|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Columba Declaration: C of E and C of S move closer together
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
The 'Columba Declaration' (text here web page )
has been announced. Not yet formally agreed, it proposes a convergence between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.
My initial thoughts are, What would king Charles I think? (maybe a bit frivolous); and Where does it leave the Scottish Episcopal Church?
Early days of a process, of course, and all ecumenical ventures are a good thing, I guess.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Note that the Piskies and the URC are specifically mentioned for "further conversation". I guess that the United Free Church (Continuing) - not the same as the "Wee Frees" but the bit of the UF which didn't return to the CofS in 1929 - won't be too happy though. But, then, they fell out with the CofS a couple of years ago over its view on sexuality.
I couldn't care less about what King Charles I might have thought! That was then, this is now.
[ 24. December 2015, 09:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think Charles I would have minded, provided the Scots used Laud's Prayer Book ...
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As Baptist Trainfan says the United Free church is not the same as the 'Wee Frees' who have this name from being the small remnant of the Free Church of Scotland which refused to unite with the Church of Scotland in 1929. There is also at least one breakaway from the Free Church of Scotland which has the name of the 'Free church continuing'
The name 'wee free' is perhaps less of a commonly known name nowadays with less general interest in the minutiae of ecclesiastical affairs.
I once saw in a French book an explanation of the term 'wee free' which explained that the Free Church was liberal in outlook (being free !) but just a little bit liberal in outlook ,giving it the name 'wee free'
I applaud the proposed convergence but I think that it will be some time before Presbyterian ministers preside at the eucharist in big Anglican churches.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Whilst ecumenical agreement is always good to hear about, I do wonder whether this is another case of the CofE sending people to negotiate who are already inclined to agree with the other party. I struggle to see how anyone of a Catholic inclination could reasonably affirm that the sacrament of Holy Communion is rightly administered in the Church of Scotland, or indeed foresee a time when ministers will be considered interchangeable, without considerable caveats.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.
I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I'd wondered the same thing ... it almost like the two denominations clubbing together and saying, "One of us is the 'official' Church south of the border and the other is the same in the north" ... which I don't really buy!
But that may be unfair as I haven't read the document.
Of course the Scottish Baptists are not part of a UK-wide denomination but the URC is. I can't speak for the Methodists.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.
I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude
I wasn't hugely impressed that the declaration referred to the "Episcopal Church of Scotland", a title that's been out of use for some time. It's almost like those conducting the investigation consider the SEC to be an irrelevant detail. It would certainly be an extremely odd situation if the CofE and SEC were to consider priests to be interchangeable, and the CofE and CofS to consider ministers to be interchangeable, but for the CofS and SEC not to have interchangeability of ministers. It's also worth remembering that the Church of Scotland has made it clear that it will not accept Bishops, and this is where previous unity efforts between the CofS and the SEC have fallen apart (unlike in South India where episcopal governance was accepted).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Seems to me that there is a lot of misplaced hyperbole here.
First, it is fairly clearly a statement of ecumenical relations between the Church of Scotland in Scotland and the Church of England in England. Nothing is said about any other province - except for mentioning other Presbyterian churches in the UK and the Episcopal church in Scotland. This is therefore saying nothing about the Episcopal church in Kenya or anywhere else.
Secondly, it is clear that this proposal is not suggesting any kind of state of full communion between the churches. Para 1 (a) (iv) makes it clear that there are currently still barriers between "full unity" whilst "acknowledging" each others ministries.
Finally, it is pretty clear that the document is drawing upon a history of ecumenical co-operation in certain spheres - particularly as public-facing spokespeople on public affairs - with the Church of Scotland having a similar (but not the same) role in Scotland as the Church of England has in England.
