Thread: Eccles: Liturgy as performance Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001263

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Regarding liturgical training, I've come across people who state their frustration with sloppy liturgy by saying something like this

"If the Symphony or the Theater tolerated such mistakes, they will be out of business. If they, being secular venues, take it so seriously, why can't the Church take its liturgies so seriously?"

Part of me wants to respond by saying that liturgy is not a performance, but on the other hand, they do have a point. Liturgy has a perfomative aspect and done well, it has a better shot of opening people to encounter God than a liturgy done sloppily.

[ 10. January 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
IMO the actions/words of those leading worship, including ministers, servers, choir etc, should aim to give glory to God and help those assembled to worship. Fussiness can also be distracting. I also dislike it when it is thought of as a performance, as it can be like an act, and so lacking in honesty. I know we all put on masks etc, and need them when we are trying to do our work etc when we are unwell etc, but I do think it comes across sometimes.

I didn't use the word liturgy as it is often used as a word to describe what "those up front" are doing, but the Greek word, (which escapes me for now!) means "the work of the people" but many acts of worship don't seem to reflect this.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Anything is better when done well and with intention - that means liturgy as well as peeling potatoes.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I suppose it all boils down to the need for those who are doing anything in the liturgy - leading, serving, reading, praying, playing music.....to do it as for the Lord and to do it as well as they possibly can. No-one can ask for more.

OTOH, it does perhaps mean that churches trying to put on a full Solemn High Mass with one priest, one server, three old ladies (the salt of the earth - I wish Our Place had more of 'em), and a cat, might profitably think of scaling down a bit.....

Ian J.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I don't know why it wouldn't be as important to celebrate high mass for a few as for a multitude?

What's vital is engagement with the liturgy by those delivering it. A written prayer delivered from the heart matches extemporary prayer from the heart. The former if read without feeling matches the latter poorly expressed. From my pov, of course. YMMV.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Of course liturgy (including preaching) is performance, even in Low Church, Nonconformist and especially Pentecostal settings. It should be well done so that people are caught up to God through it. I should also be "from the heart" and honest otherwise it is empty and false - a mere performance.

To take the theatre analogy: in my church we basically start with a "blank piece of paper" each week, although the liturgy usually follows the same general format. This means that every service is a "first performance", with no opportunity to have a preview and find out what works and doesn't!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Raptor Eye - no, it's not the number attending that's important. My point was simply that, with a small congregation and limited resources as to servers etc., a scaling-down might be required. That, IMNSHO, does not mean a dumbing-down of the liturgy.......

Ian J.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
"Leitourgia" is probably better translated as "public work"--i.e. work done on behalf of the people. "The work of the people" can be accurate, of course, as long as the correct meaning of "of" is understood. In any case, we're talking etymology here and not meaning.

It seems to me that slovenliness and fussiness are both mistakes. We should strive to celebrate the liturgy decently and in order, avoiding carelessness or irreverence, but without fetishizing its performative aspects. There are more important things to worry about than whether Father makes a military-grade about-face from the altar when turning to the people, for example.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know why it wouldn't be as important to celebrate high mass for a few as for a multitude?

What's vital is engagement with the liturgy by those delivering it. A written prayer delivered from the heart matches extemporary prayer from the heart. The former if read without feeling matches the latter poorly expressed. From my pov, of course. YMMV.

Solemn High requires 3 sacred ministers, an MC, crucifer, thurifer, and 2 acolytes. Can't be done with just a priest and a server. Knowing that is crucial to understanding BF's point--I think he'd agree with you (and me) that a priest should be just as committed and present when celebrating for a small handful as when celebrating for a church full of people.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
If the Celebrant is sloppy when performing the Liturgy it really does give the impression he doesn't care. Although much of the church's work goes on during the week and much of it is hidden eg. pastoral care, the main services are the public face of the church and should therefore be carried out with great care.
Perhaps what people on this thread are highlighting is that great care can sometimes turn into obsessiveness, which isn't the same thing at all.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Bishop's Finger & Fr Weber, thank you for clarifying that for me.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I have to say that our priest-in-charge celebrates Mass with as much dignity and care on a Wednesday evening (with 7 or 8 present) as on a Sunday morning (with a vast crowd of 40)!

[Big Grin]

Ian J.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
My biggest issue with this is when there is an obvious lack of preparation. In some churches it is blatant and disappointing. It doesn't matter whether it is the lowest Low Church megachurch or the Nosebleed Highest place--the presider should know automatically what s/he is doing.

I firmly believe that inspiration does occur during advance planning.

Furthermore, advance planning makes the presidency of the liturgy a corporate work, by allowing the collaboration of scholarship (i.e. "book" liturgy prepared by scholars), the laypeople of the church, the musicians, the assistants, and the presider.

If this sounds laborious, that's because it is. Face facts: the church assembled at worship is not only the primary gathering point of the faithful, but also for many of them the only contact point they have with the church all week. It is also very often the only contact point that visitors have with the church as well.

Personally, I feel the way to reduce the burden is to use prepared liturgical materials and an agreed-upon lectionary. Changing things around maybe makes things seem a bit less fussy, but definitely increases the sloppiness, as I have never encountered such a church that puts the prep time into the service that it should if it wants to constantly change the service around.

Of all the largest organized faith traditions in the world, Christianity has to have by far the most diversity and options in terms of liturgical practice, and yet there are still people who complain that it's all the same, all the time. Good grief.
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
I do wonder if some of the clergy ever had any liturgical training - I have worshipped in too many churches where the standard of the service is extremely amateurish.

Good liturgical worship does not have to be OCD anglo-catholic. A good place to start is with book marks in the service book, so that the celebrant / minister does not spend time trying to find the right page. Some preparation beforehand by those taking the service always helps. Don't give the impression you are making it up as you go along. Make sure the service hangs together - do the hymns and sermon have some relevance to the readings or the theme for the Sunday?

The clergy are professionals and they ought to be able to conduct the worship of the church professionally. Sloppy worship suggests a sloppy faith. A lot of amateurish worship tends to be accompanied by amateurish sermons of the "Smile, Jesus loves you" variety. I have usually found that professionally conducted liturgy is accompanied by a reasoned, learned and though-provoking sermon.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
A lot of amateurish worship tends to be accompanied by amateurish sermons of the "Smile, Jesus loves you" variety. I have usually found that professionally conducted liturgy is accompanied by a reasoned, learned and though-provoking sermon.

I would almost say its the other way round: a really good sermon is usually preached in the context of well-prepared worship. My experience of very liturgically enthusiastic parishes has produced some extremely ghastly sermonising. Not all, but where the sermon was great, the whole service tended to be great.

I'm particularly thinking of the cathedral where I sang in the choir as a student: the preaching was almost all awful, but the services were rather nice to be part of, well organised and sincere. On the other hand, the Presbyterian church I belonged to last had two wonderful preachers, and equally excellent worship leadership from those preachers.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In American churches the scutwork is often delegated. In mine we have an Altar Guild, a troupe of anal-retentive ladies who spend all their time filling lamps and candles, straightening stoles, precisely lining up ciboria, and so on. I drew a cartoon for our newsletter once. It depicted the tombstone of an Altar Guild member. The inscription was, "Is this stone perfectly upright and exactly centered over my grave?"
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Our service for the First Sunday in Lent was way off. There were missed cues, people got lost in the service, a the pianist played the wrong hymn. What happened? Could it have been due to Daylight Saving Time change? Possibly.

Still God's grace can still come through in amazing ways.

(I also like a well done liturgy, but I know God can work in mysterious ways.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
My biggest issue with this is when there is an obvious lack of preparation.

...and perhaps no more so than when this week's reader comes across one of the less familiar Old Testament names, and it's obviously as much a surprise to him as his effort at pronunciation is to the rest of the congregation.

Have a read-through in advance, please (and by read-through, I mean out loud, even if it's just you and the bathroom mirror. In your head doesn't count.)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Although much of the church's work goes on during the week and much of it is hidden eg. pastoral care, the main services are the public face of the church and should therefore be carried out with great care.

I'm struggling to explain why, but this sentence really jars with me. I think it's that I would say the 'public face of the church' is (or should be) actually all the different things, both formal and informal, that the church members do in their day-to-day lives.

By which I mean things like pastoral care within the church community, but also simply the ways in which we represent Christ (well or badly!) among our family, friends, workmates, neighbours etc. etc. This, for me, is the 'public face of the church'.

All of which doesn't mean we should do the church service stuff sloppily or without respect, just that we shouldn't consider it to be the main focus or the highlight of our ongoing faith in Jesus. Therefore IMO it shouldn't constitute anything like the majority of each member's engagement with God or take up anything like the majority of our time, money and effort as a church community.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Although I start from the position that the Liturgy, and specifically the Holy Mass is the source and summit of the Christian life, I find myself much more in agreement with SCK's post than I should have expected. FWIW, I think we should do whatever we do with care and attentiveness, conscious that we do it in His name.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In American churches the scutwork is often delegated. In mine we have an Altar Guild, a troupe of anal-retentive ladies who spend all their time filling lamps and candles, straightening stoles, precisely lining up ciboria, and so on. I drew a cartoon for our newsletter once. It depicted the tombstone of an Altar Guild member. The inscription was, "Is this stone perfectly upright and exactly centered over my grave?"

[Overused]

But what does 'scutwork' mean? I don't think we use that word over here? Is it some sort of ecclesiastical needlework?

[ 25. March 2014, 08:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
The liturgy is not a performance. Something can be done sincerely and attentively whilst allowing for genuine mistakes. And I don't care is the cantor is out of tune, or if the subdeacon forgets something and has to ask the priest, as long as the liturgy is served in a reverent spirit.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I think SCK misunderstands what I'm trying to say. Perhaps it's because I attend a civic church: the pastoral care is just as important obviously, but the church stands for something in the town as a public statement, with large numbers attending main services. If an effort is made to ensure the services flow well, with due reverence (as mentioned above), though allowing for our humanity to shine through as well, then people will feel the church has a voice worth hearing in the town. (And then, by a follow-on process, people will feel secure in asking for pastoral care when needed.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In American churches the scutwork is often delegated. In mine we have an Altar Guild, a troupe of anal-retentive ladies who spend all their time filling lamps and candles, straightening stoles, precisely lining up ciboria, and so on. I drew a cartoon for our newsletter once. It depicted the tombstone of an Altar Guild member. The inscription was, "Is this stone perfectly upright and exactly centered over my grave?"

[Overused]

But what does 'scutwork' mean? I don't think we use that word over here? Is it some sort of ecclesiastical needlework?

Presumably not to be confused with scudwork, which is defined as (1) the writing of dialogue for pornographic movies, or (2) the writing of completely spurious articles about cars in magazines sold primarily for their depiction of scantily clad, or completely unclad, young ladies.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'm still confused: a scut is the proper term for the tail of a rabbit...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think SCK misunderstands what I'm trying to say. Perhaps it's because I attend a civic church: the pastoral care is just as important obviously, but the church stands for something in the town as a public statement, with large numbers attending main services. If an effort is made to ensure the services flow well, with due reverence (as mentioned above), though allowing for our humanity to shine through as well, then people will feel the church has a voice worth hearing in the town. (And then, by a follow-on process, people will feel secure in asking for pastoral care when needed.)

Yes, I get all that and I agree that we shouldn't be sloppy in the way we do our church services (be they smells, bells and formal liturgy, or electric guitars a-go-go).

I was just querying the mindset of what happens for a few hours one day a week being the most significant part of the impression we make and the impact we have on the wider community. Most of us have plenty of interaction with non-Christians through the week; that for me is the public face of our church, and indeed of Christ himself.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Sorry, an Americanism. Scutwork is the work that you hope other people would do. Replacing the roll of paper towels in the holder, mopping up spills, removing stains, ironing linens, adding fuel to the reservoirs. Someone once asked my husband what the Altar Guild does at our church. Truthfully, he replied, "They polish metal."
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The liturgy is not a performance. Something can be done sincerely and attentively whilst allowing for genuine mistakes. And I don't care is the cantor is out of tune, or if the subdeacon forgets something and has to ask the priest, as long as the liturgy is served in a reverent spirit.

Indeed, even in the liturgies with the best of intentions, mistakes are sometimes made. These are easily understood and forgotten.

The lines-not-to-cross are these:
-the same mistakes are made regularly
-leaders are regularly fumbling for notes to see what is next (musicians, readers, assistants, presiders)
-lots of confused down time (unintentional silence)

These indicate that more education, more practice, and/or more preparation are needed. Continued mistakes are disrespectful, and not just to the congregation. It's sort of like using proper language conventions or spelling. One can easily forgive a mistake here and there, but frequent mistakes demonstrate exactly how little one cares about one's work, and about one's readers.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
One thing I notice in some Episcopalian parishes in the US is the frequent announcement of page numbers in the BCP and time for page-flipping, which seems to be a distraction from the prayerfulness and beauty of the Liturgy. It does help everyone feel able to have "full, active, and conscious" participation in the Liturgy, though, especially newcomers who might not know how to navigate all the page numbers listed in the weekly service sheet. What do you think? Should parts of the Liturgy be announced, with the celebrant (or other minister) acting like an emcee or the host of a variety show, with page numbers (and hymn numbers) said aloud and ample time for page turning?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
No easy answers to this - unless you produce a bespoke service leaflet each time.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
One thing I notice in some Episcopalian parishes in the US is the frequent announcement of page numbers in the BCP and time for page-flipping, which seems to be a distraction from the prayerfulness and beauty of the Liturgy. It does help everyone feel able to have "full, active, and conscious" participation in the Liturgy, though, especially newcomers who might not know how to navigate all the page numbers listed in the weekly service sheet. What do you think? Should parts of the Liturgy be announced, with the celebrant (or other minister) acting like an emcee or the host of a variety show, with page numbers (and hymn numbers) said aloud and ample time for page turning?

The rule I was given is to only announce things if they are not printed in the service leaflet.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In my (US, Anglican) church they have projection devices. No hymnals or paper bulletins necessary -- all the words are shined up onto the wall in big letters, verse by verse. It's a real blessing for people with vision issues. They hand out paper bulletins as well, and there are BCPs and Bibles in the pew racks, so all the bases are covered.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
It is not "just" a performance. But having a performance attitude is good practice, it seems to me.

A performance attitude is one where you consciously aim for the best, rather than having a half-arsed "lets get this thing over with" attitude.

A performance attitude is one where you've taken the care to make sure that all the "props" are where they should be and that every "performer" knows their lines and their cues. Nothing undermines a sense of worship quicker than the sinking feeling that those leading it don't know what they are doing.

A performance attitude is one where even a "repeat" performance is treated as a "live" show, where the "performers" are sensitive to the "audience" response and can adjust accordingly. Watch a good play and you will see what I mean - the best actors feed off of the audience response and so each performance is different and unique.

A performance attitude is one where the personality of the "performers" comes through. Watch the two film versions of Henry V - Olivier and Branagh. See how they treat the same lines differently in their own style.

Most (if not all) "worship leaders" (of any style of worship) could learn a lot by considering what goes into making a play (or a concert) a success and putting some of the basic rules of performance into practice.

Of course there is much more to worship than that. But it is a good place to start and a bad thing to avoid.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
It is not "just" a performance. But having a performance attitude is good practice, it seems to me.

A performance attitude is one where you consciously aim for the best, rather than having a half-arsed "lets get this thing over with" attitude.

But on the flipside, a performance attitude can also mean only the most skilled / gifted people are used for any given role, because 'we should give our best to God'. (Not implying you meant this, OtG, just making a general point.)

That's completely the wrong attitude, IMO. Each of us individually should give our best to God (noting that this absolutely doesn't just apply to our church service tasks, but to every aspect of life) but as a gathered community I think we should be about drawing out everyone's gifts, both developed and nascent, and giving everyone opportunity to play their part in building up the community.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
An observation - Christmas Eve, Midnight Mass, parents' church - obvious the organist is playing from "15 Easy Christmas Carols" or something similar. First thought is "blimey, that's a boring arrangement". Second thought however is, "yes, but you're a musician so you notice more. And what's better - that this organist play from a book where she can play without mistakes, or she try to play from the Oxford Book of Carols, and either play lots of bum notes or give up and not play at all?"

Second observation - how often do we say "not suitable/good enough/whatever for God" when we mean "not good enough for me."?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That's quite an important point, Karl - I know that I (sometimes subconsciously) cast nasturtiums on others 'doing things' at Mass perhaps not quite as well as they might be doing - but hey! They may well be giving their very best for God as they see it, so WTF am I doing criticising them......??

God grant us all humility..... [Ultra confused]

Ian J.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But on the flipside, a performance attitude can also mean only the most skilled / gifted people are used for any given role, because 'we should give our best to God'. (Not implying you meant this, OtG, just making a general point.)

That's completely the wrong attitude, IMO. Each of us individually should give our best to God (noting that this absolutely doesn't just apply to our church service tasks, but to every aspect of life) but as a gathered community I think we should be about drawing out everyone's gifts, both developed and nascent, and giving everyone opportunity to play their part in building up the community.

I would agree absolutely with that. Too often people are discouraged from offering their abilities to be used in God's service (especially in worship) because they aren't "good enough" - but they will never get "good enough" without experience.

BUT - there is a proviso....

There needs to be some degree of control (possibly not the right word) to ensure that there is some degree of ability. I might well offer my "gifts" as a guitar player - but if I can barely manage three chords after 10 years of practicing, I am unlikely to be able to bless the people in worship, no matter how sincere or enthusiastic I might be.

I guess I am railing against the people who could do better but are just slipshod and careless. People who are eager to do the best they can are usually far easier to work with.
 
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
I like bells and smells full blown but when people dress up and then wander around the sanctuary chatting before the service, I'd rather not be there.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Perhaps part of the problem is with the word 'performance' which may imply something being done up at the front, for show, with lots of onlookers, completely separate. However, if you think of the best performances at the theatre, by experienced professionals, they make the action seem so effortless that people are drawn into the scene, completely suspending the outside world, and even time itself, until the theatre goers and the stage players almost become one, with no dividing barriers between them, and something 'spiritual' occurs.

That can only happen in a theatre where the performers are masters of their craft, and, I would argue, the same is true of church also.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
It is not "just" a performance. But having a performance attitude is good practice, it seems to me.

A performance attitude is one where you consciously aim for the best, rather than having a half-arsed "lets get this thing over with" attitude.

But on the flipside, a performance attitude can also mean only the most skilled / gifted people are used for any given role, because 'we should give our best to God'. (Not implying you meant this, OtG, just making a general point.)

Good drama can draw out the best in everyone though. Maybe not the starring rôle but encouraging everyone to contribute and participate.

Carys

[Confusing @ and & in escape characters]

[ 26. March 2014, 22:39: Message edited by: Carys ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
IMO the actions/words of those leading worship, including ministers, servers, choir etc, should aim to give glory to God and help those assembled to worship.

quote:
Bishops Finger says:
I suppose it all boils down to the need for those who are doing anything in the liturgy - leading, serving, reading, praying, playing music.....to do it as for the Lord and to do it as well as they possibly can. No-one can ask for more.

quote:
Fr Weber says:
"Leitourgia" is probably better translated as "public work"--i.e. work done on behalf of the people.

My beef on this thread is with the attitudes expressed by these quotes.

It's as if the people are not full, active participants in the liturgy. It's as though the people couldn't be sloven in the performance of their actions.

Liturgy is a corporate, hierarchical performance of ritualize actions. Each order in the hierarchy takes on the role proper to its order.

Yes, there is a performance. Yes, there are actors. The point is that everyone present has ritualized actions to perform. Everyone present is thereby an actor.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

It's as if the people are not full, active participants in the liturgy. It's as though the people couldn't be sloven in the performance of their actions.

Liturgy is a corporate, hierarchical performance of ritualize actions. Each order in the hierarchy takes on the role proper to its order.

Yes, there is a performance. Yes, there are actors. The point is that everyone present has ritualized actions to perform. Everyone present is thereby an actor.

That is perfectly put.
Though I would not call it a hierarchy - more that some people are more central and therefore more obvious than others.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
In reply to The Silent Acolyte, I do take the point regarding the participation of everyone - Galilit's reply expresses it well! Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.......I plead age and infirmity.......

Ian J.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I profoundly disagree with a great deal of has been said on this thread. I have commented on other threads that there is no such thing as an 'act of worship'. Worship is not an act. It is 'for real'. Those who are involved in leadership in some way, clergy, choir etc are not performing something which the congregation watch or listen to. Their role is to enable everybody present to worship (verb). We are all there both to fall down and worship the Lord our Maker and to help one another to do so.

I would also say that both sloppiness and too much perfection, can prevent this happening
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I profoundly disagree with a great deal of has been said on this thread. I have commented on other threads that there is no such thing as an 'act of worship'. Worship is not an act. It is 'for real'. Those who are involved in leadership in some way, clergy, choir etc are not performing something which the congregation watch or listen to. Their role is to enable everybody present to worship (verb). We are all there both to fall down and worship the Lord our Maker and to help one another to do so.

I would also say that both sloppiness and too much perfection, can prevent this happening

Sorry - but I think this is just a (deliberate?) misreading of what I and others have been saying.

There is such thing as "pure" worship. Worship is made up in part (quite a substantial part) of the activities of human beings. And so, it is surely sensible and even essential for us to consider how our physical actions contribute to or detract from worship.

Everything has the potential to affect how we worship - the physical context of the building; the attitudes and actions of those involved in leading the worship; the attitudes of all the congregation.

As someone who leads worship, I can have little influence upon the attitudes of the members of the congregation. If someone turns up in a foul mood because they've had a blazing row with their spouse, or if someone comes deeply depressed - there's not much I can do about that. BUT I CAN do something about my own actions and attitudes. I can also (hopefully) do something about the physical context (even if I can't knock the building down and start again).

THIS is what I am recommending - paying attention to the things I can affect, so that the whole "worship experience" (ghastly phrase) can be enhanced, so that all can worship more fully.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There is such thing as "pure" worship.

Sorry - that should of course have read "there is no such thing as "pure worship"."
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I profoundly disagree with a great deal of has been said on this thread. I have commented on other threads that there is no such thing as an 'act of worship'. Worship is not an act. It is 'for real'.

Know what you're saying and agree with the idea of worship as a verb. But an 'act' of worship is no more impossible - or unreal - than an 'act' of kindness is unreal. One can 'be' kind, and perform an act of kindness. One can worship, live a worshipful life, have a worshipful time, and take part in an act of worship. English is a very rich - or limited - language, depending on how you look at it!
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Enoch

Look up the meaning of Performative. If we change from thinking of "performance" to "performs" we get at the complexities that are going on. It is correct to say "a doctor performed an operation". I doubt that such a doctor was pretending.

Jengie
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
One does not "perform" the liturgy, instead one "serves" the liturgy.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Surely the liturgy is the service?
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Sorry to post again, but just to add read Janet Baker if you don't believe that performance can be service...
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
An 'act' of worship means that the worship is active, not that anyone is falsely putting it on. People don't always like to show their deep feelings to all and sundry. Solemn, the worship may be, but there is likely to be all sorts going on inside human hearts, which cannot be judged by an onlooker.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
One does not "perform" the liturgy, instead one "serves" the liturgy.

