much psychologically as "religiously". Jesus was, in fact, a great attacker of bullshit in the conventional religion of his day. I think there is a tremendous difference between "churchianity" and "Christianity" which many self-confessed Christians fail to realise. I guess you need someone simple and direct and obviously sincere like Justin Welby or Francis to demonstrate this in real life.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
A RC priest might regret that new churches don't set up denominations that last x hundred years, but I can't see the point in anyone else trying to emulate the RC route at this point in history. Worldwide Pentecostalism is challenging the RCC in certain places because it's flexible and exists in a variety of forms, popping up and dying down as the local situation demands, not because all its energies are gathered up into one monolithic structure.
As for the British new churches, maybe they'll become more 'quietist'. This may extend their life beyond one generation, but I can't see how it'll bring them the security of long-established denominations. As I see it, the 'church-as-institution' may ensure greater visibility and draw in a wider group of people than a core of passionate enthusiasts, but it now requires so much money and effort to maintain that only those institutions that are already ahead of the game will profit by following this model. I can't see the independent British churches of the future jumping on the bandwagon.
I suppose there might be more mergers, and simultaneously the possibility of more fragmentation. The RCC will be around to welcome those who want a lot more stability - although I don't know how they'll maintain that without seeing more vocations to the priesthood.
[ 30. September 2014, 01:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The RCC will be around to welcome those who want a lot more stability - although I don't know how they'll maintain that without seeing more vocations to the priesthood.
It's a possibility but unless the RCC changes, the welcome will be to a structure that continues the abuses of the past - I can't see many people running to that.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whereas the average shelf-life for some of the 'new churches' was about as long as the life-times of their founder members.
He felt that we were seeing a generation of 'garage-churches' which would fizzle out all too quickly.
My own view is that some of the newer outfits will continue - and morph as they do so. I certainly think that the 'Quakers' of the future - their future equivalent I mean - are even now gestating in the womb of some of the 'new churches'. I fully expect some of these to adopt a more 'quietist' modus operandi over time. I think we can already see that happening.
That's about hit it on the nail on the basis of my experience of "new" movements.
People in general don't commit to the long term but to the immediate project based activities. [It happens within existing churches too - everyone has trouble filling key posts these days]. So it is with liquid church, organic church, emergent church, missional communities.
They have a limited life span because the DNA of the participants demands that. They get bored and want another new thing.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whereas the average shelf-life for some of the 'new churches' was about as long as the life-times of their founder members.
He felt that we were seeing a generation of 'garage-churches' which would fizzle out all too quickly.
My own view is that some of the newer outfits will continue - and morph as they do so. I certainly think that the 'Quakers' of the future - their future equivalent I mean - are even now gestating in the womb of some of the 'new churches'. I fully expect some of these to adopt a more 'quietist' modus operandi over time. I think we can already see that happening.
That's about hit it on the nail on the basis of my experience of "new" movements.
People in general don't commit to the long term but to the immediate project based activities. [It happens within existing churches too - everyone has trouble filling key posts these days]. So it is with liquid church, organic church, emergent church, missional communities.
They have a limited life span because the DNA of the participants demands that. They get bored and want another new thing.
so the art of leadership is to repackage the same old stuff in a fresh way to keep 'em going ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ha ha ...
For all the smilies, I think this is a serious issue. People's attention spans aren't what they were. The Orthodox Liturgy, for instance, dates from a time when people thought nothing of standing in church for hours on end.
I'm all for 'repackaging' things and making them easier to grasp etc but there's always the risk of dumbing things down.
I take Sir Pellinore's point about the Quaker 'back to basics' approach and clearing away the bullshit ... but I don't see that many people queueing up to sit in silence for an hour at our nearest Quaker Meeting House.
It's a tricky one. I overheard a conversation between our vicar's wife and a member of the congregation about an evening they're planning to update/inform people about a visit they made to a 'developing country' this summer to help with a Christian based development project.
'We don't want to put on a slide-show,' the vicar's wife said, 'That would be boring ...'
Would it?
Why would it be boring?
Why would that be any less 'boring' than if we were to all stand on our heads or dress up in the national costume of that country and 'do the little actions' and so on ...
