quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I heard this phrase before when referring to ordained clergy. What do people think, is it hubris or is it an apt metaphor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
What is it even meant to mean?

---

Taking a jab at this:

In the sense that a sacrament is defined as an instrument of God with a visible sign and an invisible grace, the priest is understood to signify (point to) Christ's priesthood, and exercise his priesthood through their own sacramental ministry.

We see this in the celebration of the Eucharist, it is Christ who performs the celebration, but the priest is the visible instrument pointing the people of God to Christ.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
IMHO the priest is no more a walking sacrament than any baptized believing Christian. And in any case, sacraments are meant to be, er, partaken of. So we're either back to the cannibalism threads or ...
 

---

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Depends on how good looking they are!
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
What is it even meant to mean?

---

Taking a jab at this:

In the sense that a sacrament is defined as an instrument of God with a visible sign and an invisible grace, the priest is understood to signify (point to) Christ's priesthood, and exercise his priesthood through their own sacramental ministry.

We see this in the celebration of the Eucharist, it is Christ who performs the celebration, but the priest is the visible instrument pointing the people of God to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

We see this in the celebration of the Eucharist, it is Christ who performs the celebration, but the priest is the visible instrument pointing the people of God to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I dislike professional aggrandisment and support the royal priesthood in which all the baptised share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Then why does so much of the church seem to think that a "priest" is somehow different?

---

quote:

---

Historically, the word "order" (Latin ordo) designated an established civil body or corporation with a hierarchy, and ordinatio meant legal incorporation into an ordo. The word "holy" refers to the Church. In context, therefore, a holy order is set apart for ministry in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Then why does so much of the church seem to think that a "priest" is somehow different?

---

Because there is confusion about what it means. It derives from a Greek word that means something like 'elder' but has absorbed into itself the meaning that goes with 'cohen' because there is no other English word extant that has that meaning.

Oddly most of those who object most to the word 'priest' are, or are members of churches that have, presbyteroi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
... However, while I see ordination as an indelible sacrament that confers "character", I don't think it is helpful or accurate to say that it brings about ontological change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
However, while I see ordination as an indelible sacrament that confers "character", I don't think it is helpful or accurate to say that it brings about ontological change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Frankly, the phrase sounds pompous beyond words. And wrong. S/he administers sacraments; s/he isn't one. Such puffery!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

As is the life of every believer - does that mean we're all priests?

---

If you're a Protestant, yes.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Everyone who loves someone else unconditionally is a walking sacrament imv. As Jesus repeated the OT commandment that we must love one another, this is surely a sacrament too.

A priest is a priest as he or she has been called to give their lives into a holy order. Whether or not there are other calls such as jobs or family that call on some of their time, the particular organised church they are called into takes priority in their service of God.

Everyone has a specific calling of some kind, and all are called to love one another. We're all ambassadors for Christ, if we call ourselves Christians.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
As a Salvationist I would say that the whole of life as lived by a Christian disciple is a sacrament:

My life must be Christ's broken bread;
My love his outpoured wine;
A cup o'erfilled,
A table spread
Beneath his name and sign,
That other souls, refreshed and fed,
May share his life through mine.

Schillebeeckx would possibly agree when he basically says that if Christ is the sacrament of God then the church (all all its ministries), is a sacrament of Christ.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You forget that there are three orders in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

As is the life of every believer - does that mean we're all priests?

---

If you're a Protestant, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Clergy, in many denominations, are of course especially visible Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

But in what way do you see this as being different from the dying to self and sacrificial love that all Jesus-followers are called to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

But in what way do you see this as being different from the dying to self and sacrificial love that all Jesus-followers are called to?

---

Priests are priests 24/7

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

As is the life of every believer - does that mean we're all priests?

All of us are visible signs of grace in all we do.

---

No, we are not all priests.

The whole church embodies the priesthood of Christ but that does not mean that we are interchangeable.

In S. Paul's words, different limbs make up the whole body but a leg cannot replace an eye.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
But we give special honour to the less desirable members among us don't we?

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
If as Peter says we are a royal priesthood then we are all priests.... not all elders, deacons, overseers or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I led worship on Sunday based on that passage in 1 Peter.

My quick take was that as priests we are called firstly, to offer sacrifices - no longer for sin but of praise and of our lives - and secondly, to act as a vehicle for God's presence, both to build one another up in the congregation of believers, and to bring it to those outside.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Clergy, in many denominations, are of course especially visible Christians.