Perform surely means 'to do' or 'to achieve' or 'to accomplish' - in this context. Even worship has to be 'done' in order for it to happen at all, in whichever form we imagine it to take. We seem to be getting all upside-down ourselves over what some words mean, when surely it's pretty obvious, in practical terms, what is really meant.

If I vacuum the room, I am performing an act of service, within the context of a) helping the household and those who live there to be comfortable, and b) the basic task of housework.

It would be unusual to use the word 'perform' for such an action, and arguably for some people the word 'perform' might appear unusual in the context of 'doing' or 'living out' or 'achieving' worship or liturgy, but it's still the same thing, practically speaking, at the end of the day.

Liturgy isn't just a thought process; it's 'done', 'carried out' or 'acted out' - or as some people might quite legitimately say, performed, in other words. The confusion seems to come when some people limit that word to meaning something only involving play-acting, audiences and speeches at Oscar time.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Liturgy isn't just a thought process; it's 'done', 'carried out' or 'acted out' - or as some people might quite legitimately say, performed, in other words. The confusion seems to come when some people limit that word to meaning something only involving play-acting, audiences and speeches at Oscar time.

Personally, I'm fairly happy with the word 'perform' because, yes, it has a wider meaning than 'perform a play' or suchlike. But the OP title is 'Liturgy as performance' and that's the word I'm uncomfortable with.

Anselmina, I'm sure you wouldn't describe doing housework as a 'performance'! You'd perhaps call it a service, but I still don't like that analogy as it leads us along the road of thinking there are some people who attend the church gathering primarily to receive and others who attend primarily to give (or to serve, if you prefer). IMO that's just fundamentally in opposition to how the New Testament describes what the church should be like and how it should gather together...
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Anselmina, I'm sure you wouldn't describe doing housework as a 'performance'!

I don't know about Anselmina, but I would. When I do housework, it's a performance of my fraternal charity for and bonds of affection with the brothers with whom I live, as well as a performance for my gratitude to God for the material goods he has provided me with and charge me with stewardship of. This might be an 'academic-ese' use of the word "performance," but it's at least unaffected with me.

Liturgy is certainly a performance. There is only one spectator: God. He is also the author. Our very desire to praise him is his gift to us.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I profoundly disagree with a great deal of has been said on this thread. I have commented on other threads that there is no such thing as an 'act of worship'. Worship is not an act. It is 'for real'. Those who are involved in leadership in some way, clergy, choir etc are not performing something which the congregation watch or listen to. Their role is to enable everybody present to worship (verb). We are all there both to fall down and worship the Lord our Maker and to help one another to do so.

I would also say that both sloppiness and too much perfection, can prevent this happening

Acts aren't real?
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I also dislike it when it is thought of as a performance, as it can be like an act, and so lacking in honesty.

What makes a performance necessarily ‘dishonest’? Can’t people distinguish between a performance of liturgy and a play?

quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I didn't use the word liturgy as it is often used as a word to describe what "those up front" are doing, but the Greek word, (which escapes me for now!) means "the work of the people" but many acts of worship don't seem to reflect this.

Well, actually the Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the work of the people.’ A translation which is just as likely, and which better describes the work of a ancient ‘liturgist’ (for want of a better word) is ‘the work for the people.’ By performing a liturgy, for instance holding a public office, a person performed it on behalf of the people. He was, of course, part of the people, but he did it on their behalf.

I think this accurately describes the work of the celebrant in the liturgy. As a baptised Christian, he is part of the people of God, yet he performs a ‘public office’ – that of priest or pastor on behalf of the people of God, the Church. We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’ Being a man, as human being, he is our brother, and is thus part of us. And he performed his ‘liturgy’ on our behalf. He gave himself for us, as our representative.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The liturgy is not a performance. Something can be done sincerely and attentively whilst allowing for genuine mistakes. And I don't care is the cantor is out of tune, or if the subdeacon forgets something and has to ask the priest, as long as the liturgy is served in a reverent spirit.

That depends. What do you mean by ‘performance’?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:



We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’



That's Biblical - Hebrews 8.1-2 - the Greek word used for Jesus is "leitourgos", most English Bibles translated it as "minister".
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
The comments about planning ahead reminded me of an occasion when I was leading Morning Prayer. A couple in the congo were having their 50th anniversary, and after the petitions in the Prayer for All Sorts and Conditions of Men I inserted a thanksgiving for their anniversary and then continued, "that they may have a happy issue out of all their afflictions. . .". It then occurred to me that that wasn't the best place to give thanks for the couple's anniversary! They were amused and forgiving.

Of course there's a performance aspect to liturgy and it should be taken seriously, but we mustn't beat up people who make mistakes. That happened to me a couple times assisting certain clergy. Not literally beaten up, but scowled at in a way that felt belittling.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Some years ago I heard a priest giving thanks for a diocesan being moved up to an archbishop, then launching straight into O Almighty God, who along workest great marvels... which caused much hilarity.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have sat in a congregation, in northern Virginia, while the rector prayed, "And Lord, we trust it is Your will that the Redskins win the Super Bowl this afternoon." The congregation responded with a hearty Amen. (They lost.)
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
If the liturgy is performed well, it can draw those members of the congregation who have had a blazing row with their spouse on the way to church, or are depressed, or whatever, out of themselves to worship God. Conversely, an amateurish performance is likely to irritate someone who already has a head of steam about some personal issue and put them even further away from the right frame of mind for worship. I know - I've been there.

As to the correct verb for doing / performing the liturgy, I note that in the RC church Mass is offered. So perhaps we should offer the liturgy to God.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have sat in a congregation, in northern Virginia, while the rector prayed, "And Lord, we trust it is Your will that the Redskins win the Super Bowl this afternoon." The congregation responded with a hearty Amen. (They lost.)

As a Notre Dame fan, I'd have to remind him that Jesus loves all athletes equally. It's his mother who's blessedly biased...
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
If the liturgy is performed well, it can draw those members of the congregation who have had a blazing row with their spouse on the way to church, or are depressed, or whatever, out of themselves to worship God. Conversely, an amateurish performance is likely to irritate someone who already has a head of steam about some personal issue and put them even further away from the right frame of mind for worship. I know - I've been there.

I AM there.

I asked if we "should suspect the lectern infected" after the last two weeks readers have not read to the end of the reading. Lent readings get long but can't you make an effort? Two weeks ago she stopped fully 15 verses too early. She said "I dunno, my copy paste looked funny and then I could not load my Kindle and anyway I didn't check it".
[Disappointed] I was even more furious to hear that so I dryly suggested that she always had the "dead tree option" but she muttered something about "my glasses".

On an emotional note: this is so true. It just sets you off all over again. We should open a support forum!

I'm simply not going next week - call me delicate but it's just not worth the internal turmoil.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Another good reason to ban electronics from the sanctuary.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Another good reason to ban electronics from the sanctuary.

Including electronic "musical instruments"?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
As an Orthodox, of course I'd say all instruments, but especially electronic ones. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
In our Cathedral in Helsinki they tried to experiment with microphones for the audile parts of the Divine Liturgy. Let's just say it wasn't approved of by the people and the microphones were quickly ditched. People power! I like that. Like when a new lectionary was imposed on the Ambrosian Rite a few years back and the new lectionary mysteriously went missing.

[ 09. April 2014, 14:51: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :
 
if you think it's that important that the whole reading (s stated in the lectionary) why not stand up and keep reading OR offer to read the whole story after the service, during coffee?
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
It was printed on the Order of Service.
I was stunned for a second when suddenly there was silence. (I am a Prot so I "read along"). I looked up to see the reader walking to her pew. So I said (from my pew) "Was that from the Abridged Version?" in my public speaking voice. She looked blankly at me and the Minister said "The reading was to verse 44". No reaction, not even embarrassment.

In such circs with a person who had no (apparent) reaction to their egregious error there was nothing to do but try to maintain my own (delicate) equilibrium in public.

Tell you what tho' - that's what I'll do next time
I did that once when RevC "blanked" at the beginning of Communion in one of the always said but unwritten bits so I said the next 3 lines (which of course one knows by heart) in my public speaking voice till he got back on track .
Thanks
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I asked if we "should suspect the lectern infected" after the last two weeks readers have not read to the end of the reading. Lent readings get long but can't you make an effort? Two weeks ago she stopped fully 15 verses too early. She said "I dunno, my copy paste looked funny and then I could not load my Kindle and anyway I didn't check it".
[Disappointed] I was even more furious to hear that so I dryly suggested that she always had the "dead tree option" but she muttered something about "my glasses".

You see, this stuff about being very upset when something like this goes wrong just further convinces me that it's not helpful to see church services in this performance-oriented way.

ISTM someone getting a reading wrong should be a minor issue that is easily overcome with a little good humour and grace, rather than it causing 'emotional turmoil'. I really don't get it, sorry... [Confused]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Missing or wrong readings are perhaps more significant in congregations which expect sermons based on the readings.

Perhaps the canonical response ought to be what one of our vicars said once. He thanked the reader for reading the Gospel passage from John (or whatever it was), then said that every Christian preacher ought to be prepared for the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And he felt that the Spirit was leading him to preach the sermon he had prepared from Matthew. So he read the other passage himself and preached on it.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, actually the Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the work of the people.’ A translation which is just as likely, and which better describes the work of a ancient ‘liturgist’ (for want of a better word) is ‘the work for the people.’ By performing a liturgy, for instance holding a public office, a person performed it on behalf of the people. He was, of course, part of the people, but he did it on their behalf.

I think this accurately describes the work of the celebrant in the liturgy. As a baptised Christian, he is part of the people of God, yet he performs a ‘public office’ – that of priest or pastor on behalf of the people of God, the Church. We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’ Being a man, as human being, he is our brother, and is thus part of us. And he performed his ‘liturgy’ on our behalf. He gave himself for us, as our representative.

Your first paragraph is incorrect and leads to an incorrect analogy in your second.

The origin of the word "liturgy" from the Greek implies a relationship that is more subtle and mutual in nature than either "the work of the people" OR "the work for the people" can capture.

Liturgy meant private sponsorship of a public work, in order that the common people could participate in society. Most people were too poor to fund a gymnasium, religious rites, road works, or military shipbuilding, all of which were liturgies. So rich people might pay for materials and specialist labour to enable the full participation of the people in society.

The usual translations - which tend to come from people at either end of the candle - miss this complex relationship. Yes, it involved paying for specialist labour, such as priests who knew the rites. Yes, this was done for the purpose of people becoming active participants; they were not meant simply to be a passive, appreciative audience.

It seems to me that those who insist on one translation or the other each have one eye covered.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM someone getting a reading wrong should be a minor issue that is easily overcome with a little good humour and grace, rather than it causing 'emotional turmoil'. I really don't get it, sorry... [Confused]

Firstly, Ken is spot on for our denomination. The sermon examines and then weaves together the readings (combined with "A funny thing happened to me this week..." and a nod to current world events)

Secondly, some people are made like this. I have always been like this (well maybe not at my Christening though I think that went pretty well but who knows if it hadn't I might have screamed!)

I am very aware of my "failing" and really do try to be reasonable, even use it positively (eg the example I gave of filling in when RevC "blanked").

BUT...It is exactly like Gwalchmai said up-thread. I had arrived already steamed up and things spiralled down from there. If things had gone well I am sure I'd have been pulled out of my tail-spin just as Gwalchmai describes.

That said, the reason people should make every effort is because they should make every effort all the time; not because of Galilit's sensitivity to things liturgical and concommitant delicate emotional equilibrium.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, actually the Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the work of the people.’ A translation which is just as likely, and which better describes the work of a ancient ‘liturgist’ (for want of a better word) is ‘the work for the people.’ By performing a liturgy, for instance holding a public office, a person performed it on behalf of the people. He was, of course, part of the people, but he did it on their behalf.

I think this accurately describes the work of the celebrant in the liturgy. As a baptised Christian, he is part of the people of God, yet he performs a ‘public office’ – that of priest or pastor on behalf of the people of God, the Church. We can even describe the work of Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgy,’ and Christ as the ultimate ‘liturgist.’ Being a man, as human being, he is our brother, and is thus part of us. And he performed his ‘liturgy’ on our behalf. He gave himself for us, as our representative.

Your first paragraph is incorrect and leads to an incorrect analogy in your second.

The origin of the word "liturgy" from the Greek implies a relationship that is more subtle and mutual in nature than either "the work of the people" OR "the work for the people" can capture.

Liturgy meant private sponsorship of a public work, in order that the common people could participate in society. Most people were too poor to fund a gymnasium, religious rites, road works, or military shipbuilding, all of which were liturgies. So rich people might pay for materials and specialist labour to enable the full participation of the people in society.

The usual translations - which tend to come from people at either end of the candle - miss this complex relationship. Yes, it involved paying for specialist labour, such as priests who knew the rites. Yes, this was done for the purpose of people becoming active participants; they were not meant simply to be a passive, appreciative audience.

It seems to me that those who insist on one translation or the other each have one eye covered.

You are right, of course. But I don’t think that essentially changes my basic point. If the priest is the equivalent of someone performing a liturgy (funding a gymnasium, holding a public office, etc.), then by doing the work to which he has been appointed, he facilitates the people’s participation in the great liturgy of God – were they praise God for who he is, thank God for what he has done for them, and receive his gifts.

Active participation in the liturgy is good. But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest. The priest does indeed do this on behalf of the people. That doesn’t preclude their active involvement. The people of Israel wasn’t precluded from worshipping God in the temple even though the priests offered the sacrifices on their behalf.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
You are right, of course. But I don’t think that essentially changes my basic point. If the priest is the equivalent of someone performing a liturgy (funding a gymnasium, holding a public office, etc.), then by doing the work to which he has been appointed, he facilitates the people’s participation in the great liturgy of God – were they praise God for who he is, thank God for what he has done for them, and receive his gifts.

Active participation in the liturgy is good. But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest. The priest does indeed do this on behalf of the people. That doesn’t preclude their active involvement. The people of Israel wasn’t precluded from worshipping God in the temple even though the priests offered the sacrifices on their behalf.

How can you think you agree with me, when this post just goes on to prove how firmly your one ideological eye is shut against seeing my point?

For clarity, then:


A modern analogy might be a wealthy person endowing a doctor's practice in order to facilitate healing. A doctor is presumed to have specialized knowledge which will help people. To say that patients "are not precluded from" getting better is absolutely the wrong emphasis; it is the entire purpose of the employment of the doctor.

Also, some people get better without the help of a doctor [Razz] (as South Coast Kevin might say, if I may) and perhaps a variety of medical personnel may be as helpful; a doctor is not the only kind of medical professional out there, and you may not always need that level of specialized knowledge. Still, a doctor may be instrumental in the healing of many.

A doctor, priest, architect, ship builder, etc. is a middleman, a conduit for the resources of the rich liturgy-provider to create public participation. The end goal is public participation in whatever activity is sponsored.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
How relevant is what a word might have meant in classical Greek culture towards it means either among Christians either in the patristic era or now? If it helps us understand how writers of the patristic era might have been using their own language, then it has a collateral relevance. I don't know whether any of the New Testament writers used the word leitourgia. Nor do I know how early Christians started to use the word. Whenever that was, though, the really important question is what they meant by it when they used the word, within their own context, not how it was used in either classical or late antique secular Greek. That usage is not a clincher that can be used to deliver a knock out blow to settle arguments about Christian doctrine or practice.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
When Christ is described as a leiturgos in Hebrews 8:2, is he only a sponsor? [Paranoid]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I am very aware of my "failing" and really do try to be reasonable, even use it positively (eg the example I gave of filling in when RevC "blanked").

BUT...It is exactly like Gwalchmai said up-thread. I had arrived already steamed up and things spiralled down from there. If things had gone well I am sure I'd have been pulled out of my tail-spin just as Gwalchmai describes.

That said, the reason people should make every effort is because they should make every effort all the time; not because of Galilit's sensitivity to things liturgical and concommitant delicate emotional equilibrium.

Sorry Galilit, my post came across as more critical than I meant it. [Hot and Hormonal] I don't know how I'd react if I was in a liturgical-type church situation and the minister / priest or a reader missed off some of their lines. Probably far less graciously than you did!

I agree that we should make an effort to prepare our reading, practice the songs, know the steps in the rituals etc. But what I don't understand is the evident dismay when the procedure isn't followed accurately. IMO it really shouldn't matter very much at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
For clarity, then:


So in Hebrews 8:1-2, when Jesus is described as 'minister [leitourgos] in the sanctuary' is it perhaps saying that Jesus is the one who enables us all to take part in the community of the Trinity? Is there anywhere in the New Testament where a particular person is described as a leitourgos, I wonder.

Sort of on this point, I think it's significant that (as I understand it!) no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest - archiereos or hiereos in the Greek. Instead of using the words typically used in Koine Greek for religious officials, they used words drawn from everyday language; overseer, older man, servant, messenger, shepherd etc.

ISTM there's a sharp divide between the OT and NT descriptions of worship, gathering and so on; a divide we should acknowledge in the ways we describe and actually do our gathered praise and adoration of God.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
If it doesn't matter when things go wrong, what's the point of making the effort? I'm wondering if there's misinterpretation going on here - to me, saying 'it doesn't matter' suggests that the thing itself is not a priority or important. Do you mean more along the lines of not making a fuss or a big deal over a mistake?

If so, I would probably react more like you, but don't forget that to many people, the very act of getting it right and 'doing things properly' is a form of worship. Not being bothered essentially equals not being bothered about God.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sort of on this point, I think it's significant that (as I understand it!) no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest - archiereos or hiereos in the Greek.

That is demonstrably wrong. In Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ “made us (Christians) a kingdom, priests (ἱερεῖς) to his God and Father.” Furthermore, in 1. Peter 2:5, it is said that we as Christians should be “a holy priesthood” (gr. ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον).

And on from that, even St. Paul calls himself a priest in his service as an Apostle. In Romans 15:16, he says he is “serving as a priest with the Gospel of God” (ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεου). Here he doesn’t use the noun (ἱερεύς), but the participle form of the verb (ἱερουργέω).
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
In Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ “made us (Christians) a kingdom, priests (ἱερεῖς) to his God and Father.” Furthermore, in 1. Peter 2:5, it is said that we as Christians should be “a holy priesthood” (gr. ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον).

This is why I deliberately said 'no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest'. Christians in the collective are described as priests or a priesthood, yes, but no specific person within the community of believers is ever (IIRC) identified as a priest.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And on from that, even St. Paul calls himself a priest in his service as an Apostle. In Romans 15:16, he says he is “serving as a priest with the Gospel of God” (ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεου). Here he doesn’t use the noun (ἱερεύς), but the participle form of the verb (ἱερουργέω).

Again, I think you've gone beyond what the text says (this time, despite yourself making the exact point I'm about to make). The word used is a verb; Paul says he is 'priesting', not that he is 'a priest'. I think it's significant that Paul, even Paul, doesn't explicitly call himself a priest.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
At the local Episcopal parish this Sunday, different people read different parts for the Passion from the Gospel According to Matthew. Now since there was no deacon present one would think the Rector should have read the part of Christ, but they had someone else read it instead. When the Rector did not see her coming forward to read, he asked the congregation, "Could Jesus please come forward?"
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?


Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.


We often get the clergy to read the high priest.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
At our joint service this morning, I was asked to play Jesus, but the Vicar cast himself as Judas!
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
This is Ecclesiantics and many of the posters here like me are happy to have large sticks up our butts (figuratively, although if it were literally so it would depend on the stick). I can't impose my theology on every denomination or parish, but I can whine about it to strangers online [Smile] .

My point wasn't to complain about who read what, but to point out that readings of the Passion are often as close as Liturgical Churches get to theatre outside of Children's Masses.

I am totally for seeing Liturgy as a performance and not opposed to having different people read different parts of the Passion for Palm Sunday - but it's a different kind of performance than theatre. Hmmm....anyone want to discuss why?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Today I was the liturgist. Had a different form of worship than we usually do. Had only about two minutes to review it - mainly because I also taught an adult learning community. Have to say it went well. Someone commented it was "well choreographed."

The directions said to pause after each petition. I was going for 30 seconds, but after fifteen I noticed a unease in the congregation, so I did 15 seconds for each petition. There were seven petitions.

One thing I have found modern congregations don't seem to take silence very well, yet I was taught to use silence especially during the prayers.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

It is common among 'Higher' places to cast the Celebrant of the Mass as Christ

(There was a bit of grumbling about that a few years ago as the female curate was celebrating that day... although those of us in the serving team were more concerned about getting her into the chasuble which was a rather wide fiddleback of unusual design that didn't stay on her shoulders... I seem to recall safety pins coming into play).
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
The Catholic tradition is to have a deacon read the Gospel, so now that it is kinda sorta allowed to have people read multiple parts for the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, you still have to have a deacon read the words spoken by Christ. If your denomination or churchmanship does not value this tradition, then fine. But if you do, I think you should take this into consideration. If a deacon is not present, you can have a priest read the words spoken by Christ, since priests were ordained deacons before they were ordained priests.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

In many high churches, the celebrant is considered "in loco Christi" for the mass. Therefore, it makes sense for him to read the role of Jesus.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The directions said to pause after each petition. I was going for 30 seconds, but after fifteen I noticed a unease in the congregation, so I did 15 seconds for each petition. There were seven petitions.

One thing I have found modern congregations don't seem to take silence very well, yet I was taught to use silence especially during the prayers.

I have also found this to be a common problem. Churches often tend to rush through the pauses clearly marked by asterisks during prayers. Even worse, they tend to omit all moments of silence during the Stations of the Cross, which half defeats their purpose, in my opinion.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
How relevant is what a word might have meant in classical Greek culture towards it means either among Christians either in the patristic era or now? If it helps us understand how writers of the patristic era might have been using their own language, then it has a collateral relevance. I don't know whether any of the New Testament writers used the word leitourgia. Nor do I know how early Christians started to use the word. Whenever that was, though, the really important question is what they meant by it when they used the word, within their own context, not how it was used in either classical or late antique secular Greek. That usage is not a clincher that can be used to deliver a knock out blow to settle arguments about Christian doctrine or practice.

Etymology isn't meaning. Cf. "The Eucharist is a meal!" or "My calling you a crafty counterfeiter is a compliment, because it means you're very clever at imitating people."

The bottom line is that "the work of the people" is only one facet of the meaning of the word "liturgy." It doesn't even represent the full meaning of the word as the Greeks of the Classical era or of late antiquity used it. In my experience many of the people who've boarded that bandwagon use it to support goofiness like the priest handing the stole to the OT reader at the Eucharist.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The Catholic tradition is to have a deacon read the Gospel, so now that it is kinda sorta allowed to have people read multiple parts for the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, you still have to have a deacon read the words spoken by Christ. If your denomination or churchmanship does not value this tradition, then fine. But if you do, I think you should take this into consideration. If a deacon is not present, you can have a priest read the words spoken by Christ, since priests were ordained deacons before they were ordained priests.

That's not accurate. The rubric (paragraph 21 of the rubrics for Palm Sunday) state:

quote:

It [the entire Passion] is read by a Deacon, or if there is nor Deacon, by a Priest. It may also be read by readers, with the part of Christ, if possible, reserved to a Priest.