That's it. Nothing much for anyone to get their knickers in a twist over.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
... and a little closer reading indicates that the author from the CofE side was Bishop of Chester Peter Forster, known homophobe and climate change denier, renowned for opposing the appointment of Jeffrey John to Reading and for telling gay people to seek psychiatric help.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, I take it back - there might be legitimate questions from both sides about this document and those involved in drafting it. But this is not any kind of statement about the desirability of the two churches joining as per the Church of South India.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, I take it back - there might be legitimate questions from both sides about this document and those involved in drafting it. But this is not any kind of statement about the desirability of the two churches joining as per the Church of South India.
It does, however, indicate that Porvoo-style interchangeability of ministers is a goal.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whilst ecumenical agreement is always good to hear about, I do wonder whether this is another case of the CofE sending people to negotiate who are already inclined to agree with the other party. I struggle to see how anyone of a Catholic inclination could reasonably affirm that the sacrament of Holy Communion is rightly administered in the Church of Scotland, or indeed foresee a time when ministers will be considered interchangeable, without considerable caveats.
The caveat is that minisers can only operate in the other church 'in accordance with the discipline of each church'.
The discipline of the C of E does not allow non-episcopally ordained ministers to prfeside at the Holy Communion exscept in LEPs - and even in them they are not allowed on Easter Day.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It does, however, indicate that Porvoo-style interchangeability of ministers is a goal.
It seems that this is par for the course with all ecumenical statements - they always seem to look to some misty-eyed future where all historical and theological barriers are removed and there is complete interchangeability. Such statements are regularly made with Rome as well, in an optimistic tone but with little chance of ever happening.
It is true that the Churches of North and South India give some kind of lead, but one has to remember that the situation in India re Christianity is quite different to that in England and Scotland. Even other countries where the Churches of England and Scotland have outposts have not managed formal union. Other than the odd arrangements in Milton Keynes, I can't think of anything which has been started on a significant scale since the 1940s.
Other than a bland "wouldn't it be nice if all problems were resolved some time in the future" statement, this document only commits itself to an exchange of ministers "in accordance to the discipline of each church". That is essentially where things stand anyway.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I'd wondered the same thing ... it almost like the two denominations clubbing together and saying, "One of us is the 'official' Church south of the border and the other is the same in the north" ... which I don't really buy!
But that may be unfair as I haven't read the document.
Of course the Scottish Baptists are not part of a UK-wide denomination but the URC is. I can't speak for the Methodists.
What strikes this Methodist is how similar the text of the affirmations and commitments is to that of the Anglican Methodist Covenant, with the exception of the affirmation on episcopacy. In both the tension* between an affirmation that the Eucharist is rightly celebrated but that ordained ministries cannot yet be recognised is the rather unacknowledged problem.
*I confess that more I see these kind of conversations the more I think this is less a tension and more a dishonesty.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Although SCIFU didn't result in any organisational unity between churches in Scotland (CofS, Piskies, URC and Methodists), to a very large extent because someone decided that the individuals to be appointed as regional chairpersons would be called "bishops" which was never going to wash with most CofS congregations, it did pave the way for much closer relationships between local churches. It probably won't be very long before most Protestant denominations in Scotland will recognise the validity of ordination and sacraments in the other churches, and therefore for the sort of shared ministry (subject to the 'in accordance with the discipline of each church' clause) that the Columba declaration envisions.
But, there does seem to be a certain amount of desperate clinging to a "we are the national church" and "if we work closer together maybe we can hold onto that status a bit longer" about the whole thing. The days of national churches are behind us. As churches we need to take our place in the civic arena and make our stand based on the quality of the arguments we can make, not on some historical privilage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although SCIFU didn't result in any organisational unity between churches in Scotland (CofS, Piskies, URC and Methodists), to a very large extent because someone decided that the individuals to be appointed as regional chairpersons would be called "bishops" which was never going to wash with most CofS congregations
This I don't really understand - the Church of South India has bishops, doesn't it? How did they manage to get that past the Presbyterians?
Also it seems that Methodists in the UK don't like Bishops, even though the title is widely used by Methodists in other parts of the world. I've never really understood that either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I think there is a cultural opposition to bishops in Scotland, based on history, of course.