Sure, I'm not advocating a high-falutin' academic lecture but there seems to be this obsession at the moment with making everything 'fun' ... lest everyone gets pissed off and doesn't bother ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
She might have seen the slides already
Joking aside it is very hard to be both accessible and profound.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
[QUOTE]so the art of leadership is to repackage the same old stuff in a fresh way to keep 'em going
It could be - but it depends. Most of life is doing the same things in different ways.
I wouldn't reduce church life to "stuff" especially since it's the DNA of a living and developing relationship.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I suppose your Vicar's wife is afraid to do something in a cliched way, Gamaliel. You are right about attention spans though. I am sure, at my last Anglican parish, many people came to "events" like that because they had nothing else to do. There were a couple of parishes like this I remember, one in Sydney and one more immediately "here". There were the boredom element, the loneliness element and the possible undiagnosed psychological problem element. One of the things about a Quaker meeting is that you have to be able to sit still. Catholic mystics often stress this stillness element: you have to quieten yourself so you might, with God's grace, perceive something. Many modern pew sitters are very unquiet people: they cannot sit still. They always want something done for them. One of the reasons for the interest in many forms of Eastern meditation is the fact that, in Asia, they have a different approach to things. In Vipassana, Zen etc. they actually teach you how to sit and slow down the monkey play of the mind. We need this introduced or reintroduced to Western Christianity, otherwise it is in grave danger of becoming overly intellectual, with no "grounding" and/or obsessed with social concern for the sake of social concern. Unless social concern proceeds from deep Christian wellsprings within it is not genuine Christian social concern. Funnily enough, historically it was often great Western Christian mystics (in the true Christian sense of the word) who revolutionised social action e.g. Francis of Assisi.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - it's a both/and thing, I think ... rather than an either/or one ...
Incidentally, whilst I tend to give our vicar's wife as wide a berth as possible - she's far too bouncy and liable to get anyone within reach into a half-nelson and force them to lead or get involved with some activity or other ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) - I'm not really knocking her in this instance.
I've seen some of the photos and heard some of the stories and I think the project they're involved with is intrinsically worthy and interesting without it having to be given some kind of jazzed-up treatment.
I'm only using it as an example of a particular tendency I'm noticing all ways round ... ie. we have to compete with what's on t' telly, what's going on down the pub etc etc.
Cut it how we may, the figures and studies do seem to suggest that church attendance dropped dramatically here in the UK as soon as there were other things to do on a Sunday ...
There was a very detailed and fascinating study done into church life/attendance in Huddersfield and you can see a massive and surprisingly fast fall-off from about 1920 onwards when the buses and cinemas started to arrive and proliferate ...
Prior to that, you had to rely on your local church or chapel for your sporting activities, for entertainment (magic-lantern slides) and much else ...
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus said 'do this in remembrance of me'. He was breaking bread and drinking wine with his closest friends.
Lets do that - remember Jesus when we eat with our closest friends, be it pasta and beer or bread and wine.
It would be interesting to see this defended on exegetical grounds.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think you're right about church attendance dropping off once people are mobile and have something else to do on Sundays, Gamaliel. Just re-reading Russell's The Clerical Profession and I see that in 1899 Randall Davidson was lamenting the effect of cycling on Sunday church attendance. (Incidentally, Russell suggests, drawing on contemporary writings by clergy, that church attendance in rural England was falling off as early as the 1730s and that the habit of non-attendance among the C19 working class was something a lot of them had brought with them from the countryside.)
[ 03. October 2014, 18:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
In Australia in the 30s things were similar.
I guess these days you have to attract people to your prayer/puja place by offering them something different.
Perhaps we could try Christianity?
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.
As is the life of every believer - does that mean we're all priests?
If you're a Protestant, yes. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And if you are a Catholic too.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Except that the NT seems not to refer to local church leadership as being specifically "priestly".
Except that it does, explicitly. In reference to his apostolic mission, St. Paul specifically calls himself a priest. He doesn’t use the noun, ἱερεύς (hiereús, ‘sacrificial priest’), but he uses the verb, ἱερουργέω (hierourgéo, ‘to act as a sacrificial priest’), in its present participle form (ἱερουργοῦντα, hierourgounta), in Romans 15:16. As an apostle, St. Paul “acts as a priest with the Gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, hallowed in the Holy Spirit.” (My translation). St. Paul’s work with the Gospel – which seems to transcend just preaching – involves offering the Gentiles to God, perhaps through offering their sacrifices to God on their behalf (cf. Philippians 2:17). The phrase ‘the offering of the Gentiles’ may refer to the Gentiles being an offering themselves, or their sacrificial offerings (offered to God by Paul on their behalf). Or, likely, both. Our gifts should represent ourselves.