---

Surely anyone who displays or demonstrates the love of God and/or the attitude of Christ is equally visible - they simply don't wear visibly different clothes (internally we might say that they are clothed in righteousness).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Frankly, the phrase sounds pompous beyond words. And wrong. S/he administers sacraments; s/he isn't one. Such puffery!

---

And pass the white port.

Priestcraft and pomposity are in everlasting union. Much comedy to be had in the self-important club of fathers. Shame about the darkside that comes with any tight-knit elite. Nepotism's the least of it: if someone's in the club, you cover for them, for the sake of the club.

We all know where that's led.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Frankly, the phrase sounds pompous beyond words. And wrong. S/he administers sacraments; s/he isn't one. Such puffery!

---

And pass the white port.

Priestcraft and pomposity are in everlasting union. Much comedy to be had in the self-important club of fathers. Shame about the darkside that comes with any tight-knit elite. Nepotism's the least of it: if someone's in the club, you cover for them, for the sake of the club.

We all know where that's led.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

As is the life of every believer - does that mean we're all priests?

All of us are visible signs of grace in all we do.

---

No, we are not all priests.

The whole church embodies the priesthood of Christ but that does not mean that we are interchangeable.

In S. Paul's words, different limbs make up the whole body but a leg cannot replace an eye.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Clergy, in many denominations, are of course especially visible Christians.

---

Surely anyone who displays or demonstrates the love of God and/or the attitude of Christ is equally visible - they simply don't wear visibly different clothes (internally we might say that they are clothed in righteousness).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Pope Peter I says otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Pope Peter I says otherwise.

---

Where, please? If you are referring to 1Pet 2, this appears to be referring to the whole household of faith.

---

Absolutely Enoch. He who has a diminutive papal name let him see.

---

quote:

---

1 Peter 5:1-6
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Tend the flock of God that is your charge

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which word in Greek are you translating "charge" in that verse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
ESV has "shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight."

---

quote:

---

Pope Peter, proto-Protestant? I think not.

---

Ingo you surprise me

Back to the OP I imagine that Farrer is trying to move away from the Priest being a walking dispenser of sacraments, but what I wonder is how a priest (or elder or whatever) is somehow more sacramental than any other Xtain, I can accept "differently" sacramental but I can't see "more".
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
When I first read this I thought it sounded silly and rather precious.

I've thought about it some more and it still sounds silly and plain wrong.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
As reflected in most of the alternative translations you offer above, there is no word in verse 2 for "charge". The only place in the context where there is something approaching it is in verse 3, corresponding to "your lot", in a negative context of not lording it over the hapless bunch which God's lucky dip has thrown up around you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I also note the near-universal use of "among" rather than "over" in these translations for the Greek preposition "en"; and while there is the verb "shepherd", unless I'm mistaken you'll be struggling to find anywhere in the NT where anyone in the church apart from Jesus is referred to as a shepherd).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd like to see your case for "oversight" as described here being equivalent to "priesthood" (of some on behalf of others).

---

quote:

---

Pope Peter, proto-Protestant? I think not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
clearly I am in charge of that flock and tend to it.

---

quote:

---

There is John 21:15-17, of course

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd like to see your case for "oversight" as described here being equivalent to "priesthood" (of some on behalf of others).

---

It is not simply "in this specific text alone"

---

quote:

---

Except that the Petrine corpus contains some of the references most commonly used by those who argue for baptismal regeneration ...

---

quote:

---

To be concrete, the NT situation exactly mirrors the OT one. As you can read in Exodus 19:6, all of Israel was considered a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". This is the universal priesthood of the faithful. Yet of course this did not stop the Jews from also having a ministerial priesthood, and indeed a high priest. This differentiation is by the way also there in Exodus 19, see in particular verses 21-22 & 24. Precisely this pattern persists among Catholics, who have their High Priest Jesus Christ, a ministerial priesthood in charge of the sacraments and oversight of the faithful, and a universal priesthood of all the faithful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'll grant you that one, but I don't think you'll find any reference to a local church overseer as a shepherd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh yes it is, because that is the context you quoted to call into question Peter's being "proto-protestant".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course, one should ask oneself what 'shepherd' (either as a noun or as a verb) means in this imagery. Does it mean someone whom the sheep need to obey unquestioningly? Or is it someone who risks his life fencing off the wolves?