My father was Church of Scotland, but lost his faith, and died an atheist. But in his atheist days he still knew he was a Presbyterian atheist. He didn't believe in God, but he believed in bishops even less. I think that may not be uncommon among Scots.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
There is a small part of the Church of Scotland that is extremely hostile towards anything that hints at Catholicism, whether Anglo- or Roman. Add that to the specific legacy of antipathy towards Bishops dating from the wars of the three kingdoms and Bishops become an impossibility for the CofS.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are memorials dotted across Scotland to people who decided that death was preferable to bishops.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
(vi) identify theological issues that arise from growth towards fuller communion and be prepared to allocate resources to addressing them;
Why do these need 'identifying'? Are the words 'Presbyterian' and 'Episcopalian' too subtle for the good bishop? And what resources are going to make the problem go away?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And what resources are going to make the problem go away?
There's only one answer that would be agreeable to Prebyterian and Episcopalian alike. They need a committee.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And what resources are going to make the problem go away?
Well, if it's OK to have special bishops for people that don't much like the bishop they've got, maybe it's also OK to have a special lack of bishop for people who don't much like any bishops.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As a minor tangent, there was a Presbyterian Church of Ireland minister who was posted to northern India in the 1960s and 1970s, and retired back to Ulster as a CNI bishop. Perhaps the best solution, and one avoiding internal CoS disputes, would be to ship the Kirk's ministers, one by one, to India to serve as bishops, and then return.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Alan Cresswell and some of those Covenanters weren't averse to dealing death TO Bishops either ...
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/musa/see/starobjects/themurderofarchbishopsharpe/
Which isn't to let the Establishment off the hook when it comes to the execution of Covenanters at Wigtown - two women, by drowning - and elsewhere.
On the bishops thing, most non-episcopal churches have bishops in my experience -- they either aren't aware of it or are in denial ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Or they call them something 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
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy asks how the Church of South India managed to get episcopal governance past the Presbyterians there. They weren't SCOTTISH Presbyterians.
I know a woman who was a presbyter in the Church of South India (of Scottish Presbyterian background) Here in Scotland she would not think of presiding at the eucharist in a Scottish Episcopal church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
And of course there are some individuals within the Church of Scotland who are thought to act like bishops or even archbishops without having the authority to do so. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Sorry, bit heretical that, must be Christmas Eve stress getting to me. But these are many in struggling presbyteries who would not be opposed to bishops at all, so long as the burden of doing too many other things besides ministry was taken from ministerial shoulders
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... and a little closer reading indicates that the author from the CofE side was Bishop of Chester Peter Forster, known homophobe and climate change denier, renowned for opposing the appointment of Jeffrey John to Reading and for telling gay people to seek psychiatric help.
Yes, I noticed that. He's a piece of work, isn't he. Was this his pet project? If so, then he's probably showing his true colours.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one answer that would be agreeable to Prebyterian and Episcopalian alike. They need a committee.
Quotes file.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.
I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude
This brief statement from the SEC today suggests not.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
Indeed. Judging by some of the comments I've seen elsewhere, no-one in the SEC can work out who in the SEC was actually consulted....
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.
I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude
This brief statement from the SEC today suggests not.
Sir Humphrey Appleby could have drafted that. A satement which is quite cordial, but which nevertheless makes it quite clear how annoyed they are.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Alan Cresswell and some of those Covenanters weren't averse to dealing death TO Bishops either ...
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/musa/see/starobjects/themurderofarchbishopsharpe/
Which isn't to let the Establishment off the hook when it comes to the execution of Covenanters at Wigtown - two women, by drowning - and elsewhere.
On the bishops thing, most non-episcopal churches have bishops in my experience -- they either aren't aware of it or are in denial ...
Or they call them something else ...
Around here (The Presbyterian Church in Canada) the presbytery is often considered to be the bishop, which doesn't stop people muttering, "We need a bishop," when indecision and procrastination set in. (This makes me about 1/60 of a bishop...)