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?
Well, it could just mean that there are different tasks here. As a Lutheran, I see that the question is: Who can officially preach and administer the sacraments on behalf of the Church (cf. Confessio Augustana, articles 5-7 and 14)? But there are many ways of seeing this. The bottom line, though, is that the New Testament clearly says that the ‘local church leadership’ are specifically ‘priestly.’
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
This interesting article on the shortage of RC priests suggests that the USA (and perhaps Europe?) has a largely parish-based Catholicism that's very reliant on ordained priests. Meanwhile, South America has a more home-based Catholicism that relies on mothers and grandmothers teaching the faith, without the need for ample priestly guidance and organisation.
If we in the developed West had a much stronger home-based Christianity perhaps the issues connected with the role, status and supply of ordained clergy would be far less important.
[ 04. October 2014, 12:24: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - but first develop your home-based Christianity.
How do we propose to do that?
We can't develop a culture overnight.
I think it is possible for more sacramental traditions to develop flexible and grass-roots approaches to ministry. Arguably, we can see examples of that in the 16th and 17th centuries in England when Catholicism effectively went 'underground' for extended periods.
One could argue, however, that the Jesuit priests travelling in mufti, hiding in priest holes and having hidden compartments in their travelling bags for their liturgical kit were also martyrs to a high level of sacerdotalism ... if the indigenous RC laity had been able to 'celebrate' Mass in some way then there wouldn't have been the need for imported Jesuit priests to travel around at the risk of life and limb.
However, I've heard Orthodox people who've worked in Russia and Albania and who were familiar with the patterns of persecution during the Communist era, say that the faith survived on a 'family' basis largely due to babushkas and grannies passing it on to their children and grandchildren.
The South American RC experience hasn't arisen from persecution but there are close family and collaborative networks over there - I've come across this to a small extent in some research I once did for an outfit helping small farmers and producers in various parts of the world. It was clear that there was a more strongly developed 'community' and collective element in the Andes, say, than there was in parts of Africa and the Middle-East where agriculture was more transient and nomadic.
--------------------
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
You're right, of course. It would be extremely difficult to develop this intentionally, and it would be unlikely to occur in this environment without some great cultural and societal change taking place.
However, from some vantage points (especially in the cities) it's clear that British society is changing a lot; the next 50+ years will be very different. There's likely to be increasing racial, religious and class segregation in some places. What will this mean for the Christian clergy? Perhaps the rarity of the clergy will increase their value. Otherwise, I don't know.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're right, of course. It would be extremely difficult to develop this intentionally...
I don't see why this should be the case, to be honest. Churches could emphasise home-based small groups over and above Sunday service attendance, they could provide training and resources for home-group leaders and family heads (however that's interpreted in any given culture), and they could put effort into developing ways of allowing the sacramental aspects to happen in homes.
If churches did all these things, I imagine there's be a steady but noticeable increase in home-based 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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This is something that really needs changing in the UK, and it needs to come from families not clergy. It will not change unless parents want to have things they do in the home, on their own initiative rather than because clergy have been trying to sell them the idea - which they aren't at the moment anyway.
I'm thinking of things corresponding to the family prayers that some people had in the C19, the Catholic practice of families saying the rosary together - does this still happen anywhere? - or people having a corner with ikons and a lamp. Have any shipmates read Gorky's description of the difference between his grandmother and grandfather's prayers?
I've picked up an impression from somewhere that some clergy have been a bit suspicious of this sort of thing anyway, because it's outside their control, and tends to drift into 'folk religion' and an unease about superstition.
It would help if some resources existed that people could realistically use. Bible study notes, valuable though they are, don't fit the bill because they target themselves at individual piety.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're right, of course. It would be extremely difficult to develop this intentionally...
I don't see why this should be the case, to be honest. Churches could emphasise home-based small groups over and above Sunday service attendance, they could provide training and resources for home-group leaders and family heads (however that's interpreted in any given culture), and they could put effort into developing ways of allowing the sacramental aspects to happen in homes.
If churches did all these things, I imagine there's be a steady but noticeable increase in home-based Christianity.