So, one option is to read it like a normal Gospel, entirely read by the Deacon (or Priest in his absence). The other option is to split it up with different readers taking different parts, but the part of Christ being taken by a Priest. In this case, the deacon has no particular role. The Good Friday rubrics direct you back to Palm Sunday.

It should be noted that "readers" lacks a capital letter. There is no intention to limit to or even prefer those instituted as Lectors.

I have no idea why the "if possible" is there -- why wouldn't it be? I suppose this might be to prevent people from thinking they can't do the Passion in a SCAP.

At my place, I didn't take any part in the Passion reading on Palm Sunday, having already proclaimed the Entrance Gospel at the one Mass I assisted at. On Good Friday, I will take the part of narrator.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Regarding Lectors, that's only because Vatican II suppressed the minor orders (God knows why!).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I am totally for seeing Liturgy as a performance and not opposed to having different people read different parts of the Passion for Palm Sunday - but it's a different kind of performance than theatre. Hmmm....anyone want to discuss why?

I'm not sure that it's different to all theatre. Yes, it's very different from looking onto a proscenium-framed stage which is effectively a little world of its own, for everybody present in church becomes part of the action (or should do). However I am sure that this happens in some modern theatrical productions as well, even though they may have no explicitly "spiritual" content. And then of course you have "miracle plays" - definitely not liturgy, yet with an overtly Christian theme.

To look at things from a slightly opposite direction: many years ago I attended a semi-staged version of Bach's "St. John Passion" at a London opera house. The event was in no way a service, nor did it seek to be a "passion play". Music was distributed to the audience and, about 5 times during the evening, the house lights went up and we were invited to join in the chorales. It was a secular event - and the most moving "liturgy" I experienced that Easter.

I feel that the best of liturgy (and that does not have to be "High Church", even nonconformists can have it) and the best of "performance" both end up transcending the simply rational. And this s not surprising as the creativity evident in both is God-given, if not necessarily acknowledged.

When "performance" - in theatre or church - is badly done or is clearly designed solely to draw attention to the performers themselves, then the rational is all too obvious and the congregation/audience remains earthbound!
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Regarding Lectors, that's only because Vatican II suppressed the minor orders (God knows why!).

No, Paul VI suppressed them motu proprio as a "minor order." They still exist as an Instituted Ministry. While God certainly knows why, you can too, as the Holy Father told us what he was doing as he was doing it. Just read Ministeria Quaedam.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why assume the Rector reads the part of Jesus?

Seems an unhealthy identification of ministers with God to me.

We often get the clergy to read the high priest.

I once attended a performance of Benjamin Britten's Noye's Fludde at an RC parish. The pastor was the voice of God. The parish children played the animals and were quite charming processing up the aisle as they boarded the ark.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
In Revelation 1:6 it is said that Christ “made us (Christians) a kingdom, priests (ἱερεῖς) to his God and Father.” Furthermore, in 1. Peter 2:5, it is said that we as Christians should be “a holy priesthood” (gr. ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον).

This is why I deliberately said 'no individual Christian is ever described or titled in the New Testament as a priest'. Christians in the collective are described as priests or a priesthood, yes, but no specific person within the community of believers is ever (IIRC) identified as a priest.
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
And on from that, even St. Paul calls himself a priest in his service as an Apostle. In Romans 15:16, he says he is “serving as a priest with the Gospel of God” (ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεου). Here he doesn’t use the noun (ἱερεύς), but the participle form of the verb (ἱερουργέω).

Again, I think you've gone beyond what the text says (this time, despite yourself making the exact point I'm about to make). The word used is a verb; Paul says he is 'priesting', not that he is 'a priest'. I think it's significant that Paul, even Paul, doesn't explicitly call himself a priest.
The verb means ‘acting as a priest.’ If he is acting as a priest, he is a priest.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Yes, but what does a 'priest' actually mean in this context? As pointed out earlier, the OT priest is a Greek 'hiereus', the classic sacrificing priest. Our modern western word 'priest' is derived from the word 'presbyter' or elder, and clearly has a somewhat different meaning (not to mention that I can't find in the NT that an 'episkopos' is something special rather than just a synonym of 'presbyter').

I think Kevin is sort of right here in the sense that Rev 1; 6 and I Pet 2; 5 refer to all Christians as 'priests' in the OT/'hiereus' sense. By implication none of us gets to be priest over against the others, though some of us are the different office of 'presbyter/episkopos'.

Interestingly Romans 15 does give an example of an individual Christian as a 'leitourgos' - Paul himself being a 'minister/leitourgos' of Christ Jesus to the nations/gentiles. He then goes on to refer to himself 'ierourgounta' the gospel of God, so that 'the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable'. This seems actually to be about evangelism rather than church service; I'll be giving it more study because on my reading so far there are some interesting possibilities here!

Posted by k-mann
quote:
But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest
Yes, but do you mean here presbyter/priest, or hiereus/priest? It makes a difference.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The Catholic tradition is to have a deacon read the Gospel, so now that it is kinda sorta allowed to have people read multiple parts for the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, you still have to have a deacon read the words spoken by Christ. If your denomination or churchmanship does not value this tradition, then fine. But if you do, I think you should take this into consideration. If a deacon is not present, you can have a priest read the words spoken by Christ, since priests were ordained deacons before they were ordained priests.

That's not accurate. The rubric (paragraph 21 of the rubrics for Palm Sunday) state:

quote:

It [the entire Passion] is read by a Deacon, or if there is nor Deacon, by a Priest. It may also be read by readers, with the part of Christ, if possible, reserved to a Priest.

So, one option is to read it like a normal Gospel, entirely read by the Deacon (or Priest in his absence). The other option is to split it up with different readers taking different parts, but the part of Christ being taken by a Priest. In this case, the deacon has no particular role. The Good Friday rubrics direct you back to Palm Sunday.

It should be noted that "readers" lacks a capital letter. There is no intention to limit to or even prefer those instituted as Lectors.

I have no idea why the "if possible" is there -- why wouldn't it be? I suppose this might be to prevent people from thinking they can't do the Passion in a SCAP.

At my place, I didn't take any part in the Passion reading on Palm Sunday, having already proclaimed the Entrance Gospel at the one Mass I assisted at. On Good Friday, I will take the part of narrator.

Oh, my mistake then. I had never been in a Catholic Church where a deacon was present on Palm Sunday until this year, when the Deacon did read the words of Christ, so I assumed this was just like with normal readings of the Gospel. Interesting to see that this was breaking the rules!

How are the rubrics for Good Friday different, I wonder?

So since on Palm Sunday the words of Christ, when parts are split up, is reserved to a Priest, then it seems to be all about the Priest celebrant at the Eucharist acting in persona Christi. Of course, Christ is also present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in the Word being proclaimed, and in the congregation assembled, but Roman Catholics believe that if you're going to talk about "roles" in a "performance", the "Christ role" should go to a Priest....makes sense.

Is there any pre-Vatican II liturgical precedent to compare this to? Were the Passion narratives split up among parts ever before Vatican II on Palm Sunday or Good Friday? If so, what was done and what rules were there about who could say what?

Also, all non RC's should note that in any performance outside of the Liturgy, it really doesn't matter who plays the role of Christ - I don't think there is even a rule against women playing Christ (although Mother Angelica of EWTN fame protested this when it was done at World Youth Day in Denver).

It is a common practice for kids to "act out" the Nativity reading at a Christmas Mass on Christmas Eve in RCC Churches. Is this against the rules? If it is not against the rules, then you have a kid (with no lines, of course), playing the role of the Christ child in the Liturgy, and the kid is obviously not an ordained priest.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
When "performance" - in theatre or church - is badly done or is clearly designed solely to draw attention to the performers themselves, then the rational is all too obvious and the congregation/audience remains earthbound!

Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, I agree - again, that would also be true in secular theatre, as a good actor directs one towards the character they are playing rather than themselves.

Where this is not the case is in preaching, which must involve the communication of God's message via the individual speaker. We see this in the OT where each prophet had their own unique style. However, even here, the preacher is pointing to something (some One) beyond them, they are not doing for their own personal glory.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.

Yes, I suppose, but as Steve Langton has said, it doesn't mean there are some who are priests and others who are not. Either the body of Christ as a whole is the priest / priesthood, or each of us individually is a priest.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The verb means ‘acting as a priest.’ If he is acting as a priest, he is a priest.

Okay, Paul is a priest. But so are all Christians then; there is no demarcation between those Christians who are priests and those Christians who are not priests. I'm cool with that, if you want to insist that someone 'doing priesting' means they are a priest.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:

If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.

RIC is a hieros-priest in that he participates in Jesus Christ's sacrificial priesthood. Just like every other Christian. (Including children). That priesthood, the Old Testament Temple priesthood, is Jesus's, and also ours as we are in Jesus.


RIC is only a presbyter-priest if he has been set aside for that office by the church. That's part of church government. Not all Christians are elders, just as not all Christians are flower-arrangers.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
[QUOTE]


Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.

Which is a very good reason for the parish priest or other chief ministers of the church NOT to always read the Gospel, or to take the part of Jesus in a shared reading. They will inevitably be seen as some sort of authority figure by at least some of the congregation and when only they read (or preach) it sends a message that they are somehow specially important or holy, and the plebs in the pews aren't worthy to take part themselves but just have to sit back and listen.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
[QUOTE]


Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.

Which is a very good reason for the parish priest or other chief ministers of the church NOT to always read the Gospel, or to take the part of Jesus in a shared reading. They will inevitably be seen as some sort of authority figure by at least some of the congregation and when only they read (or preach) it sends a message that they are somehow specially important or holy, and the plebs in the pews aren't worthy to take part themselves but just have to sit back and take what they are given by their betters.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, but what does a 'priest' actually mean in this context? As pointed out earlier, the OT priest is a Greek 'hiereus', the classic sacrificing priest. Our modern western word 'priest' is derived from the word 'presbyter' or elder, and clearly has a somewhat different meaning (not to mention that I can't find in the NT that an 'episkopos' is something special rather than just a synonym of 'presbyter').

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest.

Yes, but do you mean here presbyter/priest, or hiereus/priest? It makes a difference.
Well, it is interesting, I think, that the word ‘priest,’ which is derived from πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) and not from ἱερεύς (hierevs), started to be used to describe the priests of the Old Covenant. That suggests that the presbyters were sacrificial, at least when people started to use these terms.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think Kevin is sort of right here in the sense that Rev 1; 6 and I Pet 2; 5 refer to all Christians as 'priests' in the OT/'hiereus' sense. By implication none of us gets to be priest over against the others, though some of us are the different office of 'presbyter/episkopos'.

It is hard to guess what people really mean. Of course no one is priest for themselves, apart from others. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t individual priests. But that also applied to the priests and levites of the Old Covenant. So I do not see the relevance.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Interestingly Romans 15 does give an example of an individual Christian as a 'leitourgos' - Paul himself being a 'minister/leitourgos' of Christ Jesus to the nations/gentiles. He then goes on to refer to himself 'ierourgounta' the gospel of God, so that 'the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable'. This seems actually to be about evangelism rather than church service; I'll be giving it more study because on my reading so far there are some interesting possibilities here!

To me this seems that St. Paul is actually a priest. In his work with the Gospel of God, which is the proclamation of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ as Lord and King, and not a document, St. Paul is offering the people back to God. But that is exactly what a priest does. The gifts and sacrifices offered by, say, a Levite, was a representation of the people for whom he offered it (or of himself, and perhaps his family, if he offered on his own behalf). The difference now is that we can offer ourselves directly, through Christ, and that some people have been given the task to ‘facilitate’ this (cf. Romans 15:16; Phil 2:17).

The reason for this is that the sacrifice of Christ, as the sacrifices of any of the High Priests, is not his own, but the people’s. The sacrifice of Christ is the sacrifice of the people.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by k-mann
quote:
Well, it is interesting, I think, that the word ‘priest,’ which is derived from πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) and not from ἱερεύς (hierevs), started to be used to describe the priests of the Old Covenant. That suggests that the presbyters were sacrificial, at least when people started to use these terms.
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought that 'presbyters' came to be considered as 'sacrificial' priests, and likened to the OT priests, when communion became re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church.

This in turn was part of the also questionable 'nationalisation' of the Church in the Roman Empire.

As a Protestant I don't accept the 'sacrificial' interpretation of the communion/Mass; and as an Anabaptist I also don't accept the state church system. So for me all Christians are 'hiereoi', priests in the OT sense; but that priesthood is modified by the fact of Jesus' definitive sacrifice. 'presbyter/elder' means a different kind of job to do with church government, but not like the OT sacrificing 'hiereus'.

My initial post was to draw attention to the confusion in English whereby we have come to use a word derived from 'presbyter' to refer to the OT type of 'priest'.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
As I understand it, in the earliest of early Church Latin texts "sacerdos" is nearly always used in conjunction with the bishop, which is why the seven orders of the Church ends with "priest". "Priest" didn't become synonymous with "presbyter" until later.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Ad Orientem; please explain more, including at what date the word 'sacerdos' was used. The English word 'priest' is definitely derived from 'presbyter/elder', whence for instance that an RC priest's house is called a 'presbytery'.

It still seems to me that the NT does not know of 'priests' as a distinct order in the church and the 'presbyter/episkopos' is not a priest in the OT sense but a different kind of office??
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought that 'presbyters' came to be considered as 'sacrificial' priests, and likened to the OT priests, when communion became re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church.

Then shouldn’t they have been given some name that derives from hierevs or cohen, and not the other way around?

And when, exactly, did communion become ‘re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church’? When was the time of ‘decay’? When the Didache was written, perhaps?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It still seems to me that the NT does not know of 'priests' as a distinct order in the church

Then what does St. Paul mean, in Romans 15:16, when he says that he is “acting as a priest” so that “the offering of the Genties might become acceptable, sanctified in the Holy Spirit”? Or to ask a more fundamental question: Why was the Scriptural canonisation process good, while the theology of those doing the canonisation bad?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Still thinking through some of your post, k-mann; but on this;
quote:
by k-mann;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought that 'presbyters' came to be considered as 'sacrificial' priests, and likened to the OT priests, when communion became re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church.

k-m: Then shouldn’t they have been given some name that derives from hierevs or cohen, and not the other way around?

I think the point is simply that the word 'presbyter/elder' was well established and therefore was not changed although the concept of the function of the elder did change. At the point of translation into English the word 'priest' came to be used both of the OT priests and of the RC priesthood as then practised. That is, the confusion already existed at that point. Language does things like that, it doesn't always do the logical.

by k-mann
quote:
Then what does St. Paul mean, in Romans 15:16, when he says that he is “acting as a priest”
I'm still working on that, but I don't think he means he is acting as a 'priest' in a sense different to the 'priesthood of ALL believers'. Furthermore the context does not seem to be 'liturgy' in the sense of this thread, or indeed a conventional OT view of priesthood.

by k-mann

quote:
Why was the Scriptural canonisation process good, while the theology of those doing the canonisation bad?
I'd be delighted to debate scriptural canonisation in a separate thread; I think in this thread it might be a tangent too far. Discussing the nature of priests in too much detail is already a bit tangential to the original point of this question.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ad Orientem; please explain more, including at what date the word 'sacerdos' was used. The English word 'priest' is definitely derived from 'presbyter/elder', whence for instance that an RC priest's house is called a 'presbytery'.

It still seems to me that the NT does not know of 'priests' as a distinct order in the church and the 'presbyter/episkopos' is not a priest in the OT sense but a different kind of office??

Cyprian of Carthage uses the term "sacerdos" for the bishop. Likewise, Hippolytus of Rome uses "archiereus" and "hiereus" for the bishop. Of course, that doesn't mean that they saw the New Testament priesthood in terms of the Levitical priesthood. Christ is the head of the Church and a priest in the order of Melchisedech. In turn the bishop governs the Church and ministers to the people in place of Christ. But as for why terms such as "sacerdos" eventually became to be referred to "presbyter", that's probably because as the Church grew the bishop couldn't be everywhere so they ordained the presbyters to serve the liturgy where the bishop couldn't. Thus they shared in the bishops' priestly ministry, albeit in a limited capacity strictly under the authority of the bishop.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Thanks, Ad Orientem; but big query - the NT seems only to know of 'presbyters/elders' who are clearly in several places synonymous with 'episkopoi/overseers'. Neither word seems yet to have acquired a specifically ecclesiastical meaning, though 'elder' was apparently in use for the non-priestly governors of synagogues. Your reconstruction of events seems to start at a stage where the NT view has already changed and arguably in dubious ways...?

And in the NT I can't see that either presbyter or episkopos means a priest in the hiereus/sacerdos sense, that language is applied only to Jesus and to ALL believers as a holy priesthood. What's going on??
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
It seems to me that we can't go far wrong in reading the NT through the lens of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Many of the things that Anabaptists object to as "Constantinian" innovations are present already a good century or more before Constantine's accession, and were relatively non-controversial (discounting obvious heretics like Marcion, Montanus & Donatus).

Of course, I'm aware that this is not a conclusive refutation of Anabaptist/Free Church positions. In the end, you picks your hermeneutic (or historiography) and you takes your chances.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Fr Weber; I sort of agree. I fear that the way the argument has developed, there is a tendency, of which I also am guilty at times just for the sake of brevity, to use 'Constantinian' as shorthand for what most people, including these days most Anabaptists,agree was actually a process that took many decades. As an obvious point, making Christianity compulsory took place quite a bit after Constantine, at the end of the 300s, while certainly some trends now seen as Constantinian actually started in previous decades.

One might, I think, argue that some of those trends might well have died out in a free church but became exaggerated and fixed in a state church because they suited the purposes of such a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus.

Also that where the NT is clear - as it rather is, for instance, about the identity of presbyters and episkopoi, the Ante-Nicene Fathers may be recording a process of decline rather than an original interpretation? Or at any rate, that in the days when copies of the NT were probably comparatively rare, some not-very-NT ideas did develop?

Marcion and Montanus fairly obvious heretics; Donatism less obviously so and a somewhat mixed movement anyway. Clearly wrong in the sense that it looks as if the Donatists would not have wanted to forgive Peter's denial as Jesus did; but also clearly right in rejecting the state church idea in the end, a point at which the Imperial Church was decidedly wrong.

Should we now let this thread get back to its original topic??
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Stonespring before Vatican 2 the Passion Gospels ,would be read (in Latin) by the celebrating priest on Palm Sunday as well as on Monday and Tuesday of Holy Week and then the St John Passion on Good Friday.

In churches where there were sufficient clergy then three priests/deacons would read/sing the Passion with the choir singing the crowd parts.
Certainly in Europe (including UK ) it was relatively rare to encounter an actual deacon and in solemn liturgies the part of the deacon was normally taken by a priest taking the role and wearing the vestments of a deacon.

Since the early 1960s and the beginnings of a vernacular liturgy in the Catholic Church -reading of Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular - then the Passion has normally been read in ordinary parish churches by groups of lay people.
The first time I experienced this was in the parish church of Lourdes (not at the shrine !) and this was 1964.It made a very welcome change from the common practice in most churches of the Passion being read in monotone Latin by one priest.In the UK this was not usually read in translation afterwards as was the normal
practice on Sundays ( 2 x 20 minute readings would be too much penance).In France and the German lands the Passion would usually be read at the same time as the celebrant read it in Latin either by a cleric or a lay person.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the point is simply that the word 'presbyter/elder' was well established and therefore was not changed although the concept of the function of the elder did change.

But that presupposes that it was indeed changed, that the presbyters of the New Testament weren’t sacrificial priests the way, for instance, St. Cyprian understood it.

But when do you suppose this change occurred? Can you point me to definitive point in history? Can you cite a Church Father, before or after Nicea, who didn’t believe in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood, were this is understood different from the sacrificial nature of the priesthood of all the baptised? And why do you think that those who did indeed hold to this ‘special priesthood’ understanding of the presbyters had no qualms with the texts of the New Testament, but in fact canonised them?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the point of translation into English the word 'priest' came to be used both of the OT priests and of the RC priesthood as then practised. That is, the confusion already existed at that point. Language does things like that, it doesn't always do the logical.

No, but that assumes it was illogical. My claim is that it was logical, that it follows from the understanding of presbyters that had always been the case. But I’m happy to be proven wrong. Can you cite any Church Father, before or after Nicea, who didn’t believe in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still working on that, but I don't think he means he is acting as a 'priest' in a sense different to the 'priesthood of ALL believers'. Furthermore the context does not seem to be 'liturgy' in the sense of this thread, or indeed a conventional OT view of priesthood.

I think, on the contrary, that this is describing liturgy exactly. The liturgy was the offering of the Church (cf. Phil. 2:17), in union with the still ongoing offering of Christ (cf. Hebrews 8:1-3).

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd be delighted to debate scriptural canonisation in a separate thread; I think in this thread it might be a tangent too far. Discussing the nature of priests in too much detail is already a bit tangential to the original point of this question.

My point was that those whom we are happy to give the right to canonise Scripture all believed in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
[QUOTE]


Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.

Which is a very good reason for the parish priest or other chief ministers of the church NOT to always read the Gospel, or to take the part of Jesus in a shared reading. They will inevitably be seen as some sort of authority figure by at least some of the congregation and when only they read (or preach) it sends a message that they are somehow specially important or holy, and the plebs in the pews aren't worthy to take part themselves but just have to sit back and listen.
For what it is worth, my parish had three choir soloists sing the Passion as narrator, Jesus, and all other spoken parts. The clergy played no role in it.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This discussion about 'priest' is interesting. There's obviously an important difference in theology involved which is a major part of what the Reformation was about. There is though another problem of which people do not always pick up. This is that in English there is only one word which translates two different concepts in biblical Greek.

The English word 'priest' clearly derives from the Greek word presbyteros via its Latin equivalent. It also clearly has always included in its meaning - and still does - 'the person responsible for looking after a local Christian congregation' and 'pastor'.

It has also acquired an additional meaning along the way, so that it is the only word now used in English that means 'a person who performs religious sacrifices', corresponding to the Hebrew word cohen and the Greek word used to translate that in the LXX, hiereus, Latin, sacerdos. There must originally have been an Anglo-Saxon word that meant that, but whatever it was, it has been lost. Almost certainly, this is because by the Anglo-Saxon period, the mass was seen as a sacrifice. Christian ministry had combined both roles.

We, now therefore, without thinking about it, talk of the Jewish High Priest, or even of pagan priests, when no one would use presbyteros with that meaning.

In the Jewish world, these two concepts were quite different. A cohen/hiereus was descended from Aaron and performed sacrifices in the Temple. He did not have responsibility for any congregation. Rabbis were responsible for teaching, synagogues and pastoral care. They were not descended from Aaron. They did not sacrifice.