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As a minor tangent, there was a Presbyterian Church of Ireland minister who was posted to northern India in the 1960s and 1970s, and retired back to Ulster as a CNI bishop. Perhaps the best solution, and one avoiding internal CoS disputes, would be to ship the Kirk's ministers, one by one, to India to serve as bishops, and then return.
Ah, the Curry Connection. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Had the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada ever pulled off the merger discussed in the 1970's, I thought this would be a good solution to the "problem" of mutual recognition of ordinations.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
OK I may be being a trifle stupid here.....
But speaking as someone working with the Anglican church in Kenya, the C of E is part of the worldwide Anglican communion right?
The Anglican church is already in Scotland as the Episcopal church is it not?
Have the C of E brought the Episcopal Church in on this decision? Please tell me they have.
I'm probably missing a vital piece of information, I'm probably out of the loop here....at least I hope I am because if I'm not then this is just odd. Odd and rude
This brief statement from the SEC today suggests not.
Oh dear, maybe the C of E didn't really consult the Episcopal Church which if true seems to be a sad and serious error of judgement.
I guess it's now a case of watch this space.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the bishops thing, most non-episcopal churches have bishops in my experience -- they either aren't aware of it or are in denial ...
Or they call them something else ...
Around here (The Presbyterian Church in Canada) the presbytery is often considered to be the bishop, which doesn't stop people muttering, "We need a bishop," when indecision and procrastination set in. (This makes me about 1/60 of a bishop...)
Yes, presbytery is often understood as a "corporate" bishop. During the Consultation on Church Union talks in the U.S., the Presbyterians maintained that a commission of presbytery at ordinations served the role of the bishop in ordination in other traditions.
There is also a strand of a Reformed/Presbyterian ecclesiology that understands the minister of Word and Sacrament to be a bishop, and that understands the three-fold orders of ministry—episcopate (minister/pastor), presbyteriate (elders), and diaconate—to be present in every congregation. (Or at least potentially present, as some smaller congregations choose to not have deacons.) Of course, the word "bishop" was rarely used, though for many, many years there was language in American Books of Order describing the minister as "bishop."
I have no idea whether this understanding is encountered much in the Church of Scotland. In the PC(USA), it likely would unfamiliar to the average person in the pews, but it regularly comes into play in ecumenical discussions.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
You do all already realise that within Europe there is already interchangeability of Reformed and Lutheran Clerics? Actually we are in full communion. The agreement is called Leuenberg .
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You do all already realise that within Europe there is already interchangeability of Reformed and Lutheran Clerics? Actually we are in full communion. The agreement is called Leuenberg .
Jengie
Not all Lutheran churches are part of that agreement, and I don't know how the ones that are handle the issue of episcopal ordination.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I like to think of each Church of Scotland parish minister as the 'teaching elder' which is the same as the Catholic bishop.
The teaching elder is surrounded by his 'ruling elders' or presbyters, just like the presbyters (priests) of the Catholic bishop. As far as I know the 'elders' will have been ordained by the minister for work within his parish, just as the Catholic 'elders'or presbyters will have been ordained by the bishop or teaching elder for work within the diocese.
A minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be ordained until he has been appointed to a charge/parish, just as a Catholic bishop cannot be ordained without a diocese to serve (or at the very least a titular diocese.
I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.
Of course there are many differences also particularly with the 'ruling' idea of the 'ruling' elders I may be quite wrong but is not the minister in charge of the teaching of the Gospel and the conduct of the worship,but the elders have real power over the temporal affairs of the parish ?
In the Catholic world it is really only Italy where there is a separate diocese for virtually every city and town,almost like some Church of Scotland parishes with a few outlying centres for worship. Otherwise Catholic bishops tend to be 'teaching elders' for much wider area.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.
I think that for a minority of elders and parishoners you would likely cause heads to explode by suggesting it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Session has the "Real Authority" when it comes to spiritual matters, as any decision the Minister takes on changing worship, marrying couples, baptisms etc. have to be approved by the Session.