---

quote:

---

Raptor Eye: Sheep don't obey unquestioningly, do they? Sheep are strongly encouraged to go in the right direction, but sometimes one goes astray, and sometimes they're wilful: one finds a way out and others follow, thinking the pasture is better elsewhere.

Sheep need to be nourished, nurtured, and respected as well as being protected from wolves. The shepherd would lie across the gateway of the pen, to keep watch, as I understand it. (Hence 'I am the gate'). Above all, the shepherd must care about every single sheep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
... The OP was whether we agreed or disagreed with the statement that a priest is a walking sacrament. It seems to come from Austin Farrer...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
... This statement should be interred at dead of night, with a stake through its heart, hopefully never to rise again.

---

quote:

---

Archbishop William Temple expressed this view in his Gifford Lectures of 1932-3 and 1933-4. Temple argued that ‘Christianity is the most avowedly materialistic of all the great religions’ (p. 478). By this he meant that the goodness of creation and the idea of a sacramental universe was God’s chosen way and not that Christians were merely addicted to material things. It was, he said, in things of this world that the reality of God was revealed, ultimately in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in human flesh, but also in the Scriptures and in the Church. Materiality was not the initiative of humans but the initiative of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The quote from Farrer seems to be confusing two sacraments: the Eucharist and Holy Orders.

Whether it should be discarded completely seems to me dependant on how you define sacrament and the untangling of the two "official" sacraments of Eucharist and Holy Orders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps the non-religious person with very intermittent spiritual demands has a greater awareness of the priest as a walking sacrament than the Christian who has access to other spiritual resources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The quote from Farrer seems to be confusing two sacraments: the Eucharist and Holy Orders.

Whether it should be discarded completely seems to me dependant on how you define sacrament and the untangling of the two "official" sacraments of Eucharist and Holy Orders.

---

But you can't have one without the other.

The key function of one who is ordained is to offer the encharist. (and to embody a eucharistic lifestyle.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
Depends on how good looking they are!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps the non-religious person with very intermittent spiritual demands has a greater awareness of the priest as a walking sacrament than the Christian who has access to other spiritual resources.

---

Indeed - talk to any newly ordained and they're likely to tell you what a difference to their life has happened once they wear a collar.

People project their notions of God on to you - some will talk to you like a father/mother figure, some will be rude and abusive.

In that sense, the priest is a walking (or sitting in the pub or on the train) sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The essence of priesthood/the ministry/being a pastor is to do what Jesus did: set people free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Your concluding statement presumes that very "High" concept of the priesthood.....The best Anglican thinkers, I find, are those like ++ Michael Ramsey

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Both Farrer and Ramsey were abglo-catholics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
Depends on how good looking they are!

---

This?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm not knocking the Pentecostals here, but I've heard that statistically speaking, there are higher levels of burn-out and drop-out among Pentecostal ministers/leaders than there is among other churches and denominations.

[...]

I'd also suggest that, for all the qualms expressed here on these boards from time to time about an ordained or sacramental priesthood encouraging a dependency culture - it's often the other way around. Many of the charismatic evangelical groups I've encountered are predicated on the creation of a culture of dependency around the leadership or a set of principles even ...

---

For CofE clergy, I presume that recognition from the wider community is more important than the adoration or otherwise of a small group of regular churchgoers. (For their part, Methodist clergy sometimes complain that their congregations don't listen to them, and are unwilling to catch whatever vision it is that they're trying to promote. But this situation doesn't hinder a minister's professional life or his social status.)

The Pentecostal pastor, however, derives all of his prestige from the congregation that he leads (unless he also writes successful books, has a TV ministry or runs for public office. And what percentage of them do any of that?), so he has to work hard to create a congregational dependency on either himself or specific doctrines. Why would anyone turn up if he didn't care? Wouldn't he be out of a job?

CofE and Methodist church leadership generally entails less risk, unless the individual ministers specifically set themselves a difficult goal. But this seems to be a personal choice rather than an imperative for their careers in the church.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes - I think that's the case generally, SvitlanaV2 but would suggest that there is something 'systemic' about the creation of a dependency culture within charismatic and Pentecostal settings.

It may even apply to an extent in all churches that are not 'standard' or 'mainstream' in some way ...

One might even extend it to the RCs and the Orthodox insofar that a belief that one's own Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all the others aren't, rather limits personal choice and options ...