Oh, the churches could do it. But liking the idea is one thing; generating the energy, the vision, organising (and paying for) the training and getting enough labourers ready to do the actual work - especially in the churches where it's most needed and where church leaders are the most stretched - is another matter entirely.
It would require a huge change in culture, not least for the clergy themselves. Maybe it's partly because Western culture sees everything, including religion, as a matter of specialisation; if you want a dose of 'religion' (as opposed to a vaguer spirituality) you go to a priest, and if you want to be healed of an illness, you go to a doctor.
As Enoch says, home-based faith isn't always strictly in the field of influence of church leaders, and even in a country with precipitous church decline there's little sign that our church leaders want to encourage it. In Christian circles there seems to be little if any discussion about how parents should nurture their children spiritually. Sunday school or church day schools are the only topics that one hears about. There are a few American books on the topic, I believe.
One relevant issue is the decline of 'popular Christianity' in the UK. Callum Brown's book 'The Death of Christian Britain' talks about how even non-churchgoers would read the Bible and engage in family prayers, etc. This has (almost?) gone, and even churchgoing families find it difficult - there are other things to do, and in any case, many 'Christian families' have non-Christian members, including children, whose freedom and autonomy are respected more now.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oh, the churches could do it. But liking the idea is one thing; generating the energy, the vision, organising (and paying for) the training and getting enough labourers ready to do the actual work - especially in the churches where it's most needed and where church leaders are the most stretched - is another matter entirely.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood you! If you mean the intention isn't really there in most churches, then yes, you may well be right. I thought you meant it's a hard thing to develop deliberately, but rather can only happen organically, without anyone consciously intending it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Except that the NT seems not to refer to local church leadership as being specifically "priestly".
Except that it does, explicitly. In reference to his apostolic mission, St. Paul specifically calls himself a priest. He doesn’t use the noun, ἱερεύς (hiereús, ‘sacrificial priest’), but he uses the verb, ἱερουργέω (hierourgéo, ‘to act as a sacrificial priest’), in its present participle form (ἱερουργοῦντα, hierourgounta), in Romans 15:16. As an apostle, St. Paul “acts as a priest with the Gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, hallowed in the Holy Spirit.” (My translation). St. Paul’s work with the Gospel – which seems to transcend just preaching – involves offering the Gentiles to God, perhaps through offering their sacrifices to God on their behalf (cf. Philippians 2:17). The phrase ‘the offering of the Gentiles’ may refer to the Gentiles being an offering themselves, or their sacrificial offerings (offered to God by Paul on their behalf). Or, likely, both. Our gifts should represent ourselves.
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?
Well, it could just mean that there are different tasks here. As a Lutheran, I see that the question is: Who can officially preach and administer the sacraments on behalf of the Church (cf. Confessio Augustana, articles 5-7 and 14)? But there are many ways of seeing this. The bottom line, though, is that the New Testament clearly says that the ‘local church leadership’ are specifically ‘priestly.’
Might be more kerg territory but....
ISTM that there is a complete absence of NT verses that refer specifically to the settled leaders (elders/overseers) of local churches as priests. If this was a significant NT theme the various letters with sections that address this specific group would surely explicitly encourage priestly activity of some specific sort (e.g. the Proto-Pope exhorting "be shepherds, serve as overseers, not lording it over them but offering fragrant sacrifices" - or some such) .
The Romans passage does make Paul’s preaching of the gospel a priestly duty and in context seems to refer particularly to pioneering missionary work (as you note "Paul’s apostolic mission") rather than the settled pastoral work of the local church (hence my using the word “local” originally). As for "St. Paul’s work with the Gospel – which seems to transcend just preaching" the only non preaching and proclaiming aspect of his work (not the fruit) in the text seems to be "signs and miracles through the power of the Spirit".
I imagine that you could rightly extrapolate that the preaching, teaching and miraculous ministry of the church is somehow priestly because it produces a fruit of sacrifice in the lives of those who receive it, but that seems to be a very different concept than is presented normally when "priestly ministry" is discussed.
Phil 2v17 seems to picture Paul as the sacrifice more than the priest in the same way that Roms 12v1 pictures every Xtian as a sacrifice.
The idea that we are all priests and that some Xtians (leaders/ministers/pastors) at times officially exercise their ministry to express that does make sense, that is why someone "presides" at a Eucharist. But in this model surely the priesthood still resides in the whole church but is being expressed by an individual, it's not a different type of priesthood.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin
Hmmm. I think the lack of will is the immediate problem. However, deliberately developing a normative home-based Christian culture (as opposed to a few congregational examples of 'best practice') in modern Britain surely would be hard work! I don't know how it could be otherwise. That's not to say it would be impossible: with God all things are possible.