Or as one UCCan church chair put it: "You (the minister) are the Wandering Willie who is here for at best a few years. I am here for decades. I was here when you came, and I will be here when you leave. Remember that."
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You do all already realise that within Europe there is already interchangeability of Reformed and Lutheran Clerics? Actually we are in full communion. The agreement is called Leuenberg .
Jengie
Not all Lutheran churches are part of that agreement, and I don't know how the ones that are handle the issue of episcopal ordination.
Ah but that is an internal Lutheran issue. Not all Lutherans have sucession. It is regarded as the Pauline stance on circumcision. If you have it do not seek to do away with it; if you do not do not seek to obtain it.
This is part of what makes the Anglican usage of "catholic" so exceptional. It is on something all other traditions treat as peripheral.
Jengie
[ 26. December 2015, 20:53: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I like to think of each Church of Scotland parish minister as the 'teaching elder' which is the same as the Catholic bishop.
'Teaching Elder' is one way of thinking about the role of the minister, but not the only way. It is not even necessarily the most common way, although I think it is more dominant a concept in North American Presbyterian circles. The title means that the minister holds a particular responsibility for the teaching of the apostolic faith. But they also have a sacramental role which 'teaching elder' doesn't quite cover. Moreover, the minister serves as Moderator (chair) of the Kirk Session (the local church elders), and does not vote in decisions, although the minister do have a casting vote if there is a tie, should they choose to use it.
quote:
The teaching elder is surrounded by his* 'ruling elders' or presbyters, just like the presbyters (priests) of the Catholic bishop.
*or her. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
A minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be ordained until he* has been appointed to a charge/parish, just as a Catholic bishop cannot be ordained without a diocese to serve (or at the very least a titular diocese.
Not quite. This is mostly the case, but ministers can be ordained by a Presbytery to an army chaplaincy role, for example. There is also a tradition dating back to Calvin of ministers being ordained to teaching in the academy, although this has fallen pretty much into disuse in Scotland these days. An Ordained Local Minister is a new-ish non-stipendary role, and these OLMs are ordained to the Presbytery, and not to a particular congregation.
quote:
I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.
The analogy might be useful when trying to explain how we work to an Anglican or Roman Catholic. But it is not an analogy we generally use among ourselves. We ministers really and truly do not understand ourselves as bishops – it's your explanation of who we are, not ours. And the trouble with the analogy, is that it breaks down when we try to explain where Presbyteries fit in. I myself have often explained a Presbytery as “like a diocese”, and I think that analogy works better. As Stercus Tauri suggests above, Presbytery can be thought of as a 'corporate bishop'.
quote:
Of course there are many differences also particularly with the 'ruling' idea of the 'ruling' elders I may be quite wrong but is not the minister in charge of the teaching of the Gospel and the conduct of the worship, but the elders have real power over the temporal affairs of the parish ?
That's about right. SPK suggests that in the United Church of Canada, the elders also have charge over worship. Not so in the Church of Scotland. Here, the conduct of worship is entirely the minister's affair. However, the elders do decide who gets to partake in the sacraments of baptism and communion, and who is admitted to membership of the church. And whatever the history, the elders don't really get a say in whom the minister marries. Although they could certainly refuse permission for a wedding in their church building (and this could well happen if equal marriage becomes a possibility in the CofS at some point), the minister can conduct a wedding anywhere in the parish without permission being needed. If this became a disciplinary matter, it would be at Presbytery level, and not at the Kirk Session.
Hope that helps clarify some things. I appreciate as always, Forthview, the efforts you have made to understand how we work, and the respect which you accord us.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I like to think of each Church of Scotland parish minister as the 'teaching elder' which is the same as the Catholic bishop.
The teaching elder is surrounded by his 'ruling elders' or presbyters, just like the presbyters (priests) of the Catholic bishop. As far as I know the 'elders' will have been ordained by the minister for work within his parish, just as the Catholic 'elders'or presbyters will have been ordained by the bishop or teaching elder for work within the diocese.