I'm certainly not suggesting that a dependency culture is limited to charismatic evangelical and Pentecostal settings ... but it does seem to be part of the modus-operandi in a way that is less overtly the case within Anglican, Methodist - and I'd say Baptist and URC settings too where the congregational model can spread the load and dilute any tendency for the minister to be the one with all the answers, the grace and power for the hour and so on.

Of course, there's something heroic about the Pentecostal pastor, Bible in hand, taking on sin, sickness and the devil ...

But it comes at a heavy price in terms of ministerial burn-out, the effect on their families and so on.

I'm not saying that being an Anglican vicar is an easy ride - far from it - but at least they don't have the kind of self - and/or congregationally -imposed pressures that come with the Pentecostal model.

My brother knew an ex-Pentecostal minister who is now working as a fireman. He says that loads of Pentecostal ministers have grave doubts about the message they're preaching and the reality of the 'tongues' and 'prophecies' and apparent healings that fizzle out almost as quickly as they are claimed ...

Yet many of them hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
Co-dependency can be unconsciously part of any religious or secular body. I think a certain sort of co-dependent demagogue would be attracted to what he/she perceives as "a position of power". There are many people with (often undiagnosed) psychiatric problems who are drawn to a charismatic individual. In Christianity the paradox is the power does not come from "you" or "me" but from Christ working through you or me. Hubris destroys spiritual life.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - I think that's the case generally, SvitlanaV2 but would suggest that there is something 'systemic' about the creation of a dependency culture within charismatic and Pentecostal settings.

It may even apply to an extent in all churches that are not 'standard' or 'mainstream' in some way ...

One might even extend it to the RCs and the Orthodox insofar that a belief that one's own Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all the others aren't, rather limits personal choice and options ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, there's something heroic about the Pentecostal pastor, Bible in hand, taking on sin, sickness and the devil ...

But it comes at a heavy price in terms of ministerial burn-out, the effect on their families and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My brother knew an ex-Pentecostal minister who is now working as a fireman. He says that loads of Pentecostal ministers have grave doubts about the message they're preaching and the reality of the 'tongues' and 'prophecies' and apparent healings that fizzle out almost as quickly as they are claimed ...

Yet many of them hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance.

---

This might just be me reacting against attacks on what I see as 'my kind of church', but these comments strike me as being full of post hoc rationalisations.

It seems, Gamaliel, that you've decided pentecostal / charismatic / revivalist church is bad, and then you pick out specific issues (which might well apply in some way or other to other flavours of church) to justify that view.

I mean, is the creation of a dependency culture really much less of an issue in Anglican, Methodist, Baptist and URC churches? Is ministerial burn-out much less of a problem? Do ministers in such churches not have the same tendency to 'hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance'?

Maybe you're right, but your argument just feels very convenient to me, and employed in order to justify a view that you've come to by other means. Sorry if I'm way off beam, though...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't mind you challenging these assertions in the least, South Coast Kevin.

I'm not singling out Pentecostal and charismatic churches as the only environments where a dependency culture can develop - indeed, I was careful to point out that other forms of church can do the same.

Indeed, if we take the RCs and Orthodox, for instance, one could say that they've got a built-in dependency aspect too - insofar as they each believe that they are THE place to get the real deal ... which - for whatever else that means and implies - suggests that adherents are going to be 'dependent' upon them for the kosher sacraments and teaching ...

I will hold up my hand and acknowledge that having been involved with charismatic evangelical churches very heavily in the past, I am inclined to highlight some of what I now consider to be their weaknesses.

That doesn't mean I'm indifferent to their strengths.

It's just that from both detached observation and personal experience I think that revivalist groups do encourage a form of dependency culture in a way that I've not seen in other expressions of church.

So, yes, there may be an element of post-hoc rationalisation there - but might it not also be the case that I've gradually moved away from those forms of church because I found them to be rather 'limiting' and creating an unhealthily dependent environment?

I'm not saying that pentecostal / charismatic / revivalist churches are 'bad' - simply that there are inherent pitfalls within their particular systems just as there are equal and opposite pitfalls in other forms of church.

I'm not saying we're pretty much stuffed all ways round - rather that we need to be aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of whatever form of church we're involved with. Then we don't get such a sore arse when it eventually turns round and bites us on the backside ... which will inevitably sooner or later - as with any 'human' group or institution.

Churches are both human and divine organisations, as it were. We're going to knock our knees and bash our shins sooner or later. It's best to be prepared for that.