When the New Testament refers to Jesus as 'our great high priest' this is cohen/hiereus. Likewise the reference to the priesthood of all believers. However, at that stage in the development of Christian ministry, episcopos and presbyteros was describing a role that corresponded to a rabbi, not a cohen/hiereus. Whatever we may think about the nature of the Mass or how quickly that theology developed, in the most primitive stage of church development, cohen/hiereus was regarded as a term that could only describe Jesus's role, which we would now describe as both priest and victim,

The usage that allowed ministry to be likened to cohen/hiereus seems to have developed sometimes in the early post-primitive era. It probably happened in two stages. First, if it was recognised that the body and blood 'were' Jesus and proclaimed his death until he returns, then they became themselves priest and victim. Second, it could follow from that, that the person who offers them has a sacerdotal as well as a presbyteral role.

At the Reformation, the Protestant side of the debate argued that this theological development had been a mistake. This debate continues. Nevertheless, as far as I know, no Christian ecclesial community that stresses the sacerdotal, i.e. cohen/hiereus nature of priesthood, has separated it from the presbyteros/rabbi role. Whichever side of the divide you are on in arguments about the nature of the Mass/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Holy Liturgy, you take it for granted that your priest/minister/pastor/elder does the leader, pastor and teacher bit, the job of both a presbyteros and indeed an episcopos.

It is a pity, though, that English has lost whatever word it must have had for 'a person who offers sacrifices'. It would make argument a lot easy and a lot less self-delusional.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
What Enoch said. Pretty much exactly.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:



My point was that those whom we are happy to give the right to canonise Scripture all believed in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood.

So what? Since when did being inspired by the Holy Spirit on one thing stop someone holding false beliefs on another? We don't trust the Church Fathers because of any special powers they had, but because and insofar as their writings are consonant with scripture, and we believe them to have been guided by God the Holy Spirit.


Anyway its pretty much irrelevant. Despite danbrownian fantasies, the whingings of neo-Gnostic apologists, and innumerable paranoid conspiracy theories, its simply not true that the NT canon was cobbled together at Nicea or Constantinople or by some secret agents of the Emperor. At the most all that happened was dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Trimming round the edges. Most of the core NT books were accepted by churches before the end of the second century. Possibly before the end of the first. Certainly the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and probably John's letters and 1 Peter as well. All the rest was pretty much decided before Constantine.

Yes, the churches wrote the New Testament. But the churches that wrote the New Testament were the first-century, mostly Jewish, apostolic churches with living eyewitness memories of Jesus. And no sacrificial priests other than the Temple priests of Jerusalem.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
What Enoch said. Pretty much exactly.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:



My point was that those whom we are happy to give the right to canonise Scripture all believed in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood.

So what? Since when did being inspired by the Holy Spirit on one thing stop someone holding false beliefs on another? We don't trust the Church Fathers because of any special powers they had, but because and insofar as their writings are consonant with scripture, and we believe them to have been guided by God the Holy Spirit.


Anyway its pretty much irrelevant. Despite danbrownian fantasies, the whingings of neo-Gnostic apologists, and innumerable paranoid conspiracy theories, its simply not true that the NT canon was cobbled together at Nicea or Constantinople or by some secret agents of the Emperor. At the most all that happened was dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Trimming round the edges. Most of the core NT books were accepted by churches before the end of the second century. Possibly before the end of the first. Certainly the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and probably John's letters and 1 Peter as well. All the rest was pretty much decided before Constantine.

Yes, the churches wrote the New Testament. But the churches that wrote the New Testament were the first-century, mostly Jewish, apostolic churches with living eyewitness memories of Jesus. And no sacrificial priests other than the Temple priests of Jerusalem.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Thanks ken and Enoch for stating what I tried to but which had got rather lost in the heat of the argument. including the bit about how scripture wasn't canonised by people 300 years later but was recognised much earlier - indeed clearly before c140CE when Marcion came along trying to put a more restricted canon in place. Though I'd concede a few minor epistles now in, and a few eventually not accepted, were finalised around the time of Nicea.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks ken and Enoch for stating what I tried to but which had got rather lost in the heat of the argument. including the bit about how scripture wasn't canonised by people 300 years later but was recognised much earlier - indeed clearly before c140CE when Marcion came along trying to put a more restricted canon in place. Though I'd concede a few minor epistles now in, and a few eventually not accepted, were finalised around the time of Nicea.

My point was not that no one recognised Scripture before the fourth century, but that those who did canonise Scripture in the fourth century had no qualms about including scriptures that some, including anabaptists, claim disprove the unique priestly character of the New Testament presbyters.

They saw those presbyters as sacrificial priests. One cannot simply say that they weren’t sacrificial because the word means ‘elder’ (unless one also provide arguments that being an elder precludes being a sacrificial priest). It is historical fact that the early Church claimed that the presbyters were sacrificial priests. And I believe that is in complete continuity with St. Paul. He calls himself a priest, with reference to his ministry (Rom 15:16, cf. Phil 2:17). From that I draw the conclusion that the New Testament presbyters were sacrificial priests. When Paul say that he is ‘acting as a priest’ (hierourgéō), he is a priest who intercedes for the people of God as an intermediary. He offers the people back to God in union with the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the great high priest.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And no sacrificial priests other than the Temple priests of Jerusalem.

So what does St. Paul mean when he, explicitly, says that he – in his ministry – acts as a priest? Is it just a ‘metaphor’? If yes, how do we know? Cannot that argument be used to denounce almost anything? And if it is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor of?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
originally by k-mann;
quote:
My point was not that no one recognised Scripture before the fourth century, but that those who did canonise Scripture in the fourth century had no qualms about including scriptures that some, including anabaptists, claim disprove the unique priestly character of the New Testament presbyters

SL: I’ll try to disentangle this and make my point as clear as possible; for those who finally formally canonised the scriptures in the fourth century, it didn’t really matter whether or not they had ‘qualms’ about the teaching found in scripture – the key ‘scriptures’ were already known and settled and could not realistically be rejected. Nor could the fourth century people offer any alternative or extra ‘scriptures’ that had the necessary apostolic ‘provenance’ to be acceptable.

Therefore whatever the opinions of ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers’ and the like, the NT was fixed, and in due course available to be read by the Reformers (and by precursors such as Hussites, Waldensians, and the Wycliffite ‘Lollards’ of England to correct the problems that over the years had gradually corrupted the RC Church, and not only about the issue of ‘priesthood’ - the NT also contains the necessary teaching to dismantle the ‘Constantinian/Theodosian’ error of entangling church and state.

‘…the unique priestly character of the NT presbyters’. Well that of course is exactly what is in question here! Do the NT ‘presbyters’, ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF THE NT ITSELF, actually have such a ‘priestly’ character, and if so IN WHAT SENSE, given that the priesthood of the OT is clearly ‘fulfilled’ and so superceded by the self-sacrificing priesthood of Jesus himself?


quote:
Originally by Steve Langton;
Furthermore the context does not seem to be 'liturgy' in the sense of this thread, or indeed a conventional OT view of priesthood.

Response by k-mann;
I think, on the contrary, that this is describing liturgy exactly

Unless I totally misunderstood (which I’ll concede is possible!!), “'liturgy' in the sense of this thread” meant things to do with THE CONDUCT OF CHURCH SERVICES OR RITES/RITUALS. In the passage I quoted Paul does not appear to be using the word ‘liturgy’ (or rather his self description as a ‘leitourgos’ of Jesus to the Gentiles) in that sense. Obviously in a broader sense he must be describing ‘liturgy’ in some proper sense, or he’d be self-contradictory – the usual translation as a ‘minister’ to the nations/Gentiles seems fair enough to me.

With a busy Easter weekend and the next week that’s all I have time for now; I’ll hopefully come back to the meaning of ‘hierourgounta’, and some other issues, in a few days….
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
K-Mann, I don't know what writings of Paul you have in mind but Romans 5.16 and Phillipians 2.17 aren't relevant to the point you were trying to make. Typo?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
ken, it's Romans 15 (fifteen) verse 16 - and unless the ship has given you a different version to me, k-mann got it right, you misread! Phil 2;17 is intended, I think, to be relevant as an example of Paul using sacrificial and by implication 'priestly' language about what he does. Which has me feeling that we and k-mann are maybe closer than appears, but struggling with language problems including the 'priest/presbyter' confusion in English....

I've had a look at k-mann's blog; the English bits are quite interesting, but my skills haven't yet found a way to translate the Norwegian items. He appears to be a kind of 'Luthero-Catholic' in a sense roughly comparable to 'Anglo-Catholic'.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I regret to have to say that any argument that a doctrine of a sacrificial Christian priesthood had developed as far back as the New Testament and can be traced in the later NT writings is weak and almost certainly driven by a desire to find what one is looking for.

The problem is actually a quite different one. When one tries to look at what people thought before there had been an argument about something, it's quite difficult to tell. What, for example did a 'high and dry' CofE person in the late C18 think about Holy Communion, before the Oxford Movement had happened and set everyone's theological teeth on edge on those sort of issues?

If one were able to call back someone from the past before the differentiations developed by controversy, and ask him or her, 'what do you think about ... ?' you could get a number of responses, 'obviously', 'obviously not', 'a bit of both', 'that's an interesting question I've never thought of before' or 'what's the fuss about?'

There are some that are fairly straightforward. We can say with confidence that if you'd asked anyone in any era before the last twenty years or so whether the Christian faith could accommodate same sex marriage, they would have responded with amazed horror that anyone should even ask the question. We can say with nearly as much confidence that until at least the 1930s, if you'd asked anyone 'did Jesus die in our place, bearing our sins, or did he conquer death and defeat Satan?' their reply would have been somewhat on the lines, 'why does this have to be one or the other?' or even, 'stupid question; obviously both and more'.

When you read 'The Imitation of Christ', which well precedes the Reformation, it's an odd mixture of what we'd now assume are defining Protestant and Catholic positions. Its writer was a religious, but no post-Tridentine could have written it or got away with doing so.

But I strongly suspect that there is no answer to the question, 'what did people believe about the eucharist and nature of priesthood before the developments of late antique and medieval theology?' We just don't know. If we imagine we can answer this, I suspect most of the time we are choosing the answer that happens to suit our own preferences.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
broadly sympathetic to what you say here,Enoch; but I still think it's worthwhile trying to disentangle HOW different ideas arose and make some effort to sort out legitimate and illegitimate developments.

I'm trying here to ask what 'priesthood' means for a 'post-Jesus' people of God, where clearly the OT Levitical priesthood does not apply, and to question whether 'elders' are meant to be understood as 'priests' in a sense different from the 'royal priesthood' that all Christians share.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
‘…the unique priestly character of the NT presbyters’. Well that of course is exactly what is in question here! Do the NT ‘presbyters’, ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF THE NT ITSELF, actually have such a ‘priestly’ character, and if so IN WHAT SENSE, given that the priesthood of the OT is clearly ‘fulfilled’ and so superceded by the self-sacrificing priesthood of Jesus himself?

Yes, St. Paul himself says he is a priest, as part of his MINISTRY.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
K-Mann, I don't know what writings of Paul you have in mind but Romans 5.16 and Phillipians 2.17 aren't relevant to the point you were trying to make. Typo?

First, not once have I referred to Romans 5:16. I have referenced Romans 15:16. And Philippians 2:17 is most relevant. St. Paul, writing about his (then) potential martyrdom, references their liturgy, “the sacrifice and service/liturgy of your faith” (τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν). As an apostle, St. Paul offers “the sacrifice and service” of the faith of the congregation. That offering is, really, an offering of the people themselves (just as any offering stand as a representative of the one who offers). In Romans 15:16, St. Paul talks more generally, that his task, as an apostle, is to offer the people of God back to God. He is an intermediary.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which has me feeling that we and k-mann are maybe closer than appears, but struggling with language problems including the 'priest/presbyter' confusion in English....

My claims is that there isn’t any confusion, unless you insist that presbyters aren’t sacrificial priests. Which is what we are discussing. And I think St. Paul’s words are clear. As an apostle, and not merely as a Christian, he offers the people of God.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We would get a better perspective if we moved away from talk of the eucharist as sacrifice to a consideration of the priestly life as sacrifice.

Yes, lay people are called to live sacrificial lives too but people in public ministry are supposed to exemplify it, model it.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
posted by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think Kevin is sort of right here in the sense that Rev 1; 6 and I Pet 2; 5 refer to all Christians as 'priests' in the OT/'hiereus' sense. By implication none of us gets to be priest over against the others, though some of us are the different office of 'presbyter/episkopos'.
________________________________________
It is hard to guess what people really mean. Of course no one is priest for themselves, apart from others. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t individual priests. But that also applied to the priests and levites of the Old Covenant. So I do not see the relevance.

SL; I think you may have misunderstood here. The relevance is as follows;

ALL Christians are ‘priests’ (‘hiereus’); but ipso facto, presbyters are not ‘priests’ in a special sense in which other Christians aren’t ‘priests’. They are just the mature people (elders) appointed to run the church’s affairs (‘episkopoi’/overseers/managers). In the description of Christians as a ‘royal priesthood’ I detect both elements of mutual service – we all serve each other in ways which are like priesthood, priesthood transposed into NT/post-Jesus’-sacrifice terms – and elements of us being ‘priests’ towards the world, as when Paul uses the word ‘hierourgeo’ in what is clearly a missionary context. I do not detect any idea that some of us (eg Paul, or ‘presbyters’) are priests in a special extra sense while others of us aren’t.

Later Christians (even as early as the Didache) confusing 'presbyteroi' with 'hiereoi' are not really relevant unless the NT itself clearly teaches such an identification and in a way that doesn't apply to other Christians.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Later Christians (even as early as the Didache) confusing 'presbyteroi' with 'hiereoi' are not really relevant unless the NT itself clearly teaches such an identification and in a way that doesn't apply to other Christians.

I would tend to agree with this point, Steve, but many Christians place great importance on post-Biblical tradition (or rather, Tradition) and, for them, I suspect it is very much relevant if an early post-NT document like the Didache presents a change or development from the NT picture.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Surely the only way to understand the scripture on such points, as with any other, is to look at the constant practice of the Church. You can't separate the two.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I rather agree, South Coast Kevin - but the bone of contention arises when we move from the sacrificial priesthood of the elders as a valid development occurring within the early Church (a view with which I have some sympathy) but k-mann's insistence that the concept is explicitly present as a New Testament teaching. A couple of oblique lines from St. Paul aside, I don't see a shred of evidence to support this.

This is not necessarily a problem of course - most Christians sign up to Creeds and understandings of the Trinity which are not made explicit in the NT and consider this a perfectly valid theological approach, as long as we do not start believing anything which is contrary to the NT. So, the question really becomes whether teachings like that of Hebrews preclude Christ's Ministers sharing in his sacrificial priesthood in some way that other baptised persons do not, or not.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Later Christians (even as early as the Didache) confusing 'presbyteroi' with 'hiereoi' are not really relevant unless the NT itself clearly teaches such an identification and in a way that doesn't apply to other Christians.

I would tend to agree with this point, Steve, but many Christians place great importance on post-Biblical tradition (or rather, Tradition) and, for them, I suspect it is very much relevant if an early post-NT document like the Didache presents a change or development from the NT picture.
Yes, I disagree with the assumption of Steve, that there was a ‘confusion.’ His argument is the classic corruption creeped into the Church at [insert preferred time in history], and now we must go back to the ‘pure gospel.’

I still haven’t seen anyone try to answer what St. Paul meant by his priestly ministry, a ministry not in reference to his general discipleship, but to his ministry as an apostle.

Ad Orientem is right, of course. The Tradition is the lense through which we read Scripture. And Christianity has never been a ‘religion of the book.’ The ‘people of the book’ are the Muslims. Liturgy is more important than teaching.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[Steve Langton's] argument is the classic corruption creeped into the Church at [insert preferred time in history], and now we must go back to the ‘pure gospel.’

Without perhaps stating it this strongly, don't all Christians believe this to some extent about certain issues? Is there anyone who thinks their church / denomination (a) is currently 100% correct on all matters of significance, and (b) has always been so?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I still haven’t seen anyone try to answer what St. Paul meant by his priestly ministry, a ministry not in reference to his general discipleship, but to his ministry as an apostle.

Well, I had a go - with my suggestion that Paul said he was 'priesting' (whatever precisely that means) rather than 'being a priest'. Let me add that perhaps his 'priestly ministry... as an apostle' simply means that the specific form his priestly ministry takes is as an apostle. Your priestly ministry might be as an encourager or a generous giver, while mine might be as an administrator or a teacher. But all Christians have a 'priestly ministry'.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Liturgy is more important than teaching.

You see, this comment makes no sense to me at all. My church has no liturgy, not in the sense of a written down set of words and rubrics anyway. Sure, we have conventions and structures, so 'liturgy' in the broader sense. Do you mean that this is a powerful way in which God's people are taught, in which we learn how to be followers of Jesus? If so, then I agree; our prayers, songs, rituals, customs etc. are certainly all powerful teachers, at least as much as the activities that get formally labelled as teaching. Apologies if I've misunderstood...
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
originally by k-mann;
quote:
His (Steve Langton's) argument is the classic "corruption crept into the Church at [insert preferred time in history], and now we must go back to the ‘pure gospel.’"
("quotes" to get over my inadequacies with UBB use; 'crept' because I'm a bit pedantic with English)

Well yes and no...! 'Corruption' was creeping into the Church FROM THE VERY BEGINNING and a good deal of the NT is devoted to fighting that corruption to keep the Church on track. And it has continued to try to creep in ever since, and it has continued to need fighting. Fighting, that is, to keep to the apostolic teaching as found in the NT, and to keep a scriptural guard on 'tradition' to ensure that the scriptural teaching is legitimately developed, not developed in a way that ultimately contradicts or undermines it.

originally by k-mann;
quote:
I still haven’t seen anyone try to answer what St. Paul meant by his priestly ministry, a ministry not in reference to his general discipleship, but to his ministry as an apostle.
Right now I'm not really trying to answer that but to get better definition from you of how you see this 'priestliness'. Because the terms have become confused, it's actually not clear what you mean. As I've said, I suspect we may be closer than appears at first sight; but just endlessly repeating Romans 15;16 and saying Paul called himself a 'priest' isn't enough.

Actually I'll be further investigating the meaning of 'priesthood of all believers' (a Lutheran concept, I believe) as a result of this discussion here. I already think it's not going to end up meaning the RC version of 'priesthood'....
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I really fail to see how you can claim that the church has been subject to corruption from the beginning and yet exempt scripture, but not the tradition from which it arose, from that corruption. Why is scripture considered pure but not the church that endorsed it?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We would get a better perspective if we moved away from talk of the eucharist as sacrifice to a consideration of the priestly life as sacrifice.

Yes, lay people are called to live sacrificial lives too but people in public ministry are supposed to exemplify it, model it.

That's a very good point. St Paul speaks of 'present your bodies as a living sacrifice' - in contrast with presenting dead animals. He also isn't, for that matter telling them to present the bread and wine. However, I'm not at all sure I'd agree with the notion that this is peculiar to exercising public ministry. It sounds a bit like thinking vicars are called vicars because they are holy, vicariously, on behalf of everyone else, letting the rest of the faithful off. St Paul isn't there speaking just to those exercising ministry at all. And it seems to me that the priesthood of all believers is about all the faithful modelling Christ to the unbelieving multitudes.

Going back to what I said before, if one had asked the episcopoi and presbyteroi shortly after AD 70 are you the true successors to the cohenim of the Temple, what answer would they have given? I suspect K-Mann would say 'yes' and South Coast Kevin and Steve Langton would say 'no'. However, I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does. People give the answer that suits what they prefer to believe about ministry and the Eucharist now.

My suspicion, for what it's worth, is that for the sitzimleben that could produce the Epistle to the Hebrews, the answer would be something like 'no - perish the thought - that would be to encroach on the work of Christ'. But as I've just said, I don't actually know. And I don't think after 20 centuries that anything fresh is now likely to come to light that would give us more knowledge than we already have.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by arethosemyfeet;
quote:
I really fail to see how you can claim that the church has been subject to corruption from the beginning and yet exempt scripture, but not the tradition from which it arose, from that corruption. Why is scripture considered pure but not the church that endorsed it?
As I said, the NT itself shows as a fact of history early attempts to corrupt the message, and contains the teaching of the apostles and their associates - that is, the original witnesses to Jesus' acts and teaching - countering that attempted corruption by pointing to the original teaching. Other early writings were not accepted as scripture because they didn't have that 'provenance' as coming from the original witnesses, Jesus' directly appointed 'ambassadors' which is what 'apostles' basically means.

Contradicting the NT is basically someone who wasn't there putting forward how he wished it had been. 'The Church' is inevitably a secondary authority anyway; it was not 'The Church' from which the NT arose, rather it was the teaching of the apostles, eventually recorded in the NT, that produced the Church. The NT 'speaks for itself' by the power of the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Enoch;
quote:
if one had asked the episcopoi and presbyteroi shortly after AD 70 are you the true successors to the cohenim of the Temple, what answer would they have given? I suspect K-Mann would say 'yes' and South Coast Kevin and Steve Langton would say 'no'.
1) 'episcopoi and presbyteroi' are the same thing at that stage.
2) Primarily they were successors to 'elders' in synagogues, indeed in some cases would actually have been synagogue elders before their conversion to Christ. I think they might possibly have said that yes, they were the true successors of the cohenim, BUT successors to something that had been fulfilled and changed through Jesus, one of the changes being that now the whole church shared the status of 'priesthood' in Christ. I'm a lot less sure they would have seen themselves as 'priests' in a way other Christians aren't. But I probably agree that the question hadn't then been fully formulated.

For the 'Eucharist' I can only comment that Paul in I Cor 11 is NOT using a lot of sacrificial language in a context where it would have been a perfect response to the problem he deals with there, and when he does use sacrificial language it is in contexts other than rite and ritual - self-sacrificing service and what we would call mission, and he doesn't seem to use the language conventionally.

I would stress that I'm still thinking on my feet a bit here, looking into things that haven't been priorities for a while. I'm fairly sure of the basic points I'm making, but I'm seeing interesting potential in some of these ideas.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Primarily they were successors to 'elders' in synagogues, indeed in some cases would actually have been synagogue elders before their conversion to Christ.

I would try to get a copy of Norwegian Lutheran scholar Oskar Skarsaune’s book In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. He shows how the Christian liturgy was influenced both by the Temple and the Synagogue.

And Yes, some of them had been leaders in the synagogue. So what? There were also priests who converted. Maybe even a few janitors. I fail to see the relevance.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think they might possibly have said that yes, they were the true successors of the cohenim, BUT successors to something that had been fulfilled and changed through Jesus, one of the changes being that now the whole church shared the status of 'priesthood' in Christ.

Yes, just like the Old Covenant presented us with the Aronic High Priest, who had a people of priests, some of which had special roles (the priests and Levites), in the New Covenant presents us with Christ as the High Priest, who has a people of priests, some of which has special roles (the bishops, priests and deacons).

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm a lot less sure they would have seen themselves as 'priests' in a way other Christians aren't. But I probably agree that the question hadn't then been fully formulated.