A minister of the Church of Scotland cannot be ordained until he has been appointed to a charge/parish, just as a Catholic bishop cannot be ordained without a diocese to serve (or at the very least a titular diocese.
I have heard Church of Scotland ministers use this analogy though I don't know about many of the ordinary parishioners.
That is certainly the understanding—and the terminology ("teaching elders" and "ruling elders")—that holds in American Presbyterianism.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Session has the "Real Authority" when it comes to spiritual matters, as any decision the Minister takes on changing worship, marrying couples, baptisms etc. have to be approved by the Session.
Yes to some extent, but some further explanation is probably needed.
The Session is the council consisting of the ruling elders and the teaching elder(s). A teaching elder always presides, or "moderates," as we say. If a congregation is without a pastor, presbytery will appoint a teaching elder to moderate the Session.
Yes, generally speaking, Session has responsibility for the spiritual life of the congregation, including worship (and the space for worship) and provision for administration of the sacraments. So in the ecclessiological understanding Forthview and I have been describing, the spiritual life of the congregation is in the care of the teaching elder and the ruling elders gathered with him or her. (Temporal matters, such as the budget, are also part of Session's responsibility.)
And still, there are some matters that are in the pervue of the teaching elder alone, without Session input or approval. These include the content of worship, including the prayers, hymns, Scripture readings (many will follow the lectionary, but doing so is voluntary) and, of course, the sermon. It would also include whether or not to marry a couple—that decision is solely up to the minister. Session's decision is for policies on use of the church for weddings. This is being played out in PC(USA) congregations right now, as it is a minister's decision whether or not to preside at the wedding of a same-sex couple, but the Session's decision on whether such a wedding may be held in the church.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
'Teaching Elder' is one way of thinking about the role of the minister, but not the only way. It is not even necessarily the most common way, although I think it is more dominant a concept in North American Presbyterian circles. The title means that the minister holds a particular responsibility for the teaching of the apostolic faith. But they also have a sacramental role which 'teaching elder' doesn't quite cover.
"Teaching elder" is indeed the constitutional term here, and is widely used. For almost 30 years, the constitutional term was "minister of Word and Sacrament," but a recent revision of The Book of Order has brought back "teaching elder" and "ruling elder."
quote:
We ministers really and truly do not understand ourselves as bishops – it's your explanation of who we are, not ours. And the trouble with the analogy, is that it breaks down when we try to explain where Presbyteries fit in. I myself have often explained a Presbytery as “like a diocese”, and I think that analogy works better. As Stercus Tauri suggests above, Presbytery can be thought of as a 'corporate bishop'.
One would rarely hear a minister here describe him-or herself as a bishop, except perhaps in a more learned discussion on polity. But as I said it was in The Book of Order for many, many years, and I suspect many if not most ministers, particularly older ones, would be very familiar with the concept.
One frequently hears the presbytery-diocese comparison here, and the "corporate bishop" description, but usually as a helpful analogy for Catholics and Anglicans. Those who really go for the "minister=bishop" concept will typically posit that in the early church, the bishop, with the gathered presbyters, oversaw the church in a given place, and that it was only as the church grew that presbyters were given authority over the assemblies that grew out of the original assembly, while the bishop maintained authority over the gathered assemblies. So, they would say, the Session in the congregation is analogous to the bishop and presbyters in the early church, while the presbytery is analogous to dioceses as they have developed in the Catholic and Anglican churches.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
I'm seeing pond similarities and pond differences, Nick Tamen. 'Bishop' is not a term I've ever come across to describe a minister in any of our books of Order, and we simply don't use it. I think it could be found in some Biblical Studies discussions, but that's about it. Probably something to do with the Covenanters!
I didn't realise you had reverted to 'teaching elder'. Do you know why that was? It is very much 'Minister of Word and Sacrament' here, with no movement to change it. But I recognise a lot of the rest of what you say as understanding and practice here.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Come, brothers and sisters, let us repay the Anglicans for all those bishops and tat threads tenfold! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
In the United Church of Canada, the Session has responsibility for "Public Worship" according to the Manual.