However, there's no blueprint for this in a country like ours. We talk of training, but there's next to no relevant training; or rather, there's training for church leaders who want to run small groups, but that's not precisely what I was thinking of. A 'home-based faith' isn't necessarily a matter of church members meeting in each other's homes for structured teaching, but of a kind of Christian faith and practice that exists outside the formal control of institutions.
E.g. a granny who does a bit of babysitting and wants to teach her neighbour's children how to pray; how would that be covered on a training course? Are there training courses that help parents develop a home-based devotional life that won't bore their children to tears? Or courses on the home-based devotional life for Christians whose family members are non-Christians? Courses to help ordinary people talk about their faith in their daily lives? And is this training promoted among non-churchgoing Christians, not just church members?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
E.g. a granny who does a bit of babysitting and wants to teach her neighbour's children how to pray; how would that be covered on a training course? Are there training courses that help parents develop a home-based devotional life that won't bore their children to tears? Or courses on the home-based devotional life for Christians whose family members are non-Christians? Courses to help ordinary people talk about their faith in their daily lives? And is this training promoted among non-churchgoing Christians, not just church members?
Yeah, I get what you mean - not resources for structured small groups. There must be resources for the things you're talking about, though, surely?!
In fact, some of the books I've been reading recently about missional / simple / organic church cover plenty of this ground - they talk about being 'missional', which just means deliberately sharing your faith with people in hopefully natural ways. Books like this one.
--------------------
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
There are a few books, I suppose. But IME churches don't particularly encourage their members to read this sort of thing. The unspoken assumption is that you can read or reflect on this sort of thing if you want to, but you don't have to. But if the church as an institution doesn't always actively seek to nurture the independent spiritual energy of its own members, how is it going to create a home-based faith culture among everyone else??
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I realise that some dynamic evangelical churches will be very different from what I've described. But they don't represent the majority, and they aren't planning to effect cultural and religious change on this scale (although I understand that they had great expectations in the 80s?).
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Bang on Svitlana in all of your last four posts. Keep saying it sister.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But if the church as an institution doesn't always actively seek to nurture the independent spiritual energy of its own members, how is it going to create a home-based faith culture among everyone else??
Bang on indeed... As I see it, nurturing people's independent spiritual energy is key to what churches should be about, and key to why we meet together as 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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
ISTM that there is a complete absence of NT verses that refer specifically to the settled leaders (elders/overseers) of local churches as priests.
That might be. But since when did anyone read any text, religious or otherwise, completely outside of its context, both its specific historic place and its reception history?
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
As for "St. Paul’s work with the Gospel – which seems to transcend just preaching" the only non preaching and proclaiming aspect of his work (not the fruit) in the text seems to be "signs and miracles through the power of the Spirit".
Except his offering of the Gentiles, which is right there in the text. It is St. Paul, not the Gentiles, who is said to have a ‘priestly service.’
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I imagine that you could rightly extrapolate that the preaching, teaching and miraculous ministry of the church is somehow priestly because it produces a fruit of sacrifice in the lives of those who receive it, but that seems to be a very different concept than is presented normally when "priestly ministry" is discussed
Why assume a tortured metaphorical reading, when you can easily read it literally? Why assume that St. Paul’s ministry was ‘somehow priestly,’ and not actually so, as he says? Why not take into consideration that it is St. Paul himself (and not the Gentiles) who is called a priest here? And why not read this in light of history, in light of the fact that the early Church did indeed see presbyters as sacrificial priests?
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Phil 2v17 seems to picture Paul as the sacrifice more than the priest in the same way that Roms 12v1 pictures every Xtian as a sacrifice.
Well, St. Paul is writing about his (then potential) martyrdom, and says that even if he were to be “poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of [the faith of the Church],” he will be glad and rejoice together with them. The key point here, is ‘the sacrificial offering of your faith.’ Or, more literally, ‘the sacrifice and liturgy of your faith’ (τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν). He envisions being martyred as he stand there, offering their faith, their offerings.
This is really a question of how we ought to read religious texts, how we should do exegesis.