I think that dependency cultures can form in any church community - I'd suggest though, that these are less apparent in more 'mainstream' churches as the expectations aren't generally quite as 'full-on' as they are in revivalist settings.

Ministerial burn-out is certainly a problem right across the board - it's high everywhere. I'm quoting statistics my brother-in-law obtained once which suggests that burn-out is higher among Pentecostal leaders than it is elsewhere.

So it's a problem everywhere, but a particular problem within Pentecostalism and I've suggested reasons why that might be the case.

As for ministers/clergy etc simply going through the motions and hanging on in rather than going out and getting a 'proper job' (as it were) then yes, that happens everywhere too.

My brother's friend the fireman was simply speaking as he found. He still had his faith. He hadn't abandoned Christianity or the church. He just couldn't face dealing with the same 'prophecies' over and over and over again and the same 'tongues' that simply sounded like 'shalabanana-na-na-na' and so on.

I don't know what this view is that I'm supposed to have come by 'other means'. What other means?

I've come to the views I hold by active engagement with real people in real situations - and not simply from posting on Ship or reading the occasional book on the subject.

I could roll up at your Vineyard church on Sunday and do all the 'stuff', use the right language, move the right moves, talk a good act - and you'd be none the wiser. Give me 10 minutes or so with a responsive and suggestible crowd of people and I could have them all flat out on their backs before you could say 'Jack Robinson' or Sellimahonda, aveabacardi'.

I know what I'm talking about, pal. I've been there, I've done it.

Apologies if that sounds a bit harsh. I'm certainly not suggesting that the opposite tendency expressed in the comment posted in the OP - the 'priest is a walking sacrament' is the way to go ... far from it.

Sure, the figures show that Pentecostal and charismatic churches are the ones holding their own and experiencing growth. Great. Glory be. But the stats also seem to suggest that they also experience 'revolving door' syndrome and high levels of ministerial burn-out.

Perhaps it can't happen any other way. Perhaps there's no way around that. Perhaps it's inevitable.

I don't know.

I'm wondering aloud and certainly not aiming to diss your church or anyone involved with it.
 

---

Posted by Lyonesse (# 2567) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Also how does a universal priesthood operate in constrast to a ministerial one? Is it that we can all intercede and pray for example or something more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My brother's friend the fireman was simply speaking as he found. He still had his faith. He hadn't abandoned Christianity or the church. He just couldn't face dealing with the same 'prophecies' over and over and over again and the same 'tongues' that simply sounded like 'shalabanana-na-na-na' and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know what this view is that I'm supposed to have come by 'other means'. What other means?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Mainly, the pressure to perform, I guess. That pressure (which I certainly agree is an issue) really turned you off from charismatic evangelical church, and now you (ISTM) impute lots of problems and difficulties onto that style of church that actually aren't specific to, or perhaps aren't even more of an issue with such churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know what this view is that I'm supposed to have come by 'other means'. What other means?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar's charismatic and tells me that he'd rather run the risk of letting some duff stuff through than not have stuff in the first place ...

The thing is, though, there isn't any 'stuff' there - it's all twaddle. You don't need a degree in spiritual discernment to see that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


My brother knew an ex-Pentecostal minister who is now working as a fireman. He says that loads of Pentecostal ministers have grave doubts about the message they're preaching and the reality of the 'tongues' and 'prophecies' and apparent healings that fizzle out almost as quickly as they are claimed ...

Yet many of them hang on in and stick with it because there's bugger-all else they can do and most employers wouldn't give them a second glance.

---

In the black-led Pentecostal churches the clergy are often part-timers, as they have to do other jobs to get a regular income. Of course, if their churches become very popular then they can switch to a full-time ministry, but at least they start off with work experience in the 'real world', and if they leave the ministry for whatever reason they have the skills to do other things.

As for Pentecostal clergy who aren't convinced about what they're preaching, that's surely no different from plenty of clergy in the mainstream churches! So long as the ministry provides a way to earn a living and to feed one's children the church community takes the risk that any minister might end up more or less just going through the motions. This is one reason why I'm not sold on the idea of having a professional class of priests. But there doesn't seem to be much of an alternative - other than limiting the time one spends with the religious community.

It would be interesting to know how different denominations compare when it comes to the clergy dropping out. Is it hard to walk away if you see yourself as a walking sacrament, or does that sort of identity become too heavy to bear after a while?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Two quick responses ...