Well, the evidence we have from the early Church suggests that they did. Which brings us back to the question of when the ‘corruption’ creeped in. You cannot just toss around the fact that the Church became ‘corrupted’ without actually showing when that happened, and arguing for why that era is the ‘right’ one. So again: When did the Church become ‘corrupt’ and ‘confuse’ elder and priest?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For the 'Eucharist' I can only comment that Paul in I Cor 11 is NOT using a lot of sacrificial language in a context where it would have been a perfect response to the problem he deals with there, and when he does use sacrificial language it is in contexts other than rite and ritual - self-sacrificing service and what we would call mission, and he doesn't seem to use the language conventionally.

(1) What Christ said was “this is my body which is given for [not ‘to’] you,” which implies that it is a sacrifice. And what he commanded the Apostles to do in remembrance of him was to offer the bread in thanks and praise to God.

(2) Why do you assume that self-sacrifice cannot also be a ritual thing? And since the early church did see that as a ritual thing, when did the ‘corruption’ creep in?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
k-mann:
quote:
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Bizarre, is it? Have you really never heard of the 'priesthood of all believers'?

South Coast Kevin evidently belongs to a denomination that takes these words literally; I don't. But I do know what he's talking about.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
k-mann:
quote:
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Bizarre, is it? Have you really never heard of the 'priesthood of all believers'?

South Coast Kevin evidently belongs to a denomination that takes these words literally; I don't. But I do know what he's talking about.

It might help to actually read what people write. South Coast Kevin said that no one individual was called 'priest' in the New Testament, then when I pointed out that wasn't true, he made the bizarre argument that what he *really* meant was that we are all priests together.

So yes, I have heard about the 'priesthood of all baptised' (not 'all the believers'). But just because there is a priesthood of all baptised, it doesn't mean that the priestly functions are the same.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
k-mann:
quote:
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Bizarre, is it? Have you really never heard of the 'priesthood of all believers'?

South Coast Kevin evidently belongs to a denomination that takes these words literally; I don't. But I do know what he's talking about.

You are being obsessively individualistic. Our common priesthood, like our common salvation, is corporate, in Jesus Christ. Not some special badge of office given us from God.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
South Coast Kevin said that no one individual was called 'priest' in the New Testament, then when I pointed out that wasn't true, he made the bizarre argument that what he *really* meant was that we are all priests together.

So yes, I have heard about the 'priesthood of all baptised' (not 'all the believers'). But just because there is a priesthood of all baptised, it doesn't mean that the priestly functions are the same.

What I've been trying to say is that I see no New Testament evidence for some Christians being given the title or description of 'priest' and other Christians not. Either we are all collectively 'a priesthood' or we are all 'priests' individually; either way there is no priest / non-priest or clergy / laity distinction within the body of Christ.

Which all, of course, feeds in to my conception of what church services should be like, there being IMO no place for a small group of set-apart people to provide spiritual sustenance, a sacrifice, or however you'd like to describe it, for all the rest of us.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
In Romans 15:16, Paul clearly acts as an intermediary - working as a priest through the Gospel of God (which refers to the Lordship of Christ, and not a document) he offers the offering of the Gentiles on their behalf. Why would it be necessary to do so if every Christian is a priest in the same manner?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
It just seems such a flimsy basis for the delineation of the people of God into priests and non-priests. Given there is evidently some dispute as to what Romans 15:16 is getting at, I think we must look at what other use the word 'priest' and its cognates are put to in the New Testament.

Nowhere else are specific Christians identified as priests with the corresponding implication that other Christians are not priests (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously the Gospels are full of references to Jewish priests, and Hebrews also refers to Jesus as our great High Priest.

I think that just leaves 1 Peter 2, where it seems clear to me that all of Christ's followers are described as a holy and royal priesthood. Sure, our roles are different but I see no justification to describe some Christians as priests and others not.

EDIT - Leaders in the early Christian movement were described using those words which had common, everyday meanings - 'older man', 'overseer', 'ambassador', 'servant'. It's striking to me that no Christians were explicitly called 'priest'; I can't believe that this was just an accident.

[ 24. April 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It just seems such a flimsy basis for the delineation of the people of God into priests and non-priests.

I haven’t said that other Christians are non-priests. We are all priests, if we are baptised. But some have a priesthood of another character. And that is the bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think that just leaves 1 Peter 2, where it seems clear to me that all of Christ's followers are described as a holy and royal priesthood. Sure, our roles are different but I see no justification to describe some Christians as priests and others not.

Which I haven’t. I have only said that some people have a priesthood of another character.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
EDIT - Leaders in the early Christian movement were described using those words which had common, everyday meanings - 'older man', 'overseer', 'ambassador', 'servant'. It's striking to me that no Christians were explicitly called 'priest'; I can't believe that this was just an accident.

The Jewish elders were men of authority. As were elders everywhere. But this word has nothing to do with age. Timothy was an ‘elder.’

But you are still wrong on your point that “no Christians were explicitly called 'priest'.” Paul calls himself that. It doesn’t matter that he used a participle instead of a noun. If I said “I manage this store,” that would mean that I was store manager, even though I used a verb and not a noun.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by k-mann;
quote:
We are all priests, if we are baptised.
In the context of a Baptist/Anabaptist Church, with credobaptism, I would totally agree. But in churches which baptise infants, babes-in-arms, who in adulthood may show no personal faith at all, as priests?????????

by k-mann;
quote:
But some have a priesthood of another character. And that is the bishops, presbyters, and deacons.
That may be the position of Lutheranism; whether it's the position of the NT might be a different matter. 'Deacons' are not a junior grade of clergy in the NT - though like my namesake Stephen and his colleague Philip they may well be competent in the spiritual field as well - but are people appointed as in effect business managers for the Church, particularly in charity affairs, to enable initially the Apostles and later the elders get on with their major job of evangelism, teaching and pastoring.

'Elders' and 'Bishops' are clearly in the NT just different words for the same thing - one word indicating the maturity needed for the office rather than Senior Citizen age, the other describing the job as 'overseeing/managing'. Neither 'presbyter/bishop' nor 'deacon' are described in the NT as 'priests' as such. Therefore I see no reason to describe them as priests in a special sense. What exactly - EXACTLY - is this special character?

by k-mann;
quote:
But you are still wrong on your point that “no Christians were explicitly called 'priest'.” Paul calls himself that. It doesn’t matter that he used a participle instead of a noun. If I said “I manage this store,” that would mean that I was store manager, even though I used a verb and not a noun.
I'm not sure it's that simple. Paul seems to use the word in a context of mission, that is metaphorically rather than of an OT-style priesthood. I'm not good enough at Greek to be sure whether by 'offering of the Gentiles' he means that he through evangelism is offering his Gentile converts to God, or he means that as a result of his evangelism the Gentiles will make offerings, including of themselves, in relation to which he could be described as a kind of priest/intermediary. But either way this is (a)a somewhat unusual use of the 'priest' concept, and (b) does not seem to be a priesthood specific to Paul or to a priestly caste in the Church, but a kind of 'priesthood' in which any believer might be involved.

Also I wonder, as I think South Coast Kevin does, whether Paul is using the word strictly to mean 'acting as a priest' - he could arguably be using 'hierourgeo' to simply mean doing a sacred work??
 
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not sure it's that simple. Paul seems to use the word in a context of mission, that is metaphorically rather than of an OT-style priesthood....

For what it's worth....

Neil Elliott, in the latest edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, writes on Romans 15:16: "Paul will present a holy offering to God, i.e., the Gentile believers themselves" (pg. 1996). The larger context (see, e.g., verses 18-19) supports this interpretation: Paul emphasizes that his "job" is to win the gentiles to Christ by proclaiming the gospel to them; so, that is his "offering."

For those who might find it helpful, here is the Greek Text Analysis and Translation of the verse.

Note that Paul does not identify himself as a "priest." He calls himself a λειτουργὸν (leitourgon), "minister," whose particular service in this specific case is "priestly" (or, simply, "sacred"), because it involves making an "offering" (προσφορὰ prosphora).

The usage has to be metaphorical, because the gentiles are not literally offered to God!

So, Steve Langton, I agree with you and South Coast Kevin on the specific point about Romans 15:16, and I think k-mann is making far too much of a single verbal usage.

What's notable is that the simple noun "priest" (hiereus ἱερεύς) is never, ever used to designate Christian leaders, and is conspicuous in its absence from places where, if k-mann and others are right, we should expect it to appear; e.g., Ephesians 4:11-12.
 
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In the context of a Baptist/Anabaptist Church, with credobaptism, I would totally agree. But in churches which baptise infants, babes-in-arms, who in adulthood may show no personal faith at all, as priests?????????

This is an interesting question. Those of us who hold a high sacramental view of baptism (which we regard as fully in line with scriptural teaching), see it as bringing about a real and permanent effect on the person baptized. So, I would answer, "Yes." A babe-in-arms, newly baptized, is a baby Christian priest (just as an ancient Aaronide baby was a kohen from the moment of his birth). Of course, it is possible for such a priest to fail to fulfill his/her duties and obligations as a priest, but he/she is still a "priest" ... but a bad one!

In the Episcopal Church (United States), our 1979 Prayer Book baptismal rite includes these words: "...you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever." And when the congregation welcomes the newly baptized, including babies, we say, "We receive you into the household of God. Confess the faith of Christ crucified, proclaim his resurrection, and share with us in his eternal priesthood." Clearly, it is a call and invitation to the baptized to live into the identity given at baptism.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not sure it's that simple. Paul seems to use the word in a context of mission, that is metaphorically rather than of an OT-style priesthood.

And what is mission? Is it not mission to administer the Eucharist? And I think it is interesting that it has to be metaphorical. Why is that? Isn’t this rather a fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 66:17-21:

quote:
17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the Lord. 18 For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, 19 and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the nations. 20 And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.”
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
The usage has to be metaphorical, because the gentiles are not literally offered to God!

They most certainly is, cf. Romans 12:1. Or do you believe that sacrifice necessarily involves death and destruction?

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
What's notable is that the simple noun "priest" (hiereus ἱερεύς) is never, ever used to designate Christian leaders, and is conspicuous in its absence from places where, if k-mann and others are right, we should expect it to appear; e.g., Ephesians 4:11-12.

Why, if people knew that the apostles, teachers, shepherds, etc. were sacrificial priests?

If there was a ‘corruption’ somewhere in history, when did it happen? When did the ‘simple Gospel truth’ become ‘catholicized’?
 
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
I feel a bit like I'm being SHOUTED AT in type ... and that I'm SHOUTING BACK.... Maybe we could "dial it down a bit"?

Re. Isaiah 66:17-21: Do you find this prophecy referred to somewhere in the New Testament? That would be the key for knowing how to properly understand its fulfillment from a New Covenant perspective. On its own, in its natural context in Isaiah, I don't see it as relevant to the topic.

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
The usage has to be metaphorical, because the gentiles are not literally offered to God!

They most certainly is, cf. Romans 12:1. Or do you believe that sacrifice necessarily involves death and destruction?
Romans 12:1 is also making metaphorical use of sacrificial language -- because, yes, a "real" θυσία (thusia) "necessarily involves death and destruction" (to use your words). Paul indicates that his usage is metaphorical by referring specifically to a "living sacrifice" (θυσίαν ζῶσαν thusian zosan). That combination isn't possible for the word θυσία in its "literal" sense in Koine Greek. It would be like referring to a "live roast chicken."

In any case, it's noteworthy that here Paul tells his readers to offer themselves. This makes them the priests of their own self-sacrifice. Which, of course, supports classic Lutheran doctrine about the priesthood of all the baptized.

quote:
Why, if people knew that the apostles, teachers, shepherds, etc. were sacrificial priests?
How do you know that they knew that? It looks to me like you are assuming what is actually in dispute.

The problem I have with your claim is this: You are arguing that the Apostles (all of them Jews, none of them kohanim) went about making the revolutionary claim that they, non-Aaronide Israelites, were a new order of sacrificial priests serving a new sacrificial cult (even while the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing), and that this revolutionary claim never finds clear and unambiguous mention in any of their preserved writings. I find such an argument "incredible" in the literal sense of that term = unbelievable.

So, I'm afraid I just can't accept the assumption that the audiences of the Apostolic texts "knew" that their authors were sacrificial priests. I need clear evidence that they had been told such a thing.

quote:
If there was a ‘corruption’ somewhere in history, when did it happen? When did the ‘simple Gospel truth’ become ‘catholicized’?
I don't use this kind of language to characterize the ways in which the post-Apostolic Church got off-track; so it isn't possible for me to answer your questions as you have phrased them.

I will make a point I think is important here. It seems to me that there is a problem with anachronistic interpretations of patristic texts, so that when Clement or Ignatius (for example) wrote something that "sounds" like a later, fully-developed "Catholic" doctrine, they are interpreted as actually expressing that fully-developed doctrine. I don't accept that approach to reading ideas back into the Fathers.

So, I don't myself see a need to find some kind of radical break between the New Testament texts and the early Fathers.

Still, errors and corruptions did develop, slowly and unevenly. Are you entirely denying the existence of errors and corruptions?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not sure it's that simple. Paul seems to use the word in a context of mission, that is metaphorically rather than of an OT-style priesthood.

And what is mission? Is it not mission to administer the Eucharist?
Huh? Are you saying Romans 15:16 is defining the Christian mission as being to 'administer the Eucharist'? Or do you mean the New Testament as a whole makes this point? I'm completely not following you, sorry!

My answer to the general question 'what is mission?' would probably be, at least as a starting point, that it is to make Jesus-followers of people from all nations and ethnic groups. Nothing to do with the Eucharist specifically...
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Romans 12:1 is also making metaphorical use of sacrificial language -- because, yes, a "real" θυσία (thusia) "necessarily involves death and destruction" (to use your words). Paul indicates that his usage is metaphorical by referring specifically to a "living sacrifice" (θυσίαν ζῶσαν thusian zosan). That combination isn't possible for the word θυσία in its "literal" sense in Koine Greek. It would be like referring to a "live roast chicken."

If you are right about that, then θυσίαν ζῶσαν isn’t metaphorical, it is a logical self-contradiction, not making any more sense than ‘circular square’ or ‘rectangular triangle.’

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
In any case, it's noteworthy that here Paul tells his readers to offer themselves. This makes them the priests of their own self-sacrifice. Which, of course, supports classic Lutheran doctrine about the priesthood of all the baptized.

Which was also true in the Old Covenant.

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
How do you know that they knew that? It looks to me like you are assuming what is actually in dispute.

I do not know that, but the opposite is also not proven. But when we see the development of the early church, we see that presbyters and bishops were sacrificial priests, in a special way, by virtue of their task. Now, the Church did not stop existing suddenly, and fall completely into corruption and decay, just to be ‘saved’ by the Protestants 1300 years later.

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
The problem I have with your claim is this: You are arguing that the Apostles (all of them Jews, none of them kohanim) went about making the revolutionary claim that they, non-Aaronide Israelites, were a new order of sacrificial priests serving a new sacrificial cult (even while the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing), and that this revolutionary claim never finds clear and unambiguous mention in any of their preserved writings. I find such an argument "incredible" in the literal sense of that term = unbelievable.

(1) The priesthood of Aaron is no longer in effect. It is abolished, completed.

(2) You are of course right that this claim is not mentioned, except for the fact that Paul calls himself a priest (using a participle doesn’t change that). But when he does it it must of course be ‘metaphorical.’

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Still, errors and corruptions did develop, slowly and unevenly. Are you entirely denying the existence of errors and corruptions?

No, but I do not see this as a corruption.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Huh? Are you saying Romans 15:16 is defining the Christian mission as being to 'administer the Eucharist'? Or do you mean the New Testament as a whole makes this point? I'm completely not following you, sorry!

My answer to the general question 'what is mission?' would probably be, at least as a starting point, that it is to make Jesus-followers of people from all nations and ethnic groups. Nothing to do with the Eucharist specifically...

Mission is to make disciples of Christ, living the Christian life, the source and summit of which is the celebration of the Eucharist, in preparation and anticipation of the heavenly banquet.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
... (1) What Christ said was “this is my body which is given for [not ‘to’] you,” which implies that it is a sacrifice. And what he commanded the Apostles to do in remembrance of him was to offer the bread in thanks and praise to God. ...

K-mann, I think you've sneaked in a non sequitur there. Nobody is disagreeing with the statements that Jesus said “this is my body which is given for [not ‘to’] you,” and "which implies that it is a sacrifice". The sacrifice is the sacrifice of Jesus, on the cross, for us. That is what the Eucharist commemorates, represents or re-presents. The Eucharist follows from the death of Christ. It is not a free-standing event of its own. Jesus did not die to bring us the Mass. The Mass is because Jesus died. Hardly anyone these days disagrees with that.

Likewise, I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the statement, "he commanded the Apostles to do in remembrance of him". This is what every ecclesial community except the Salvation Army and the Quakers does regularly.

Where the disagreement comes is with your sudden jump from there to "offer the bread in thanks and praise to God". Everyone, I think, believes that we receive "the bread in thanks and praise to God". Everyone also believes that Jesus offered himself. It's using 'offer' in the context in which you've used it that is the non sequitur. There simply is no evidence either way, as to whether notion that the bread and wine were seen as going 'upwards' as well as 'downwards' that early in the Church's journey through history.

You can say, 'this is how I understand it'. You can say, 'I find this a profoundly inspiring and helpful way to understand the Eucharist'. You can even say, 'this is like the Trinity, something the Late Antique Church developed from its understanding of the faith'. What you cannot say is that there is a fully developed doctrine of the sacrificial nature of the Mass hidden in the text of the New Testament. It just is not there. It's a question the New Testament does not answer. We don't know whether anyone had even thought of thinking in that way, that early.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You can say, 'this is how I understand it'. You can say, 'I find this a profoundly inspiring and helpful way to understand the Eucharist'. You can even say, 'this is like the Trinity, something the Late Antique Church developed from its understanding of the faith'. What you cannot say is that there is a fully developed doctrine of the sacrificial nature of the Mass hidden in the text of the New Testament. It just is not there. It's a question the New Testament does not answer. We don't know whether anyone had even thought of thinking in that way, that early.

I agree with that. But, as you yourself admits, the same can be said about Christology and Trinitarian Theology. Few would claim that that cannot be ‘proven’ from Scripture. And the fact of the matter is that Scripture, as every religious text ever written, must be understood not only from its immediate context, but from its use and interpretation. Scripture, like other religious texts (like, say, the Bhagavad Gita) is not like a novel. It is not ‘owned’ by its author, but exists within a community.

That community lived out its faith, and interpreted Scripture, developing, amongst other things, its Trinitarian Theology, Christology, and ‘Priestly Theology.’ Interestingly enough, much of this happened in the same eras. In the fourth and fifth century, the Church – through its councils, Fathers, liturgies, etc. – expressed what we know hold as definitive about these areas (the ‘Priestly Theology’ especially in the liturgies). And relatively simultaneously Scripture was formally canonised.

We read Scripture ‘traditionally,’ as it has been handed over.

My point is not that everyone baptised isn’t priests, but that we have different parts to our priesthood. Some of these, the deacons, presbyters, and bishops, have a different degree, if not, kind, of priesthood. We see the same thing in ancient Israel: The whole nation were priests, but some had a different task. I see the ‘Priestly Theology’ as it ‘fleshed out’ as a natural development of what we see in the New Testament.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by k-mann;
quote:
That community lived out its faith, and interpreted Scripture, developing, amongst other things, its Trinitarian Theology, Christology, and ‘Priestly Theology.’ Interestingly enough, much of this happened in the same eras. In the fourth and fifth century, the Church – through its councils, Fathers, liturgies, etc. – expressed what we know hold as definitive about these areas (the ‘Priestly Theology’ especially in the liturgies). And relatively simultaneously Scripture was formally canonised.
Yes, and also over the course of the fourth century, and in pretty open defiance of the NT, the church allowed itself to become entangled with the state in a way of which we are still suffering the consequences. I don't accept the Trinity and the Christology because of the "councils, Fathers, liturgies, etc.", but because I find it in the Bible itself. And I don't accept some forms of the 'Priestly Theology' for the same reason I don't accept the 'Christian country' ideas - because I don't find them in the Bible.

SIMPLES!!!
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah… The old 'Constantine' routine… Yawn.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't accept the Trinity and the Christology because of the "councils, Fathers, liturgies, etc.", but because I find it in the Bible itself.

Tell that to Arius.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Nonsense, Steve Langton. You find it in the Bible itself because the Councils and compilers of the liturgies and so on found it in there first.

You don't come to the Bible neutrally nor as if the previous 2,000 years of Christianity hadn't happened.

Sure, we can find Trinitarian elements in the scriptures, but that's because we are interpreting them within a framework that is Trinitarian.

As Ad Orientem says, Arius and others have interpreted those self-same scriptures differently.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
Ad Orientem and Gamaliel said it better then me. I apologise for my snarky reply.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not having a 'go' at Steve Langton, simply pointing out something to him that he doesn't currently appear to be aware of - and which I wasn't aware of myself for many years -ie. that we don't simply get our doctrine 'from the Bible' but from the Bible as mediated/understood within the context of particular traditions and approaches.

Even when I was a Baptist I would have acknowledged that.

Forgive me, but Steve Langton seems so keen to distance himself from what he sees as the compromises and declensions of 'Constantinian Christianity' that he introduces a rather dualistic and binary distinction between that and what he himself believes in terms of Christology and the Trinity etc.

The reason that Steve Langton finds these things in the Bible is the same reason why everyone else who is Trinitarian and who holds to a high Christology does ... because he is interpreting the scriptures within the context of that particular tradition.

I happen to believe that that particular tradition is correct. The only thing that could vary is the size of the t ... whether it's small t - as in small o orthodox - or Big T as in Tradition with a capital T as espoused by the big C Catholics and the Big O Orthodox in their respective ways.

But to say, 'I believe it because it's in the Bible' begs a whole load of questions. Sure, it is in the Bible, but I can quite see how we could could up with different interpretations if we were going on a Sola (or Solo) Scriptura approach.

As Steve Langton well knows, plenty of Anabaptists and other non-conformists went down the road of Arianism and Socianism and lots of other heretical 'isms' from the 17th century onwards.

The history of the Baptists, Independents and Presbyterians is largely one of a constant pulling back from descent into outright heresy. If you read the autobiographies and biographies of some of the key figures in these movements these things crop up all the time. Heck, even the redoubtable Christmas Evans, the striking one-eyed Welsh Baptist preacher succumbed to heretical Christological views at one point in his career and only gradually found his way back to a more orthodox position.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The history of the Baptists, Independents and Presbyterians is largely one of a constant pulling back from descent into outright heresy.

Yes, "dissent" can easily turn into "descent"!!

What the "Get back to the Bible" people fail to recognise is that (a) the original authors wrote in particular cultural contexts in which their meanings would be understood; (b) we live in a vastly different cultural situation and so read it through a different set of spectacles; (c) the translators - however well they've done their job - will have added their own "take" on the text; (d) we cannot ignore the tradition of the Church, as that would crassly ignore the wisdom of the ages. However we must not become imprisoned within that tradition: the Holy Spirit can still lead us to new and valid understandings of Scripture (and must do, as the contemporary world changes).