The Minister is also the chair of the Board of Trustees.
"Temporal Matters" are left to the Stewards and Trustees. In newer congregational models, everyone is an Elder but not in the classic one from 1925.
The minister often delegates his chair position to a Chair of Session, which I had the honour of being for a time at a past congregation.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I'm seeing pond similarities and pond differences, Nick Tamen. 'Bishop' is not a term I've ever come across to describe a minister in any of our books of Order, and we simply don't use it. I think it could be found in some Biblical Studies discussions, but that's about it. Probably something to do with the Covenanters!
FWIW, Chapter 3 of the Form of Government in our first Book of Order (1789) began:
quote:
The pastoral office is the first, in the church, both for dignity and usefulness. The person who fills this office, hath, in the Scripture, obtained different names expressive of his various duties. As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed bishop. As he feeds them with spiritual food, he is termed pastor. As he serves Christ in his church, he is termed minister....
I don't know if there was a prior source for this language, but it remained in American Presbyterian Forms of Government until 1957 for the "northern" church, when the PCUSA and the United Presbyterian Church in North America joined to form the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. The "southern" church kept it until the 1983 reunion of the two churches. It was put back into the PC(USA) Form of Government in 2001, mainly for ecumenical reasons. It was lost again in 2011, with an extensive revision and streamlining of the Form of Government. It can still be found in the Books of Order of some other American Presbyterian bodies.
quote:
I didn't realise you had reverted to 'teaching elder'. Do you know why that was? It is very much 'Minister of Word and Sacrament' here, with no movement to change it.
i don't want to go too far afield of the thread topic. I've figured that discussion of Presbyterian understanding of the office of bishop is relevant to the Columba Agreement, and have offered an American understanding to the extent it may be relevant to a CofS understanding, The history of "teaching elder" may go a bit further afield, though.
So I'll try to give the short answer: Concern for recognizing parity among elders, something that I understand is emphasized more here than in Scotland. More can be found here. Some did not favor the reversion because it doesn't speak to the sacramental role of the minister.
There was also some concern that the post-1983 use of "elder" only for ruling elders ignored the fact that ministers of Word and Sacrament are also elders. (The post-1983 usage was "presbyters" as the term for both ministers and elders.)
But I should note that the terms "teaching" and "ruling elder" are really only used in official and semi-official contexts. Everyday use is "minister" and "elder."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This I don't really understand - the Church of South India has bishops, doesn't it? How did they manage to get that past the Presbyterians?
Also it seems that Methodists in the UK don't like Bishops, even though the title is widely used by Methodists in other parts of the world. I've never really understood that either.
It might have sweetened the pill that one of the first CSI bishops was a Kirk minister. (Also, while somewhat anomalous, the term itself at least has some precedent in the C of S).
Methodists in Canada dispensed with episcopacy in the 1880s when, inter alia, the (British) Wesleyans and (American) Methodist Episcopalians united to form a national Methodist Church - which would later fold with (again among others), Congregationalists and a majority of Presbyterians (themselves reunited in the 1870s from the Disruption) to form SPK's own United Church.
[ 27. December 2015, 03:33: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The British strain was the dominant one, I might add, though of the four churches in the Methodist reunion, (the Bible Christian Church, the Wesleyan Methodists, the Methodist Episcopals and the Primitive Methodists), three were bishopless.
The CSI was based on the same principle that animated the 1925 Canadian union, each parent had to give up a little of its heritage and got to pass on a little of its heritage. As with Canada, the seams in the CSI healed almost too well.
The CSI also created an A and a B list of clergy. A list clergy were Anglican-ordained and could go anywhere, B list clergy were non-espicopally ordained and could not move into a former Anglican congregation without the permission of that congregation. That permission was freely and frequently given as there was a thirty year period of "reunion" where everyone would continue to use their own heritage worship patterns, and everyone would grow together while the divinity schools pumped out A-list ordinands.
It appears to have worked.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