@SvitlanaV2 - I can't lay my hands on the references, but I have heard that statistically the burnt-out rate is higher for Pentecostal clergy than it is for other types of clergy ... but the burn-out rate is pretty high all round.

Also, I don't think there are actually that many CofE clergy walking around thinking that they are some kind of 'walking sacrament' either ... it's a view that's been well and truly kicked into touch by most posters on this thread - including some of the more sacramental ones ...

Is it any different, though, to the pietistic comment that was once current that if you carry your Bible to church you preach a sermon a mile (or half a mile or however far) long ...



Praying on street corners to be seen by men comes to mind ...

@South Coast Kevin - au contraire - my interpretive grid allows room for charismatic gifts and for the supernatural. It's just that I don't see a great deal of evidence for supernatural inspiration behind what passes for spiritual gifts or prophecy/words of knowledge and so on in most charismatic circles these days.

You want prophecy? I can give you prophecy.

I could come round to your church this Sunday and make a fairly convincing fist of it.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you seem to clutching at straws in an attempt to deflect the implications of what I'm saying - that nine times out of ten the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

I don't see that as something to resist or be bothered about - if we can see the Emporer's hairy arse then we should point it out - and perhaps even apply Occam's Razor to it.

Making sure we work up a nice lather first ...

I'd be all for prophecy and spiritual gifts and words of knowledge and so on if I actually heard one that made me sit up and take notice.

I can't remember the last time I actually heard one that had that effect.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've also acknowledged that these kind of problems are common across all Christian traditions ... I've said that several times.

There are problems connected with 'enthusiasm' and problems associated with not having 'enthusiasm.'

It's like the Oscar Wilde adage about there being only one thing in the world worse than being talked about - not being talked about.

I'm certainly not letting non-charismatic outfits off the hook - they've got problems of their own.

It just seems to me that certain forms of spirituality depend on very close levels of interaction that can spill over into a form of dependency culture.

This is particularly true, I think, of charismatic evangelical spirituality. It comes with the territory.

Other problems come with the territory in other traditions and other spiritualities.

You can find dependency cultures elsewhere, of course, but it manifests itself in different ways. That's the point I'm trying to make ... it's a both/and not an either/or one.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
This thread has run its course if we're no longer discussing the walking sacrament concept. But the idea might work for me if it meant that the minister, thanks to his/her scholarship and extra time for reflection, was simply there to remind us of Christ's life and works, just as the bread and wine simply serve to remind us of Christ's sacrifice. This perspective probably isn't helpful if you have a high view of the communion table (or of the sacraments in general).

However, the Pentecostals I know don't seem to celebrate communion very often at all, or talk about 'sacraments'. If they do put their clergy on pedestals it's got nothing to do with that. This has led me to wonder about the supply of Pentecostal clergy. If they get so much adulation one would assume that there's fierce competition for all the posts available. But is this true?

One American commentator suggests that the fashion in the USA for 'megachurches' might be reducing the numbers of Pentecostal or charismatic clergy willing to work in the small, untrendy congregations. (The interest in 'celebrity Christians' must also work against churches that don't have the 'right' profile or location.) It's easy to imagine that even in the UK, where the options are fewer, the competition for posts is focused on a particular type of congregation, and that a high percentage of less favoured churches might have to go without the goal-driven, dynamic and powerful leader that they supposedly dream of. People like this can't be in huge supply in our society.

(BTW, one account I've read suggests that Pentecostal pastors have less burnout than others, but I suppose it depends on all sorts of factors; Pentecostalism is a worldwide movement, after all. I can imagine that in the UK, a combination of ethnic, cultural and social isolation must make it very difficult for some people to maintain their Pentecostal hyper-supernaturalism, especially if they have to be a role-model for others.)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
'Simply'? 'Simply?'

What is this 'simply' of which you speak?



Whatever the case, I don't think Pentecostal pastors get a great deal of 'adulation' as you put it - other than the celebrity, megachurch ones.

No, the rest of them tend to have a pretty hard time of it - and yet are expected to deliver the goods and keep on smiling.

A 'dependency culture' doesn't necessarily imply adulation - although it can involve that, of course.

It's generally a lot more subtle than that.

The only reason I raised the issue was that there seemed to be an assumption by some posters that a higher level of sacramentalism implied a higher level of dependency and/or adulation of the priest/minister.

I was suggesting that this doesn't necessarily follow and that - from my own experience - it's the charismatic evangelical churches that are more likely to create a dependency culture.