Quite a lot of these points also relate the way we read "secular" books as well.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
I was being a bit deliberately provocative, as indicated by my final "SIMPLES!"; nevertheless,the intention of the fourth century was actually to establish a biblical/NT position for a church which recognised the authority of the apostolic writings. With the emperor involved it would have been all too easy for the councils to go the wrong way for worldly reasons - yet the biblical version would have remained true in reality, whatever the councils said....

by Ad Orientem;
quote:
Tell that to Arius.
...Or indeed to his Jehovah's Witness successors, with whom I've spent quite a bit of time arguing in recent years, and so far always ended up finding scripture after scripture which teaches the divinity of Christ. It is perhaps worth noting that these modern Arians found it necessary to produce a new Bible translation to support their views, based upon a very dubious principle.

Nice to see you again, Gamaliel; I'll get back with further comments later - for now I need to go shopping!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Of course there are scriptures we can cite to support Christ's Divinity. The Fathers did that too. Those supporting the o/Orthodox position against Arius did so too.

It's difficult to argue from historical 'what-ifs' but I can't see how we wouldn't all be Arians now had Arius and his supporters won the day.

Barring some kind of 'Trinitarian Reformation' at some time in subsequent history, we'd all pretty much be Arian in some way, shape or form.

I don't see any way around that.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
All that said, and this may sound inveterately 'Anglican' and middle-ground-ish, I do have a lot of sympathy with what Enoch has been posting here.

It strikes me that all of us - whether we are sacerdotally/liturgically inclined or more Anabaptist-ish - tend to read back our own position into the pages of the NT.

This came home to me very forcefully at an Orthodox conference I attended where a speaker - and most of his hearers - interpreted particular incidents in Acts in a for more sacerdotal/Church authority kind of a way than I would have - at that time - have thought possible ...

I didn't come to the exact same conclusions as the speaker, but it did make me realise that alternative interpretations of these verses/incidents - from a Baptist perspective, say, or a Pentecostal or charismatic perspective would have likewise been 'loaded' with freight and presuppositions deriving from within those respective traditions ...

We pays our money and we makes our choice ...

I'd agree that a fully-orbed priestly system of the kind we find in the RCs can't be found in chapter and verse references in the NT - but then again, why should it - unless we insist on some equally problematic Sola Scriptura position.

From a more Catholic perspective then scripture and tradition/Tradition work together in the further development of our understanding.

I wouldn't use the reference K-mann does to suggest that the Apostle Paul understood his mission in precisely the same way as RC priests do today - for instance - but at the same time I can see how Catholics can argue that their views derive from the pages of the NT - alongside the continuing teaching authority of the Church ...

I don't buy into this 'everything was wonderful in NT times and then it all fell away very rapidly' thing ... I've said as much here before, but when I first read the Sub-Apostolic Fathers I was struck - and indeed somewhat stunned - by how 'Catholic' they sounded. I wasn't expecting that at all.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the churches in NT times were carbon copies of RC, Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic churches today - but neither were they anything like the Vineyard or contemporary Baptist, Brethren or other non-conformist congregations.

The 'raw material' is there for development in various directions - and that's what we've seen.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I don't buy into this 'everything was wonderful in NT times and then it all fell away very rapidly' thing ...
Nor do I, actually; I think most things changed quite slowly. Even the key change from the early 4thC toleration of the Church to the late 4thC when it became effectively compulsory took 70 years or more, and didn't affect many other important doctrines for centuries after that. Nevertheless by about the 1300s the difference between the biblical church and the medieval RC Church was clearly worrying a lot of RCs such as Erasmus, whence the result that there was the Reformation.

by Gamaliel;
quote:
The 'raw material' is there for development in various directions - and that's what we've seen.
Exactly - but the question then is, how do you distinguish good/useful developments from bad/ harmful developments; or indeed identify when an initially good idea has been taken too far and has come off the rails? Efforts to identify what you might call a 'living pope' of some kind don't seem to have been all that successful over the centuries. Going back to the apostolic starting point looks to me to be the best bet for resolving such issues.

Though it didn't 'all' fall away rapidly, it's hard to deny that even in the NT period the original teaching was under attack by rival non-apostolic teachers and by various temptations. The answer then was apostolic authority, and it still is - and that in practice means the NT, and the OT read through the new covenant which it had itself foretold.

And again by Gamaliel;
quote:
It's difficult to argue from historical 'what-ifs' but I can't see how we wouldn't all be Arians now had Arius and his supporters won the day.

Barring some kind of 'Trinitarian Reformation' at some time in subsequent history, we'd all pretty much be Arian in some way, shape or form.

I don't see any way around that.

I can see ways round it, depending on the simple fact that once you've finished the entertaining debate bit, Arianism doesn't seem to be long-term sustainable, because after rejecting Jesus' divinity it can't produce a satisfactory account of the atonement. Just for example there are justice issues in taking out our sins on an innocent third party, as a non-divine Jesus would be. Thus that the Unitarian movement remains a minority with vague and unexciting beliefs. I would guess that an Imperial Arian church would have relatively quickly collapsed and the Trinitarians would have gone on in pre-Constantine style as a (perhaps persecuted but lively) minority separate from the state. Nowadays most people would be pagans/atheists/agnostics with a minority Trinitarian church living among them - sounds familiar....
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - that's a possible scenario for my 'what-if'. I'm inclined to agree that an Arian Imperial Church would have collapsed eventually but Arian forms of Christianity did persist for a while - among the Goths for instance and variations of it have continued to re-emerge - as per the wholesale apostasy in this regard of many Anabaptists, Independents and Presbyterians over the years and the often unseen and unspoken-about unitarianism of many ostensibly Trinitarian clergy and lay-people in the CofE and elsewhere.

Sure, I agree that Trinitarianism is robust and that the Truth will out, as it were ...

But one could certainly argue that the kind of Constantinianism that you feel so passionately about - for all its faults - did help to preserve these truths intact.

Christendom wasn't all bad.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Though it didn't 'all' fall away rapidly, it's hard to deny that even in the NT period the original teaching was under attack by rival non-apostolic teachers and by various temptations. The answer then was apostolic authority, and it still is - and that in practice means the NT, and the OT read through the new covenant which it had itself foretold.
That seems a lot like begging the question to me - surely it is just as valid to say that apostolic authority is determined by the apostolic succession, that the teaching of the bishops of the church meeting in ecumenical council is authoritative.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;
quote:
But one could certainly argue that the kind of Constantinianism that you feel so passionately about - for all its faults - did help to preserve these truths intact.

Christendom wasn't all bad.

Agreed; but that doesn't make the Constantinianism right any more than the eventual saving of the Israelites from famine, and their growth in Egypt up till the Exodus, made Joseph's brothers right in selling him into slavery. That God can bring good from evil never makes the evil itself good. Most of the ongoing effects of Constantinianism are bad - and it's not like you are yourself the world's biggest enthusiast for establishment, Gamaliel!

by 'arethosemyfeet';
quote:
That seems a lot like begging the question to me - surely it is just as valid to say that apostolic authority is determined by the apostolic succession, that the teaching of the bishops of the church meeting in ecumenical council is authoritative.
Hmm! That would be the bishops of the RCC - or the bishops of the Orthodox churches? And I wish you luck on getting both lots of bishops together in any near future!! And going back to the NT, are bishops that special anyway? One of the issues of the thread is that 'bishop' is biblically just another word for 'elder' - and where in the NT do elders have the kind of authority you suggest? It was loads of worldly bishops in an established church who, over centuries, produced the mess that necessitated the Reformation.... So who is really begging the question here?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As I've said before, you pays your money and you takes your choice ...

[Biased]

I'd also suggest that there's something of a both/and rather than an either/or thing going on here ...

Protest as much as we like, none of us are free of tradition. The choice, it seems to me, is between tradition small t and Tradition Big T ... but even then there are a range of options on the Big T side ...

Be all that as it may, I think it's axiomatic that in a post-Christian society a 'gathered church' or 'intentional' model of Christian community is the way to go in terms of providing adequate 'plausibility structures' for the future - to use a sociological term.

What seems less certain to me is whether these are going to be necessarily Anabaptist in belief or practice.

That's not to say I've got anything 'against' Anabaptism - there is much to admire - it's simply that in can lead to a certain tunnel-vision and narrowness of scope - unless its informed by the more binocular vision, as it were, contained within the wider 'Grand Tradition'.

That's not to say that the heirarchical structures inherited from the past are somehow, in and of themselves, capable of preserving and transmitting the faith through any intrinsic merit of their own.

Heck, I've seen Orthodox people online rail against the Erastianism of Patriarch Kyrill, for instance.

There's certainly a case to answer with Christendom and Steve Langton does well to raise it. Where I think his argument does begin to fray is the assumption that all these nice 'born again' gathered churches are somehow going to maintain orthodoxy without reference to the grander narrative and the wider tradition. Douglas McBain the late lamented Baptist renewalist used to say that the Baptists were 'inconsistently orthodox'. That is true. They are.

I'm not saying that Baptists have to become sacramental liturgists any more than I'm saying that RCs or Orthodox have to abandon their practices and adopt a baptistic polity ...

But there's still that tension within baptistic traditions between the wholly individualistic and the sense of a communal, inherited faith. Perhaps it's possible to live with that tension ... ?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
that last has to be a cross-posting with mine; I'll wait till you've had chance to look over my own last effort.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So who is really begging the question here?

You are, again. Whether I am as well is a moot point, as all I was saying is that the alternative view is equally supportable, and if they're both based on question begging that rather proves my point.

Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that the early Bishops were considered successors of the first Apostles, and there are first and second century writings that support this view. There are few, if any, that say that everything must be grounded in the books that make up the New Testament.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I missed your post just now - must have cross posted.

I'm not saying that Christendom was 'all good' any more than you are saying that it was 'all bad.'

And yes, I'm not a big fan of Establishment. Nor am I a fan of the kind of nationalism and Erastianism that can bedevil our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox Churches nor the kind of Ultramontane Papalism that crops up from time to time in the Roman Church.

All I'm saying is that just as Christendom wasn't all bad or all good either - neither has the kind of schismatic behaviour exhibited by the various post-Reformation Protestant groups 'all good' either.

The Orthodox would argue that rather than having a Reformation, the Protestants should have turned to them ...

But that was never going to happen - as the fascinating correspondence between Melanchthon and the Ecumenical Patriarch illustrates.

I've known RC priests argue that the great abuses that the Protestants were - rightly - protesting about were all done away with through the Counter-Reformation and therefore, in the grand scheme of things, the Reformation did them a favour too - for all its otherwise tragic consequences.

I'm simply saying that it was never clear cut and there were rights and wrongs on both sides. Nobody comes out of any of this smelling of roses, not the RCs, not the Lutherans or Calvinists, not the Anabaptists ... and I'm not just thinking of the Munster fanatics here.

I've got a lot of time for Baptists and the Baptist tradition but for various reasons I feel I've 'moved on' from it to a certain extent - which isn't to say that I'd disparage them or avoid them in any way. They've highlighted - and continue to highlight - aspects that the rest of us would do well to heed.

But theirs isn't the last word on the matter ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet is right - whilst the Sub-Apostolic Fathers and so on do quote the NT scriptures, they also quote material that we wouldn't regard as canonical. For them, the authority clearly came from some notion of apostolic succession.

This shocked me when I first realised that and it continues to shock me ...

But at a time before there was universal consensus on which books constituted what we now know as the NT, what other way would there have been to determine who was 'kosher' and who wasn't?

People were citing all kinds of writings - Gnostic, canonical, quasi-canonical all kinds ...

Orthodoxy was only gradually defined in opposition to error. And yes, it was with reference to accepted and authoritative texts - but it was also with reference to what was seen as 'valid' ministry around an accepted body of belief.

This happens everywhere. Heck, even in the 'loosest' Anabaptist settings any old Tom, Dick or Harry couldn't turn up and preach - they'd have to be 'recognised' in some way and however that is done it would surely be on the basis of some kind of collective agreement on who should or shouldn't be seen as having the right credentials ...

All we are talking about with the development of bishops is a kind of translocal development that occurs in all churches - whether Big C or small c.

In the 17th and 18th centuries many Baptist churches had 'messengers' who had a cross-congregational or connexional role. The restorationist 'new churches' of the 1970s onwards had their 'apostles' - essentially bishops ...

Anyway, this is getting further away from the liturgy as performance thing ...
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;
quote:
All we are talking about with the development of bishops is a kind of translocal development that occurs in all churches - whether Big C or small c.

In the 17th and 18th centuries many Baptist churches had 'messengers' who had a cross-congregational or connexional role. The restorationist 'new churches' of the 1970s onwards had their 'apostles' - essentially bishops ...

I've no problem with developing practical organisational stuff, and indeed I think that's what the 'apostolic succession' originally was, for the kind of reasons you suggest. Turning that into a quasi-magical passing of authority from individual to individual when the original apostolic NT is freely available is taking an originally practical idea too far.

I agree we've somehow gone way beyond 'liturgy as performance' - or then again have we, because how church leaders are thought of is quite important to 'liturgy'.

by Gamaliel;
quote:
But there's still that tension within baptistic traditions between the wholly individualistic and the sense of a communal, inherited faith. Perhaps it's possible to live with that tension ... ?
If we take Jesus seriously about the need to be 'born again' then strictly speaking faith can't be 'inherited', nor can it be 'communal' in the way that 'establishment' implies. In my experience Anabaptists are very aware of the risks of individualism and very keen on building community among the born again - more so than Baptists. But the basic tension has to be lived with by anyone taking the gospel seriously, not just in the baptistic tradition.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
I'm not wanting this to turn into a general thread about Anabaptism (as opposed to my specific questions about the nature of priesthood and liturgy), but Yes, Anabaptists have faults - and as is often the case, the faults are quite closely related to the virtues. That is, we have that kind of fault because of the kind of good insight we also have.

Thing is, every church is currently unbalanced by our overall disunity. Consider this thought - a major part of the disunity is precisely all the churches still entangled with the state, which I submit is clearly a fault, indeed a sin. But that fault is related to considerable good on that side, good attitudes and visions which have a genuine place in the wider church - but which also make 'establishment etc.' look tempting. IF those currently in established churches could disentangle themselves from that, but bring to the rest of us the good side of that vision, we'd have a more balanced church overall....

I've long thought, indeed, that the unbalance of the more exclusive types - the Exclusive Brethren here and the more extreme among Amish and Mennonites - arises quite a bit from how hard it is to keep the balance of being PROPERLY separate from 'the world', as the NT DOES teach, when the said world purports to be 'Christian' but of course is a distorted version.

Anabaptists do not necessarily ignore the wider tradition; as I've mentioned in another thread, two of my friends in the local Anabaptist study group (which is pretty ecumenical anyway) have been writing the latest of the 'After Christendom' book series - and they are quoting Augustine, Aquinas, and a very wide range of authors from various traditions.

Come and join us and help restore our balance...?
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've no problem with developing practical organisational stuff, and indeed I think that's what the 'apostolic succession' originally was, for the kind of reasons you suggest. Turning that into a quasi-magical passing of authority from individual to individual when the original apostolic NT is freely available is taking an originally practical idea too far.

But you are making some assumptions here; that Scripture is 'available,' that it is clear and easy to understand, and that your reading of it isn't as 'biased' as everyone else's. You read Scripture as an Anabaptist. You do not read it 'free.' Nor does anyone else. The question then becomes one of history, of Tradition, of ecclesiology, and of authority. Why should we read Scripture as an Anabaptist, when they, or anyone like them, didn't exist until the high or late Middle Ages at the earliest?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If we take Jesus seriously about the need to be 'born again' then strictly speaking faith can't be 'inherited', nor can it be 'communal' in the way that 'establishment' implies.

I couldn't disagree more. Religion is by essence communal. We are saved as a people, not as individuals.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
I'm currently trying to work out a comprehensive response to several different things that recent posts have chucked at me. Meanwhile, to be going on with, just one point...

by k-mann;
quote:
I couldn't disagree more. Religion is by essence communal. We are saved as a people, not as individuals.
Again, this is precisely what is at issue; IS 'religion' communal? Old style pagan and Jewish religion indeed is 'communal' - but Christianity is rather different, precisely because it depends on the personal act of faith, and the personal being 'born again' by the Spirit. In Christianity it is no longer possible to say "We have Abraham for our father" or some equivalent - it is necessary to be personally reconciled to God through faith in Jesus. The born again are then built into a new kind of community, international in nature and 'coming out and being separate' from the non-believers around them.

The other idea of community salvation is to be seen in places like Northern Ireland where supposedly 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' communities behave in a seriously un-Christlike way despite their profession of Christian belief - their 'religion' is communal ... but Christian, not much!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Why don't you come and join the rest of us and help us restore our balance ...

[Biased]

You see, these things cut both ways.

You say that ecclesiastical links with the state are inherently sinful. Others could argue that schism is inherently sinful.

We simply end up going round in circles.

I think everyone would agree that an overly Erastian approach causes difficulties - we can all cite examples of that from Henry VIII to Ivan the Terrible ...

And even those Christian confessions that tend to emphasise the communal over the individualistic would still see the need for the exercise of personal faith - but the exercise of personal faith in a communal context.

It's just how tightly we want to stretch things - in either direction.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, this is precisely what is at issue; IS 'religion' communal?

Yes, it is. One big indication of this is that in the only prayer ever given to us by Christ, there isn’t a single singular pronoun.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Old style pagan and Jewish religion indeed is 'communal' - but Christianity is rather different, precisely because it depends on the personal act of faith, and the personal being 'born again' by the Spirit.

This only shows that you have no knowledge of Judaism at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In Christianity it is no longer possible to say "We have Abraham for our father" or some equivalent - it is necessary to be personally reconciled to God through faith in Jesus. The born again are then built into a new kind of community, international in nature and 'coming out and being separate' from the non-believers around them.

So, what you are saying is that a Christian shouldn’t use terms like ‘our father Abraham,’ ‘Abraham, our forefather’ or ‘Abraham our father,’ that people of faith are ‘the sons of Abraham,’ or that Abraham is ‘the father of us all,’ or any equivalents of this?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The other idea of community salvation is to be seen in places like Northern Ireland where supposedly 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' communities behave in a seriously un-Christlike way despite their profession of Christian belief - their 'religion' is communal ... but Christian, not much!

That is a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;
quote:
You say that ecclesiastical links with the state are inherently sinful. Others could argue that schism is inherently sinful.
Both, of course, are sinful. But put it this way, the ecclesiastical links with the state are straight-up disobedience to God - understandable how it happened originally, in a messy way which didn't seem wrong at first, but after 1600 years the wrong is pretty obvious and the need to correct the wrong also pretty obvious.

Separating from a body that is engaging in such disobedience - is that schism? After all, continuing to be connected with such a body, is to join in their sin. Which we're not really meant to do, are we???

I'll leave you to think on that one....
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But put it this way, the ecclesiastical links with the state are straight-up disobedience to God.

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you. I want my own denomination, the Church of Norway, to be free from its ties to the state, but this claim needs to be backed by actual evidence.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
In what follows, k-mann, please note that I 'borrowed' the word 'communal' from a post by Gamaliel - I'm fairly sure he understands the way I'm using it, in a discussion he and I have been having for a while - you may not quite be understanding it the same...

by k-mann;

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, this is precisely what is at issue; IS 'religion' communal?

K-mann response;
Yes, it is. One big indication of this is that in the only prayer ever given to us by Christ, there isn’t a single singular pronoun.

OK, rephrase to "in what way is religion communal, and in what ways not?" As I pointed out during my post, the 'born again' form a community; but as I also pointed out, that's a community separate from the surrounding society - the community of the born again cannot simply be identified with the state in which they live. Of course they pray 'our Father' and pray in 'we' terms; but equally those who haven't been born again but are only nominal Christians as citizens of a so-called 'Christian country' are not really included in that.

also by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Old style pagan and Jewish religion indeed is 'communal' - but Christianity is rather different, precisely because it depends on the personal act of faith, and the personal being 'born again' by the Spirit.

k-mann response;
This only shows that you have no knowledge of Judaism at all.

In the kind of terms we are using here - "The old 'Constantine' routine… Yawn." - pagan and Jewish religion (and Islam as well, with its concept of the 'Umma' and Sharia law) are 'communal' in ways that biblical born again Christianity isn't. State Christianity is often 'communal' in the pagan/Jewish/Islamic way rather than the born-again-Christian way.

again by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In Christianity it is no longer possible to say "We have Abraham for our father" or some equivalent - it is necessary to be personally reconciled to God through faith in Jesus. The born again are then built into a new kind of community, international in nature and 'coming out and being separate' from the non-believers around them.

k-mann response;
So, what you are saying is that a Christian shouldn’t use terms like ‘our father Abraham,’ ‘Abraham, our forefather’ or ‘Abraham our father,’ that people of faith are ‘the sons of Abraham,’ or that Abraham is ‘the father of us all,’ or any equivalents of this?

You are making terribly heavy weather of this. My reference is to passages like;
quote:
"And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Matt 3:9 (NIV)

where Jews were relying on their place as ethnic Jews descended from Abraham, rather than on personal faith, for their salvation. That is, they were relying on a (questionable) form of 'communal' religion, as John the Baptist saw and challenged them. Of course the born-again, under the new covenant, are a body in continuity with the OT people of God, Gentiles joint-heirs with the Jews by grace, and able to claim Abraham as a father in that somewhat different sense.

and finally by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The other idea of community salvation is to be seen in places like Northern Ireland where supposedly 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' communities behave in a seriously un-Christlike way despite their profession of Christian belief - their 'religion' is communal ... but Christian, not much!

k-mann in response;
That is a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.

Again I suspect Gamaliel as a fellow UK citizen more aware of things in NI is 'getting' this in ways you aren't quite. Having been dealing with the NI version of this issue since the late 60s, I don't find it a non-sequitur at all. I don't think Norway has had the kind of conflict seen in NI to give Norwegians an appreciation of that kind of 'communal religion'.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
sorry, k-mann; missed your post at 22;52 while composing my own previous. I don't think I'll be posting further tonight, but will try to answer tomorrow.
 
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Old style pagan and Jewish religion indeed is 'communal' - but Christianity is rather different, precisely because it depends on the personal act of faith, and the personal being 'born again' by the Spirit.

This only shows that you have no knowledge of Judaism at all.
As someone with more than a little knowledge of Judaism, I have to ask: Precisely how is it that you judge Steve Langton's statement to show that he has "no knowledge of Judaism at all"?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, Steve Langton, I'll leave you this little thought ...

If we attach ourselves to any community we share both its strengths and weaknesses, it's good points and bad points ...

There is no community whatsoever that is free of sinfulness, weakness and mixed motive in some way.

All of us are work-in-progress, and that applies as much to your apparently 'pure' and unsullied gathered model as it does to one which you might consider wickedly compromised ...

That's not to excuse wrong-doing or sinfulness.

But neither is it to enshrine some kind of smug, self-righteous separatism as some kind of Christian virtue.

On the communal thing, you say that the NT was freely available to all right from the outset - or have implied as much.

No it wasn't.

Most people couldn't read.

What was available was the apostolic deposit, the apostolic testimony - and where would most people have encountered that? Why, in this whacky community of faith we call the Church ...