Taken alone, neither Romans 15:16 nor Philippians 2:17 tell us that the ‘local church leadership’ are specifically ‘priestly.’ But when we read these text in light of their reception history, and what was actually taught by the Church, we clearly see that the priests – the presbyters – are seen as specifically ‘priestly.’ And I must add that the term ‘leadership’ is interesting. It’s not a biblical term, and it does betray a modern evangelical bias, where there is a huge emphasis on ‘leadership.’
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
The idea that we are all priests and that some Xtians (leaders/ministers/pastors) at times officially exercise their ministry to express that does make sense, that is why someone "presides" at a Eucharist. But in this model surely the priesthood still resides in the whole church but is being expressed by an individual, it's not a different type of priesthood.
Maybe, but then we need to ask what it means to be an apostle, since St. Paul connects his sacrificial ministry to his apostolic mission specifically, and what he means when he, in Romand 15:15, talks of the grace or gift given to him by God, enabling him to perform this ministry. It seems to me that this is the same grace given to St. Timothy when he was ordained by St. Paul and the presbyters (cf. 1. Timothy 4:14).
And we also once again come back to the question of how we should do exegesis. I prefer to read the text in light of their actual reception history. And in ways that doesn’t mangle their words. Note, one again, that, in Romans 15:16, it is St. Paul, not the Gentiles, who is said to have a ‘priestly service.’ It seems that there IS a distinction between what St. Paul speaks of in Romans 12:1 and what he speaks of in Romans 15:16. They are connected, but not necessarily the same.
As IngoB has already pointed out, pointing to 1. Peter 2 as a proof that there isn’t a ‘special’ (or, in lack of a better term, ‘ministerial’) priesthood in the New Covenant is like pointing to Exodus 19:6 as a proof that there wasn’t a ‘special’ priesthood in the Old Covenant.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
@ K-mann
Bit of housekeeping first re usage of "leaders" I've been trying to use universal terms like "Eucharist" instead of "Mass" or "Lords Supper". I'm certainly not trying to import John Maxwell or Bill Hybles into the discussion . I'll stick to "elders", "pastors", "presbyters" and "ministers" if that helps.
I find a disconnect between a couple of things you have said
firstly quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
ISTM that there is a complete absence of NT verses that refer specifically to the settled leaders (elders/overseers) of local churches as priests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That might be. But since when did anyone read any text, religious or otherwise, completely outside of its context, both its specific historic place and its reception history?
and secondly
quote:
Why assume a tortured metaphorical reading, when you can easily read it literally?
In the first you are conceding that in the NT hiereus is only used in 4 senses
1. Pagan priests
2. Jewish priests
3. Jesus our great high priest
4. The priesthood of all believers
In context, in a Jewish context, where priesthood was a massive theological concept, in it's historical place, where mystery cults had various forms of priesthood- the NT authors deliberately chose not to use this word of Xtian ministers and instead felt free to describe them in divers other ways. The NT church seems to have chosen a synagogue model of organisation rather than a temple one for a reason. But you seem to be arguing that this needn't and in fact shouldn't matter as we can assume what looks to me like "a tortured metaphorical reading" on the basis of tradition.
As far as reception history goes you maintain quote:
the fact that the early Church did indeed see presbyters as sacrificial priests
however if we take Phillip Schaffs Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol (which contains St. Clement, Mathetes, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Papias, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus.) as being representative we find that of the 162 references to the word "priest" only one (in Ignatius) makes reference to a Xtian minister as being in any way a sacrificial priest and the minister referred to is NOT a presbyter but the Bishop, every other reference follows the NT usage as outlined above.
From my, admittedly limited, research it seems that Tertullian and Cyprian (Third Century Men) are the first writers to speak in these terms. The notion of a Xtian sacrificing priesthood seems to be an post-apostolic innovation.
Further if we were to assume that IngoB's correlation of OT and NT cultus was taught in the early church then we would surely find that Xtian apologetics to a Jewish Audience (and I'm thinking of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the work of Justin Martyr particularly) would take a different shape because as well as having to prove that the Messiah could legitimately exercise a non-Aaronic great high priesthood there would have to be clear arguments demonstrating that:
a) a Xtian ministerial priesthood exists
b) that it is legitimate
c) that it is superior to and/or the fulfilment of the Levitical one
and d) that it can somehow include uncircumcised gentiles.
Have we lost a few key chapters of scripture or the early fathers?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