That isn't to say that other traditions can't and don't.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Well, if there is indeed a 'dependency culture' at the heart of Pentecostalism then the pastors obviously buy into it when it suits them. They're the engineers of their own downfall. In a sense this is true of all clergy, since, as you say, similar problems are present wherever there's a professional class of priests. They all seem to start off by upholding the system that pays them, regardless of what happens later.

I feel that many clergy can't really cope with all the burdens that the modern church and the wider society would like to place on them, let alone provide the personalised guidance that the Christian (and the spiritually curious) 'consumer' expects in other aspects of their life. This being the case, it doesn't make much sense for any of us to rely on them too much, if we don't have to. Anyway, the role will probably have to be reinvented in coming decades, because there simply won't be enough clergy, Pentecostal or otherwise, to fulfil traditional expectations.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
The "walking sacrament" phrase, although from a rather dated 1930s Anglo-Catholic point of view, can easily be translated into a more Protestant/Evangelical/Pentecostal sense if it is taken to mean the priest/minister/pastor is, by mere virtue of holding their office, "special" and somehow "hallmarked by the Almighty". This is, BTW, a concept which, in any form, I would challenge. Despite both my upbringing and affiliation, I see a lot in the Reformed idea that ministers and elders are both part of the ministry and it is the congregation which calls the minister and it is for it that he/she is ordained. I think the traditional Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Anglo-Catholic concept of the priesthood is an old wineskin which burst for me a long time ago and no longer contains anything of value. I am also interested reading the mainly UK Shippies' views of what C of E; Methodist (we now have the Uniting Church here) and Pentecostal ministers are like. The parallel here is not exact. Pentecostals here seem to vary a great deal. I know Pentecostal ministers here, both male and female, who do not conform to the stereotypes which some posters have. I also find that Protestant and Evangelical theology here is much better, by and large, than that coming out of the traditional Anglican places.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You're having me sputtering into my coffee, Sir Pellinore ...

I'd be pleased if I saw ANY theology coming out of Pentecostal and evangelical circles ...

More seriously, and hopefully without sounding patronising, I do think that the charismatic evangelical scene is 'coming of age' to a certain extent - and I do believe that if the vibrancy and enthusiasm of these movements can be harnessed to the old and tried and tested 'spiritual disciplines' - which is where South Coast Kevin seems to be heading - the two things can run in tandem to everyone's benefit.

I'd also go along with stuff that comes from the more 'reflective' end of the charismatic evangelical spectrum any day of the week compared to the 'let's be nice to everybody and everything will be ok' mush that comes from some traditional Anglican quarters.

So, any comments or criticism I might make here of the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene has to be seen in that light.

Meanwhile - a few further reflections.

On the 'dependency culture' within charismatic evangelicalism and Pentecostalism ... I think this is an inevitable corollary of the way these groups 'do church'. It's a very immersive, time-consuming and all-embracing way of doing and being church - to the extent that adherents end up with precious little time to do anything else or be involved with anything else.

When I was in a restorationist charismatic fellowship almost my entire non-working life revolved around church - I almost completely lost contact with everyone else apart from a few non-Christian friends, work colleagues and neighbours etc.

It creates a dependency culture by one's entire social life being absorbed/taken up by churchy activities. I literally ate, slept, breathed and shat church.

I do think there's a place for close fellowship, but there can be something very overwhelming and suffocating about these forms of fellowship - in a way I've not seen anywhere else.

That's the point I'm making. All forms of church have their upside and their downside. They all cast a long shadow.

A close-knit fellowship is great on many levels and in many ways - but the downside is that it can become claustrophobic - and, I'd suggest, limits people's ability to think and act for themselves in some cases.

Whatever the case, leaner and fitter and more flexible is the way we are all going to have to head - it's inevitable.

I don't actually see why we can't work all that out whatever our churchmanship - low, high, MoR or all stations in between ...

After all, as SvitlanaV2 says, many Pentecostal pastors/ministers operate a 'tent-maker' model, working in secular jobs. So do many Orthodox clergy here in the UK.

Whether we are nose-bleed high or snake-belly low or somewhere in between, I don't see how churchmanship in and of itself militates against flexibility.

I'm thinking of RC 'worker priests' in France for instance.

As far as the Orthodox go, they tell me that their priests are members of the congregation in the same way as Jewish rabbis are or Baptist ministers are - come to that - for all the beards and fancy vestments.