I'm not as High Church as K-Mann and Ad Orientem, obviously, but even I can see that in the immediate generations following Christ and his disciples, as messy as it all undoubtedly was - there emerged a growing consensus as to what sound Christian teaching and doctrine was all about and where it could be found ie. among which groups of people.

Heck, part of this process and trajectory had started to take place before the NT was written down ... the Gospels were written for emerging Christian communities. The communities came first, then the written accounts ...

The way you are speaking one would get the impression that your ordinary, everyday Christian in Thessalonika or Ephesus was walking around with a Gideon's Bible or an IVP NIV concordance tucked under their arm ...

No, these things were transmitted and preserved in community and ratified and recognised in community.

Of course, you know that.

But it doesn't come across in the way you post. You post as if the scriptural record is somehow independent of the apostolic communities which continued to bear witness to the Risen Christ and who celebrated his life, death and glorious resurrection week by week in their gatherings and sought to follow His precepts and teachings in their daily lives.

Christians were 'operating' without John's Gospel until - I dunno - when? The late 1st century?

That doesn't mean that the teachings contained in the Fourth Gospel weren't circulating in some form before that point, but it does illustrate that the communal life of the Church was continuing even while the Gospels were being written.

Peter didn't had out a ready made pile of New Testaments on the Day of Pentecost.

No, what preserved and transmitted the Gospel was the testimony and practices of the early Christians - including their liturgies, of course - which may help us to focus on the OP ...

That's not to suggest that these early liturgies were as 'developed' as they later became - but they did play a vital role as we can see in the NT itself with its snatches of what might be doxologies and early Christian hymns and prayers.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You are making terribly heavy weather of this. My reference is to passages like;
quote:
"And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Matt 3:9 (NIV)

where Jews were relying on their place as ethnic Jews descended from Abraham, rather than on personal faith, for their salvation. That is, they were relying on a (questionable) form of 'communal' religion, as John the Baptist saw and challenged them. Of course the born-again, under the new covenant, are a body in continuity with the OT people of God, Gentiles joint-heirs with the Jews by grace, and able to claim Abraham as a father in that somewhat different sense.
You are completely misreading that verse. It is positive to be a child of Abraham. But one needs also to be commited. And there is no indication at all that John the Baptist were criticising the communal aspect of Judaism. That is something you read into the passages.

And the phrases I listed were all from the New Testament, from Acts 7:2, Rom 4:1 (to Christians in Rome), Rom 4:16 (to Christians in Rome), James 2:21, and Gal 3:7. Here Christians, talking to both Jews and other Christians, say ‘our father Abraham,’ ‘Abraham, our forefather,’ ‘Abraham our father,’ that people of faith are ‘the sons of Abraham,’ and that Abraham is ‘the father of us all.’

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again I suspect Gamaliel as a fellow UK citizen more aware of things in NI is 'getting' this in ways you aren't quite. Having been dealing with the NI version of this issue since the late 60s, I don't find it a non-sequitur at all. I don't think Norway has had the kind of conflict seen in NI to give Norwegians an appreciation of that kind of 'communal religion'.

This is nothing but a non sequitur. Just because some Christians who value the communal aspect of the religion are pricks, doesn’t mean that the communal aspect should be downplayed. It would make as much sense to say that Californians are evil satan worshippers because they have a ‘Church of Satan.’

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Old style pagan and Jewish religion indeed is 'communal' - but Christianity is rather different, precisely because it depends on the personal act of faith, and the personal being 'born again' by the Spirit.

This only shows that you have no knowledge of Judaism at all.
As someone with more than a little knowledge of Judaism, I have to ask: Precisely how is it that you judge Steve Langton's statement to show that he has "no knowledge of Judaism at all"?
Steve Langton has bought into the myth that Judaism was all about community, that individual acts of faith weren’t acquired. That just isn’t true, and the Old Testament is full of calls to personal ‘acts of faith.’ One who knew Judaism wouldn’t make such a claim.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by k-mann;
quote:
You are completely misreading that verse. It is positive to be a child of Abraham. But one needs also to be committed. And there is no indication at all that John the Baptist were criticising the communal aspect of Judaism. That is something you read into the passages.

And the phrases I listed were all from the New Testament, from Acts 7:2, Rom 4:1 (to Christians in Rome), Rom 4:16 (to Christians in Rome), James 2:21, and Gal 3:7. Here Christians, talking to both Jews and other Christians, say ‘our father Abraham,’ ‘Abraham, our forefather,’ ‘Abraham our father,’ that people of faith are ‘the sons of Abraham,’ and that Abraham is ‘the father of us all.’

I didn't say John was criticising the communal aspect of Judaism as such. He was criticising people who relied on their status as 'once-born' Jews and clearly because of that did not realise the need of personal repentance and faith.

And yes, I did recognise your quotes from the NT and in my response I took a positive attitude towards them - at least I thought I did. The point remains that 'established' religions are subject to a temptation to interpret their communal religion in the way that John criticised, and that the Christian teaching on being 'born again' implies a different kind of community - a community 'called out' from among surrounding pagans, through INDIVIDUAL faith but very much INTO A COMMUNITY. I very much understand the continuity of Christianity with Judaism - but also the inevitable difference as the gospel both is taken beyond the Jewish nation and challenges the Jewish hearers to a new covenant commitment as prophesied by Jeremiah.

by k-mann;
quote:
Just because some Christians who value the communal aspect of the religion are pricks, doesn’t mean that the communal aspect should be downplayed. It would make as much sense to say that Californians are evil Satan worshippers because they have a ‘Church of Satan.’
I'm not downplaying the communal aspect of Christianity - but I'm pointing out that the 'Christian country' is not a legitimate expression of that communality. I do not criticise NI as a whole because of the faults of some groups; I criticise the way that 'Christian country' assumptions lead to unChristian activity even by people who I do, as it happens, recognise as Christians, and also to people being able to assume they are Christian by birth in a particular community rather than by real faith. Again, very much like the Jews John criticised.

by k-mann;
quote:
Steve Langton has bought into the myth that Judaism was all about community, that individual acts of faith weren’t acquired. That just isn’t true, and the Old Testament is full of calls to personal ‘acts of faith.’ One who knew Judaism wouldn’t make such a claim.
No I have not 'bought into' that myth; I have simply recognised, as the OT and NT also do, that as a national religion, there was always a tension in Judaism between the kind of assumption John criticised as against the calls to personal faith - the 'new covenant' both recognises that tension and resolves it in the different circumstances of the Christian faith.

by Gamaliel;
quote:
All of us are work-in-progress, and that applies as much to your apparently 'pure' and unsullied gathered model as it does to one which you might consider wickedly compromised ...

That's not to excuse wrong-doing or sinfulness.

But neither is it to enshrine some kind of smug, self-righteous separatism as some kind of Christian virtue.

I have said before that I don't regard the 'gathered model' as anywhere near 'pure and unsullied' - if only....

We still have to make the effort to avoid 'wrong-doing or sinfulness', not excuse it; and especially where a particular sinful course - the idea of 'Christian countries' - results in such horrendous consequences.

I'd have thought you'd have realised from my critical comments about Exclusive Brethren and the more exclusive type of Amish that I don't regard 'smug self-righteous separatism' as any kind of Christian virtue; but I do want Christianity to be separate in the NT sense, distinct from the surrounding pagan world.

also by Gamaliel;
quote:
On the communal thing, you say that the NT was freely available to all right from the outset - or have implied as much.

No it wasn't.

Most people couldn't read.

What was available was the apostolic deposit, the apostolic testimony - and where would most people have encountered that? Why, in this whacky community of faith we call the Church ...

NO, I didn't imply that the NT was available from the outset; it is the eventual written embodiment of the apostolic testimony, and as you say, eventual may have meant quite late (though the 'Honest to God' bishop of Woolwich favoured an early date), and wide availability took longer still. As such it provides us a touchstone for checking that we are in line with the apostolic testimony, and for rejecting traditions which have gone beyond that. The community alone could all too easily go in all directions without a stable foundation - the written apostolic testimony records that foundation so that the church may build on it with confidence not realistically possible just from the opinions of an 'apostolic succession' of bishops ever more removed from the original as time passes.

Once the NT was widely available it clearly became recognised as the primary authority; you may recall that in other recent threads RCs, for example, conceded that their 'magisterium' was not supposed to contradict the NT.

Enough for now - I have a busy afternoon ahead.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... But put it this way, the ecclesiastical links with the state are straight-up disobedience to God


Can you point to a clear statement in scripture that is categoric authority for that blanket statement?
quote:

- understandable how it happened originally, in a messy way which didn't seem wrong at first, but after 1600 years the wrong is pretty obvious and the need to correct the wrong also pretty obvious.

Separating from a body that is engaging in such disobedience - is that schism? After all, continuing to be connected with such a body, is to join in their sin. Which we're not really meant to do, are we???

I'll leave you to think on that one....

Sorry, Steve, that may have been argued time and time over the centuries but it's pernicious and seriously wrong. Who are you, or anyone else, to say which sins require us to break the body of Christ into pieces and separate ourselves from the brothers and sisters he has chosen for us? Or are we saying we know which are the brothers and sisters he has chosen, and which are the deluded ones that are false disciples? Assuming we are taking scripture as authority, can you point me to clear teaching in scripture that (a) tells me to do this, and (b) tells me how to separate the weeds from the good crop?

Look. I don't agree with k-mann either, but Gamaliel, as so often, is talking a lot of sense.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
(Sighs) - don't misunderstand me, Steve, but one might just as well argue that whilst you or anyone else who is Free Church, non-conformist or independent or whatever we might wish to call such a position are not personally responsible or implicated in the actions of exclusive groups such as the Exclusive Brethren or extreme forms of Amish - you are nevertheless 'implicated' by the kind of stance you are taking.

Now, I'm not arguing such a thing - but you are effectively doing the same in reverse by suggesting that members of historic Churches with close ties to the State are somehow partaking of 'sin' in so doing.

At times it feels like you are promoting Docetism here rather than Anabaptism ... which perhaps not surprising given the positive slant put on Docetism by Stuart Murray Williams and other Anabaptist writers.

I've got a lot of time for Anabaptists and the Anabaptist position but it can easily fall into judgementalism ... Richard Baxter said that back in the 17th century. So did Anglican theologians in the 16th.

I don't see anything in your posts that contradicts the view that they - rightly or wrongly - formed four hundred years ago.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
IS 'religion' communal? Old style pagan and Jewish religion indeed is 'communal' - but Christianity is rather different, precisely because it depends on the personal act of faith, and the personal being 'born again' by the Spirit.

Christianity is communal because we are baptised INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST, i.e. the Church.

Or are you seeing a 'personal act of faith' as the unbiblical notion of 'the sinner's prayer'?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I rather suspect that Steve Langton's view of a personal faith is rather more nuanced than the 'sinner's prayer' - but would share some of the assumptions behind this particular model ... in broad terms if not in the detail.

The 'sinner's prayer' thing is certainly crude and reductionist but in my experience many, if not most, evangelicals do have a more nuanced view than one might gather if only exposed to the rhetoric and the louder proponents of these views.

As a Baptist, as well as an Anabaptist - an Anabaptist is essentially a Baptist-Plus or, arguably, a Baptist who has stuck more closely to their own tradition - then Steve Langton will be fairly 'reformed'. I used a small r as Presbyterians and others might try to deny Baptists the Big R ...

As someone coming at these things from a fairly reformed direction then Steve will undoubtedly be keen to distance himself from 'decisionism' and the somewhat mechanical application of the 'sinner's prayer' and so on.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Before someone corrects me and to spare my own blushes ... [Hot and Hormonal]

In an earlier post I, of course, meant Donatism rather than Docetism.

My mistake.

I am not accusing Steve Langton of Docetism but suggesting that elements within Anabaptism do have Donatist tendencies.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Enoch;
quote:
Who are you, or anyone else, to say which sins require us to break the body of Christ into pieces and separate ourselves from the brothers and sisters he has chosen for us? Or are we saying we know which are the brothers and sisters he has chosen, and which are the deluded ones that are false disciples? Assuming we are taking scripture as authority, can you point me to clear teaching in scripture that (a) tells me to do this, and (b) tells me how to separate the weeds from the good crop?
No, I don't know the chosen ones. But I do have a responsibility for my own conduct and for judging what I do myself, and therefore who - and whose conduct - I associate with. Just to take a few examples where the 'state church' kind of issue has been directly relevant, should I be lined up with people who run Crusades, who set the Inquisition on Jews and Muslims in Spain, people who stage riots and throw bombs in Ulster, people who discriminate against unbelievers of all kinds in various states of the world? Should I be joining in the burning of heretics? Should I be supporting the kind of thing done by the Conquistadors to the native Americans in the name of Christ?

Should I not 'break up' my relationship with those who do such things?

There's also an issue that state churches often involve a break-up of the church in the first place - the spectacle of two 'Christian countries' at war, just for example...? Or the different Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Presbyterians all in different states and differing partly because of the involvement of the worldly state in the church....

There's also the other side of it; Even today, and certainly in the days of, for instance, Henry VIII's decidedly totalitarian church, the state church can be a problematic mix.

So if I feel it impossible to be involved with this - am I schismatic, or is the state church itself the schismatic side????
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by leo;
quote:
Christianity is communal because we are baptised INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST, i.e. the Church.
When we are discussing the Anabaptist issue one of the things being discussed is the nature both of baptism and of the precise way the church is communal. I totally agree that Christianity is communal because we are baptised into the body of Christ; but Anglican and other state church infant baptism is questionable compared to believer's baptism.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Enoch; (and supplementary to my earlier comment)
quote:
to break the body of Christ into pieces and separate ourselves from the brothers and sisters he has chosen for us?
One of the problems of traditional state churches was precisely whether our 'brothers and sisters' were chosen by Christ through faith and being born again, or chosen for us by a state for essentially worldly reasons, mixing all citizens into a conformist state body.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Gamaliel; no, I'm not putting forward a full Donatist position - on the contrary I see major problems in it. But there is one aspect of the Donatist position which I would go with; that they realised one simple truth which the 'Catholic' church of the time didn't.

The Donatists asked the question "Quis est Imperator cum ecclesiae?" that is, "Since when is the Church the Emperor's business?" If only the Catholics had realised the same point and asked the same question....
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Why do you keep bringing up the 6 counties in reference to a "state church"? There is no established or national church in the province, any more than there is in the US. It seems to me that you're trying to pin every evil influence acting on people who claim faith as being a result of establishment, which doesn't remotely hold up.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I didn't say that you were putting forward a completely Donatist position, Steve. What I wrote was that there were 'elements' of Donatism in what you write.

The thing with heresy of all kinds is that there are elements of truth in it. There was an element of truth in what the Donatists were saying - 'What has the Emperor to do with the Church?'

They were making a fair point.

I can see what you are getting at but what I don't see is how the ordinary bod in the pew at our local parish church is somehow tainted or associated with bomb-throwing thugs in Northern Ireland or Henry VIII's totalitarianism or the treatment of non-conformists during the reign of Charles II ...

That isn't to say that there isn't a case to answer nor that there aren't issues around church/state connections - of course there are.

As for the born-again thing and believer's baptism as opposed to infant baptism and so on ... well there are non-state churches which practice infant baptism too - such as the Congregationalists and United Reformed - although they do have believers' baptism too of course.

Heck, so does the CofE and all the historic Churches that I am aware of. There are going to be baptisms - by total immersion - of people who have come to faith and not previously been baptised in our parish church in a few weeks time. Of course, these will be performed alongside infant baptisms and the renewal of baptismal vows - which is permitted under canon law etc.

One could argue for baptismal regeneration from the passage you have in mind in John's Gospel - 'by water and the Spirit' and so on. Many sacramentally inclined Christians do that.

So it's not even as if there is one, single, clear-cut interpretation of those verses. People take them in different ways - which is one of the reasons why there are so many different churches and denominations, of course.

If it was all clear-cut and beyond any shadow of doubt then everyone would all be of the same opinion. But they aren't.

Ultimately, we pays our money and we makes our choice. And how we do that depends on a whole load of factors and influences - tradition, inclination, conviction, culture etc etc etc.

You can't simply point at a Bible passage, proof-text it and say, 'Here it says this. I'm right, you are wrong.'

Well, you can, but all it does is take you into separatist and schismatic territory ... which is where we all are, of course, by somebody's lights.

I'm a schismatic in RC and Orthodox terms. You are in RC, Orthodox, Anglican and various other terms.

The extent to which we think that is good, bad or indifferent depends on where we are standing in the first place.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Remember also the persecution carried out by Cromwell and the Puritans during the Commonwealth. While there was a (welcome) and wide-spread toleration, that did not extend to members of the Church of England, which formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Their prayerbook was proscribed and their clergy very severely restricted. Yet those in power were people who were strongly against the establishment of any church.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Why do you keep bringing up the 6 counties in reference to a "state church"? There is no established or national church in the province, any more than there is in the US. It seems to me that you're trying to pin every evil influence acting on people who claim faith as being a result of establishment, which doesn't remotely hold up.
Sorry, this is a confusion difficult to avoid without giving 'book-length' posts to cover every slight distinction.

It is not just the 'established' Anglican church which I oppose, but the general idea of a 'Christian country'. That idea exists in Northern Ireland despite the lack of an established church. Many, possibly most Protestants there do adhere to the idea that NI is a 'Protestant country' for which many of them are prepared to riot, parade, fight, throw bombs etc. Even non-conformists like Ian Paisley, and even some Baptists who really ought to know better, hold such ideas.

That is, the problem is a great deal wider than just 'establishment' and the CofE. It is of course the CofE which makes the mainland UK a 'Protestant country' to which NI's Protestants are 'Loyal' and with which they want 'Union'. The connection does 'hold up', and far from remotely.

I'm not the only person on the Ship who has pointed out that the attitudes of many Americans, particularly on the right wing, mean that despite the lack of a specific established church, America is far too much a 'Christian country'.

My point is if anything reinforced by the following from GeeD;
quote:
Remember also the persecution carried out by Cromwell and the Puritans during the Commonwealth. While there was a (welcome) and wide-spread toleration, that did not extend to members of the Church of England, which formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Their prayerbook was proscribed and their clergy very severely restricted. Yet those in power were people who were strongly against the establishment of any church.
Again, the Civil War era 'Puritans' mostly wanted a national church of some kind, and certainly a Christian and distinctively Protestant country. The Presbyterians certainly seem to have aimed at a Presbyterian national church similar to the then Church of Scotland.

Cromwell & Co didn't want the Anglican church which they considered inadequately reformed. They also rejected the greater freedom of conscience proposed by the few 'sectaries' who wanted real separation of church and state.

English Baptists to this day are somewhat ambivalent on state and church and on pacifism, as Baptists did fight on the Puritan side in the Civil War, and in some cases became clergy in the parish churches of Cromwell's settlement. Modern 'Anabaptism' is related to the continental tradition going back to Mennonites and Swiss Anabaptists; after only a brief but infamous glitch at Munster, Anabaptists have been consistently pacifist and opposed to 'Christian countries'.

In Anabaptist eyes Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and the Civil War Puritans all represent the same unbiblical thing in different degrees. And going back to Arethosemyfeet's point, the Troubles-some NI Protestants are descendants of the Civil War Puritans.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;
quote:
There was an element of truth in what the Donatists were saying - 'What has the Emperor to do with the Church?'

They were making a fair point.

And that's all I was saying, too - well, and also "If only the (then) Catholics had realised the same point and asked the same question....", and if only the modern CofE would ask "Since when is the Church the business of our Queen and her ministers such as David Cameron?"

again by Gamaliel;
quote:
I can see what you are getting at but what I don't see is how the ordinary bod in the pew at our local parish church is somehow tainted or associated with bomb-throwing thugs in Northern Ireland or Henry VIII's totalitarianism or the treatment of non-conformists during the reign of Charles II ...
That post was aimed at Enoch's comment, of course; and I was trying to say that there are good reasons to reject and be 'schismatic' from a view and from versions of the Church whose entanglement with the state in varying degrees has led to such unChristian consequences. It is good that the modern CofE (arguably because of the influence of the non-conformists, which they have conceded only reluctantly) doesn't do such things; but Muslims, for example, would very much consider the CofE 'tainted' by the activities of English soldiers in certain current wars - and with the royal head of the CofE also being C-in-C of our armies, they have at least a good bit of a point....

I've previously pointed out that it is the establishment of the Anglican church here which makes us the 'Protestant country' which is the focus of NI's 'Unionism' and 'Loyalism'. That gives Anglicanism a responsibility in NI's affairs which they fail so long as they continue to support a form of 'Christian country' here on the mainland.

by Gamaliel;
quote:
there are non-state churches which practice infant baptism too
Yes, and even though I don't entirely agree with them I have no great problem with those who baptise their own members' infants as an act of, if you like, faith for the future. The pre-Reformation Waldensians did that and because they would often be 're-baptising' infants who had been baptised by the RC church, were considered 'Anabaptists' by the RCs! I decidedly have a problem with a practice of baptising anybody's children under the assumptions of a state church. Actually in my experience even where infant baptism is still available it seems to be a diminishing practice; many URC churches rarely baptise infants, and I know of quite a few Anglican clergy who avoid it if they can.

Going back a bit - "smug self-righteous separatism" and Richard Baxter describing Anabaptists as 'judgemental'....

Anglicans can also be more than a bit smug about their own position - and seriously, present company perhaps not quite as excepted as it would like to think? People being smug about their position pretty much cancel each other out; leaving still the question "Which is right?", which is what we ought to be considering...

Baxter seems to have been better than some of his era; but becoming a military chaplain, as he did, in England's most destructive war ever (relative to the population size) seems to me to be a pretty 'judgemental' position on his part. I think this may be a case where describing others as 'judgemental' means little more than that they were disagreeing with HIS judgement and how dare they!!

I too by the way would like to get back to the original point of the thread - but the rest of you aren't exactly letting me. I think I'm going to have to post a new thread purely to deal with this issue. The reaction I get does suggest that people think it very important....
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, the Civil War era 'Puritans'…

No true Scotsman, I see… So when a Puritan or an Anabaptist does something wrong, it’s his fault, but when a Lutheran, Anglican or Catholic does something wrong, it’s the fault of the ‘system’?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Again, the Civil War era 'Puritans'…."

(k-mann response)
No true Scotsman, I see… So when a Puritan or an Anabaptist does something wrong, it’s his fault, but when a Lutheran, Anglican or Catholic does something wrong, it’s the fault of the ‘system’?

I'm certainly no Scotsman! Not sure what you're getting at here. It is simply fact that the English Presbyterians of the ECW did aim at a Scottish style Presbyterian church to replace the CofE. Ironically about a century later the English Presbyterians to a large extent went 'Arian' and became the Unitarian Church, since when English Presbyterians were a minority among 'Dissenters'.

'The Puritans' were a very diverse group, all the way from people who just wanted a 'more reformed' CofE to some Baptists. Baptist John "Pilgrim's Progress" Bunyan was a Puritan in that broad sense. He indeed fought in the Civil war, but before his conversion; subsequently he seems to have become either a pacifist or at least a person who thought war and other compulsion inappropriate in religion. But a broad-brush picture applicable to most is that they basically wanted a formally 'Christian country' but with a slightly different kind of church, not necessarily 'established' in exactly the way the CofE was/is. For example the Presbyterians would expect to be much more independent of the king, who rather than controlling the Church would be regarded as a 'nursing father' to support and protect them.

When people do wrong, it is basically their fault, of course, whatever their religious label; but also of course, people often do wrong things in good faith because of a system they've been brought up in and haven't yet examined to realise its faults. Those brought up in any of the varieties of 'Christian country' culture are vulnerable to some particular ways of doing wrong for that reason. Anabaptists have a different set of temptations from their culture, and as one Gamaliel quite properly keeps reminding me, are certainly not exceptions to the basic rule that all men are sinners and even Christians are tempted and can fall.

The faults of the 'Christian country' culture are more likely to end up killing people....
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
No true Scotsman
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Establishment and the use of faith-related identifiers as tribal markers are not necessarily linked.

I would like to pose a hypothetical question, however. In the event that the ruler of a state is a Christian, the elected representatives of that state are 90%+ Christian and the population likewise, how would establishment vs disestablishment make any difference to the behaviour of that state?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Establishment and the use of faith-related identifiers as tribal markers are not necessarily linked.
I don't think I said they were directly linked; rather that establishment such as the CofE, and the 'religion as tribal markers' thing seen in NI are different manifestations of an interpretation of Christianity which sees it as valid to have "Christian states". In contrast I'm asserting the Anabaptist view that the only 'Christian nation' the world has or needs is the church itself, which is international and can't appropriately be entangled with the state, whether that entanglement is Anglican style or Ulster Unionist style.

I have a basic answer to your hypothetical; but I'm going to go off shopping and try to come back later with a fairly comprehensive response. At least you're taking the question seriously...!
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
k-mann; thanks for the info on 'no true Scotsman' - it's a concept that had somehow escaped my attention up till now. As I just said to Arethosemyfeet, I'm now off out shopping and may actually be further out till quite late; but I'll check my previous comments and try to see your point about them.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
k-mann;
I think I’ve worked out what you were getting at, and roughly, I think, things went like this (not helped by the fact that religion in England in the ECW period was a very complex picture);

Enoch picked me up on ‘breaking the body of Christ’ over the establishment issue. As a quick (and ipso facto only partial) response, I put forward a scattergun selection of the bad things that have followed establishment – Crusades and Inquisitions for example – and posed the question whether I could rightly stay associated with such conduct.

GeeD I think (but he’s welcome to correct me if I misunderstood) came across this and thought I was making a general non-conformist v Anglican point, and reasonably pointed to the discrimination against Anglicans by the pro-tem victorious ‘Puritans’ of the ECW as an example of wrong-doing from what he (GeeD) probably thought was the side I was taking.

In fact I wasn’t taking a simply non-conformist side but the distinctive Anabaptist view, and furthermore the reason I take that view actually came about from considering the conduct of the descendants of the Civil War Puritans in NI – eg Ian Paisley, who very clearly perceives NI as a ‘Protestant country’. So I wrote back to clarify that as far as I was concerned the ECW Puritans were part of the same problem – a view I have held since the late 1960s/early 1970s.

You then interpreted that as a ‘no true Scotsman’ response, as if it were just an instant response to an unwelcome fact challenging my view – but the reality was far from that, as I’d been aware of the problem over the ECW Puritans for many decades. I may consider them somewhat better than their Anglican opponents; but the Puritans also were clearly mostly wrong on the state church issue.

Hope I got that right; I’m now definitely off out till late – or even LATE!!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The reason we aren't 'letting' you get back to the OP, Steve Langton is that you seem so convinced that the state/church entanglement is the worst of all possible vices. The rest of us seem to have issues with it to a greater of lesser extent, but we don't appear to regard it as the source of all ills as you appear to ...

But you're right, it's probably time for a separate thread on this issue. You start it and the rest of us will join in.

I can see what you're getting at - particularly with the fair comment about the way Muslims might regard the CofE seeing as the Queen is the titular 'Supreme Governor' and also head of state and ultimately in charge of the armed forces.

Disestablishment would address that to a certain extent but I'm not sure it would make the problem go away.

The Church in Wales (Anglican) has been disestablished since the 1920s yet hardly anyone seems to have noticed.

It certainly hasn't had any bearing on whether people in Wales take the church more seriously or not. Things have simply gone on much as before.

On the smugness thing - yes, of course there are smug Anglicans. There are smug Catholics, smug Orthodox, smug Presbyterians. There are also smug Anabaptists.

But that's probably matter for t'other thread. How far do we separate ourselves? To what extent do we up the ante on all of that?

I rather suspect that we'd end up each of us with a church of one ... ie. we'd keep distancing and separating ourselves from ourselves everytime somebody did something we thought was wrong.

Of course, I'm exaggerating but it is a serious issue that Anabaptism has to contend with ...
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Enoch;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... But put it this way, the ecclesiastical links with the state are straight-up disobedience to God

(Enoch's challenge)
Can you point to a clear statement in scripture that is categoric authority for that blanket statement?

Personally I think the exchange between Jesus and Pilate in John 18 comes pretty close to what you're asking for. Jesus saying "My kingdom is not of this world" in a context where he is, in effect, on trial for supposedly attempting to set up a Christian/Messianic kingdom of this world is fairly clear, especially if you consider the whole context. Trying nevertheless to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus not only constitutes disobedience,it has other awkward implications as well - one of the least of those implications is the claim to apparently know better than the Son of God what kind of kingdom he is king of....

At the same time I wouldn't rely on a single text anyway - see Gamaliel's disparaging comment on proof-texting in one of his recent posts. As I see it there are lots of texts setting forth a different way for Christians to relate to the state they live in, and no suggestion I've been able to find that the 'Christian country' idea was ever supposed to happen, and lots of texts which in various ways rather rule out the state linkage.

And a challenge I make frequently which nobody seems to have a convincing answer to - can you suggest any texts that prove we are meant to set up Christian states????
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Shipmates' ability to cross-post with me is getting as bad as the ability of the local meter-readers to always catch me on the loo or even in a bath!

by Gamaliel;
quote:
The reason we aren't 'letting' you get back to the OP, Steve Langton is that you seem so convinced that the state/church entanglement is the worst of all possible vices. The rest of us seem to have issues with it to a greater of lesser extent, but we don't appear to regard it as the source of all ills as you appear to ...
Not exactly the 'source of all ills', or the 'worst of all possible vices' for that matter! But it is a rather bigger problem than many are willing to realise, and has ramifications or causes confusions in a lot of different areas. Indeed it's a bit of a case that I've specialised in it because so few others bother.

OK, I'll try to compose an OP on the church and state issue that we can all go and play with. I'll have to try and work out an OP which covers the fact that the issue is far wider than just Anglican establishment (after all, it was non-conformist Ian Paisley who gave me my starting point, and one of the most highly publicised recent examples (albeit rather trivial) was David Silvester who is a Baptist - unless they've followed Ukip's example and kicked him out too!)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Although, theoretically speaking, in a rather arcane way, the British Establishment is a kind of theocracy - I don't think many of us think in those terms ... so it's all a bit academic.

Sure, there are polls and so on that suggest that many people do consider the UK to be a 'Christian country' - but what exactly do we (or they?) mean by that?

I think the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams made a lot of sense in his recent musings on the subject. This country is one that has been influenced and shaped by broadly Christian values - but that doesn't mean that everyone who has ever lived here has been a practising Christian of some kind ...

I agree that there are a lot of concepts here that need unpacking.

And yes, my comment about proof-texting was disparaging. All I was getting at was that what you (or I) might take to be the obvious or plain meaning of a text isn't necessarily how others might see it ... the born-again references for instance. Those verses are perfectly capable of being understood in a different way to how evangelicals understand them.

I don't think those who would argue for a strong link between Church and State - as some Orthodox would for instance, in a rather starry-eyed view of Byzantium or Holy Russia - would look for single texts to support that view. They'd see it as arising naturally from the concept of a society saturated or permeated by Christian values - as they would understand it.

Similarly on the Anabaptist side of things ... it's not as if there is a single proof-text that says, 'Thou shalt not mingle Church and State' - rather the Anabaptist understanding arising from particular views on ecclesiology, soteriology and so on ...

We need a new thread ...
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But it is a rather bigger problem than many are willing to realise…

So you are saying that we wilfully ignore this problem? That we *really* know that you are correct, but just aren’t willing to admit it? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
k-mann; I'm certainly not saying you wilfully ignore it. Just that in my experience most people don't realise how big a problem it can be. Also at present 'ecumenism' seems to have failed in what I recall as one of its original intentions, that disagreements between churches should be talked through and resolved - instead the differences, which include church and state issues, get ignored.

Many people have I feel a rather 'rosy' view of the state/church issue - they see the apparent advantages but don't fully realise the disadvantages.

Anyway, I'll try to compose a starter for a new thread on the issue.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Good idea to start a new thread, Steve.

Meanwhile, I don't think any of us here have a 'rosy' view of church/state connections. Far from it. We're simply saying that you appear to have an overly rosy view of the alternatives.

You have illustrated Baxter's point (and my point) perfectly about Anabaptism being inclined towards judgementalism - in your rather disparaging reference to Baxter serving as a chaplain in Cromwell's army. As though that somehow taints and implicates him.

Chaplains aren't combatants - although in contemporary theatres of war they are trained to use sidearms in self defence ...

We may agree or disagree with Baxter, but it seems wrong to me to sit in judgement on him on that particular instance - we haven't walked in his shoes.

This is what I'm getting at. For all the laudable motives seperatism and Anabaptism can lead to all manner of puritanical, judgemental and pernickety attitudes. There are similar dangers, of course, on the more Erastian side of things - triumphalism, bully-boy tactics, ethnocentricism and so on and so forth ...
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm certainly not saying you wilfully ignore it. Just that in my experience most people don't realise how big a problem it can be.

So we are just stupid, then?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Many people have I feel a rather 'rosy' view of the state/church issue - they see the apparent advantages but don't fully realise the disadvantages.

Or, and this might shock you to the core: They don’t agree with you. But no one has said that established churches are perfect. But the fact is that non-established churches haven’t proven to be any better.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I think a new thread is a good idea - we've been happy enough for the discussion to range around topics related to the OP but concept of Christian priesthood and so on - but the church-state question is it own subject for sure.

Also, please try to avoid the discussion becoming too personal!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think Steve Langton is accusing the rest of us - or you in particular - K-mann - of 'stupidity'.

Rather, he is suggesting that we are 'wilfully ignoring' the implications of state/church interaction/connection - and thereby being wilfully sinful.

So we are not stupid so much as deliberately sinning. Which is the kind of judgemental attitude that one could suggest is inherent in the Anabaptist position - which is what Baxter was driving at.

There has been a Hostly warning here that this could get too personal - and I can see a danger of that on both sides of this debate.

I don't think Steve Langton is suggesting that non-Anabaptist Christians are any greater sinners than Anabaptist ones are. He is simply suggesting that we have allowed a blind-spot to develop over this particular point in the way that Anabaptists haven't.

All I'm suggesting is that there may well be areas where Anabaptists too have blind-spots ... and I'm sure he'd agree with that. Where we might differ is to where those blind-spots lie.

Anyway - that's a matter for another thread I think. I've started on in Purgatory to explore the separatism and smugness issue ... fully accepting that there is a case to answer on both sides.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Sorry all! It is incredibly difficult to express the point I tried to make without appearing personal. The basic problem is that many people are taking for granted what they've been brought up in, and simply haven't looked at it in depth; I was in a similar position to that back before 1970. I don't think I was either stupid or wilfully ignorant, it was just something I hadn't got round to, and I assume it's much the same for others. The Ulster 'Troubles' meant I did get round to it, realised it went deeper than most people realised, and set out to do something about it by exploring the biblical teaching and passing on what I then learned.

Mousethief's recent post on current Orthodox issues is part of the same thing, as Gamaliel seems to have realised.

by k-mann;
quote:
Or, and this might shock you to the core: They don’t agree with you. But no one has said that established churches are perfect. But the fact is that non-established churches haven’t proven to be any better.
'non-established' includes groups like Ian Paisley's which still have a theology allowing use of force, discrimination in the state, etc. Anabaptism certainly has its faults but is at least a lot less dangerous to outsiders and people of other countries....

I'll try and compose a satisfactory OP for proper exploration of the church/state issue; it may take a while, not least because the next few months will be busy in terms of my model railway hobby. meanwhile I'll look at Gamaliel's 'separatism' thread....
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Steve Langton

I think you really do need to do some reading of Puritans and particularly those close to Oliver Cromwell who do come from the strand of the English Independent tradition that is strongly influenced by the radical Reformation. Try John Owen for starters.


Baxter is actually from a different strand and more strongly influenced by the Magisterial Reformation.

Jengie
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Rather, he is suggesting that we are 'wilfully ignoring' the implications of state/church interaction/connection - and thereby being wilfully sinful.

That was the first thing I asked him, and he denied it. That leaves us being just stupid. Because we cannot, of course, have come to another conclusion than him on rational grounds.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The basic problem is that many people are taking for granted what they've been brought up in, and simply haven't looked at it in depth.

That is something you have no way of knowing. You base your arguments on sweeping generalisations about people who are ‘wrong’ simply because they do not agree with you (and thus are either ‘wilfully ignoring’ the issue or are just stupid).

I disagree with you, but not because I haven’t studied it. I disagree with you because I have studied it.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anabaptism certainly has its faults but is at least a lot less dangerous to outsiders and people of other countries....

That is an assumption which you cannot prove.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
Sorry for the double post, but it seems that you, Steve, base your arguments on a kind of Marxesque view that the ‘system’ is the problem. Any given system are only as good or bad as those whom it includes.

[ 02. May 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: k-mann ]
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Jengie Jon; I have done a great deal of Puritan reading in the past, and much of it still on my shelves or in my Kindle and quite often consulted; must admit being a bit rusty as having spent more time in recent decades reading modern and Anabaptist (old and new) materials. Yes, Baxter was more influenced by the 'Magisterial' style of Reform, Owen an 'Independent' (in modern terms 'Congregationalist').

The ECW Puritans were, as I said, a VERY mixed lot, and almost anything I said would be generalised unless done at great length; but those who FOUGHT in the ECW were clearly on the 'Christian country' side of this argument rather than the pacifist/Anabaptist/full-separation-of-church-and state side. Cromwell was a military general and guilty of one massacre which still has some effect in Ireland issues. He was no modern religious pluralist by a long way.

by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anabaptism certainly has its faults but is at least a lot less dangerous to outsiders and people of other countries....

k-mann response;
That is an assumption which you cannot prove.

Er, let me see, since 1960 nearly 3,000 killed in NI or in connection with NI issues mostly by people on the 'Christian country' side. How many were killed by Anabaptists like me? Has there even been one? On the contrary Anabaptists have been working hard for peace there... And that's a small example....

by k-mann;
quote:
but it seems that you, Steve, base your arguments on a kind of Marxesque view that the ‘system’ is the problem. Any given system are only as good or bad as those whom it includes.
So your 'system' is only a problem because of bad people included in it? Judging by consequences such as the Crusades, there must be an awful lot of bad people in the various forms of 'Christian country' system....

Look, people believe things, those beliefs are their 'system'; they act on their beliefs, the consequences are likely to be in line with their beliefs, that is, their 'system'. People believing in the concept of a 'Christian country' tend to produce the logical results of that belief, people believing in separation of church and state in the Anabaptist way will tend to produce the logical results of that belief; that is, the 'system' does affect the results. Fortunately the 'Christian country' side, though sinful men, doesn't always do quite as bad things as their system could imply; unfortunately Anabaptists, being sinful men, don't always live up to their system. I still regard it as better to have a good system as a foundation. In this case, a biblical system derived from the original teaching of Jesus and his apostles as conveyed in the NT. I'm still waiting for people showing that the NT teaches the 'Christian country' view - please expound in detail, not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure that it is the case that the bulk of the casualties during the NI Troubles were caused by those on the 'Christian country side'.

Republican terrorists weren't pushing a 'Christian country' agenda. Sure, they were linked with the largely Republican Catholic communities but they were essentially pursuing a radical Marxist influenced agenda.

Some of the Protestant paramilitaries may have been pursuing the kind of agenda you've highlighted but I'd suggest it was by no means clear-cut even there.

As for the Crusades, they happened in the middle ages and everyone has distanced themselves from those - including various Popes.

But this is a matter for the thread you are promising to compose.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... I'm still waiting for people showing that the NT teaches the 'Christian country' view - please expound in detail, not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed.

The New Testament does not teach a clear 'Christian country' view. There was no need to since the option did not exist at the time. It did not look as though it was likely to. It was so remote an idea that I suspect nobody had as yet thought that this was something they might ever need to think about.

When the time came, though, there was plenty of material in the Old Testament to draw on. With the exception of the 'two swords' doctrine which to most C21 people looks like a very far fetched exposition, the Old Testament has been the main source of thinking on the Christian and involvement in running the state over the centuries.

I have a lot of sympathy with those who are wary of Caesaropapism, and even those who think Constantine might have been the wrong step. However, we have to live with that. Once you have a state which has some sort of formal Christian identity, I think it's obvious we have to argue the state should take that commitment more seriously rather than less.

By and large, I think the different permutations there have been of a link between church and state have been bad for the church but good for the state. The two things that worry me about the arguments over not having a connection are:-

a. I would rather, and wouldn't you, Steve, rather, live in a state and under rulers who at least recognised they were accountable to God and had some aspiration to Christian faith, than a state and rulers who don't? And

b. What are the implications for us if we live in a state which formally commits apostasy? That isn't by the way the same as disestablishment. The Welsh Church Act 1914 wasn't national apostasy. Disestablishment under present day conditions and for the reasons it is argued about now, would be.


It seems to me that most people who maintain any sort of anabaptist position don't really appreciate quite how fundamental a difference there is between a state that is non-denominational, and a state that is non-Christian, secular or irreligious.

[ 02. May 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
Hmmm! OK, not every killer in NI was doing it for a religious reason - some of them were doing it in opposition to the religious reasons of others. But the conflict started from a Catholic civil rights movement reacting to Protestant discrimination, and then the Protestants reacted violently to that, and the left-wingers wouldn't have had the support they did if they hadn't appeared to be defending the Catholics....

I've already said repeatedly on Ship-board that I recognise there is more to the NI situation than the religious bit; but even you can hardly deny that it's a major part of the problem and a major aggravation. There is a reason why the Press rarely represents it as other than 'Catholic v Protestant'. And those deaths were not the result of Anabaptists throwing bombs or shooting guns - the Anabaptist 'system' would object to that....
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Of course the Anabaptist position would be opposed to political violence or religio-political violence. No-one is denying that.

The issue is the one that Enoch has articulated. To what extent are we expecting a state/society to informed/formed by Christian principles?

Or are we advocating some kind of withdrawal from society and its political processes?

Of course there are problems with Caesaropapism. But is the antidote to that the equal and opposite extreme of hiving off into eccentric and 'otherworldly' territory - such as the extreme Amish have done?

I'm not suggesting that Steve is advocating that and as he says, he has repeatedly distanced himself from that kind of approach.

We are where we are. The problems in NI go way, way back - and the events of the 17th century have a lot to answer for - as well as earlier ones.

But are we seriously suggesting that the existence of an Established Church in the UK somehow legitimises and encourages the kind of activity undertaken by Loyalist Paramilitaries?

I'd broadly be in favour of Disestablishment but can't see how it would effect things in NI one iota.

I'm not sure whether I'd go along with Enoch's concept of 'national apostasy' - people and individuals can apostasise - I'm not convinced that country's can.

That said, I am grateful for the way the institutions of this country have been shaped and informed to a large extent by the Judeo-Christian tradition. We've all benefited from that. Heck, even Anabaptists benefit from that did they but know it ...

[Biased]

I have a lot of sympathy with what Steve is driving at - and yes, I agree that the kind of issues that have arisen on the Orthodox Shit-Storm thread over in Purgatory are related to all this.

What I don't 'buy' is the idea that a separatist, Anabaptist approach necessarily solves anything. I'd be all in favour of Anabaptists leading self-sacrificial and exemplary lives - and if that is the case then bring it on.

Sure, both the Quakers and Anabaptists have maintained a great witness in terms of non-violence and so on - and I'd suggest that for various reasons the Quakers have actually had a lot more influence historically ...

What Anabaptism can lead to - at worst - is a kind of pietistic aloofness and lack of involvement with the wider world.

If there are Anabaptists getting stuck in and involved with things then great, bring it on.

But what I see for the most part is some carping and hand-wringing and blarting on about how wicked and compromised everyone else is in comparison with themselves.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I would rather, and wouldn't you, Steve, rather, live in a state and under rulers who at least recognised they were accountable to God and had some aspiration to Christian faith, than a state and rulers who don't?

All else being equal, I think I'd prefer to live in a state which was considered to be secular than one which was considered Christian. For two main reasons:

Pragmatically, the state being Christian wouldn't mean every person who considered themselves to be a Christian would be able to live freely and happily. There's 2,000 years of Christian on Christian violence and persecution as evidence of that.

But also I think a nation being 'Christian' can easily make mission and discipleship difficult. If I live in a Christian country then surely I'm a Christian; why do I need to do any of this over-zealous nonsense like prayer, sacrificial service and genuinely seeking transformation into greater Godliness?
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
I repeat;
quote:
please expound in detail, not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed.
Though I'm copying bits of the recent posts from others as material towards the said OP (and more selfishly as inspiration for my blog...)
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It seems that the problem here is that Steve is assuming that the fact that some people who espouse a certain doctrine have done terrible things it must be a result of that doctrine and so the doctrine should be abandoned. That's broadly the same view taken by militant atheists.

It seems to me that there is no more risk of organised violence from liberal Anglican pacifists like me, or liberal Presbyterian pacifists like the local minister here than there is from Anabaptists like Steve. A national or established church has the benefit of being available to all, being a place where everyone has the right to be welcome. No national church is ever in a position to say "well, it's none of our business" about any group in society. Of course the idea can be used for sinful purposes. But so can communion. It doesn't mean the sacrament should be abandoned.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
I repeat - again;

Not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed. I have taken note of your comments....
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Sitting in my hostly chair

Despite the admonition of my hostly colleague dj_ordinaire, we seem to be still in the realm of endless tangents ever further away from the OP. As dj said, we have allowed a degree of latitude in the interpretation of the OP topic but we are at the point now where I barely know what thread we're on.

The instruction relating to not getting personal also needs to be obeyed.

Can I ask posters hereafter to be mindful that they need to be relating to the OP topic? Otherwise, please go to one of the threads this thread has spawned or start another.

There will be no further warnings; the thread will just be closed.

seasick

Rising from my hostly chair
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I repeat - again;

Not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed. I have taken note of your comments....

When is this thread coming?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Gamaliel started it on 2nd May.

Jengie
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Sitting in my hostly chair

Did I or did I not say that further posts should be related to the OP?

If you want to ask a question of a specific poster, the Ship has a PM function.

k-mann and Jengie Jon, you should both know better.

Thread closed.

seasick

Rising from my hostly chair

[ 10. May 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: seasick ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0