They seem able to combine a high degree of sacramentalism with a fairly informal approach in many ways - for all the kissing of priestly hands and so on that goes on.

On another thread, I've alluded to Justin-Lewis Anthony's 'If You meet George Herbert on the Road, Kill Him' - which purports to be a radical re-examination of the roles expected of Anglican clergy.

See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/meet-George-Herbert-road-kill-ebook/dp/B00AYY2RFS

It's certainly a good read but whether it achieves its stated aims is a moot point.

It's a while since I read it but within a charismatic evangelical framework, I think Ian Stackhouse's 'The Gospel Driven Church' contains some sound advice and models for pastoral ministry.

For all I've carped about certain characteristics of the charismatic modus operandi, I do think that some of the less stereotyped leaders and congregations do have a huge amount to offer right across the board.

These are tricky issues. One of the fads that was popular during the late 1990s - a particularly faddish decade in charismatic evangelical circles, I think - was for churches to 'deconstruct' themselves and become more 'organic'.

Those churches I knew which went down that route simply fizzled out ... or else had to rein things back in to a more regular format.

I'm sure there must be ways of sustaining church that don't involve massive commitment in terms of committees and unwieldy infrastructure on the one hand nor the kind of 'all living in one another's pockets' charismatic claustrophobia on the other.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
An interesting and extremely informative post, Gamaliel. My own background - originally RC in an Irish-Australian 1950s/60s milieu (although I am not I-A which made me a bit of an outsider as my father was Anglican)- where the priest was definitely an authority figure is quite different to yours in some ways and seemingly remarkably similar in others. Progressing through High Church Anglicanism, through a rather under the radar spiritual movement, which had the same effect on me as your pentecostal church, back to HCA and then RC. I am afraid all this has made me a bit of an "independent". Because I was not Evangelical or Pentecostal I can see their good points. When I was up at Trinity College, University of Melbourne (Anglican and including a theological college) I got to know some of the academics at Ormond College (then Presbyterian now Uniting Church) and Queens College (then Methodist now UC). These were all associated with what was then the Melbourne College of Divinity (now MCD University). I found the Presbyterians and Methodists, by and large, far better theologians than the Anglicans with the possible exception of the late Max Thomas, later Bishop of Wangaratta. Of my three children two are involved with a Pentecostal church: a place where the minister has a job and does not extort money. I find all ecclesiastical careerists and status seekers offputting. They are everywhere. Once again, thank you, you have clarified a few things for me.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A lot depends on circumstances and context. I wasn't particularly happy with certain aspects of charismatic evangelicalism - and the kind of authoritarian leadership structures it appeared to promote - when I was in my '20s and '30s - but there were sufficient compensations there to help me grin and bear some of the less palatable aspects.

That's not to say there weren't any redeeming features - of course there were. I was well into it at the time and gained an awful lot from it - the closeness of the fellowship was particularly rich ... but again that level of closeness depends on circumstances ... what I'd have found welcome and edifying as a single guy in my 20s I found signally unhelpful as a married bloke with young kids during the following decade.

That's how these things pan out.

Just as you probably cut evangelical and Pentecostal settings rather more slack than I would - having grown up 'independently' of them - I probably do the same with more sacramental settings insofar as I wasn't exposed to them later on and can see qualities there that I wouldn't have admired at one time ...

I'd probably be pretty cynical about sacramental settings had I grown up in them and been exposed to the downsides ...

And all traditions and expressions of church have their strong points and their weak points, their upsides and their downsides.

Pentecostal and charismatic churches have particular problems related to being Pentecostal or charismatic.

Non-Pentecostal and charismatic churches have opposite problems related to being non-Pentecostal or charismatic.

That's all I'm saying.

Careerism and jostling for position happens in all settings and traditions.

Provided we're aware of that we can steer our way through. It's when we pretend that our particular outfit doesn't have a heirarchy or doesn't have structures etc etc that we delude ourselves.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, 'I wasn't exposed to them until later on ...'
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Every time I see this thread my intrusive thinking (bless it!) says: "The Penis is a Walking Sacrament". It also comes up the appalling Bosch image of a German Reformation woodcut of Satan excreting monks in Luther Blisset's Q. "The Priest is a Sack-Uh-S..."., which I wish it didn't and don't endorse, but hey, talk to the voices, no?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


These are tricky issues. One of the fads that was popular during the late 1990s - a particularly faddish decade in charismatic evangelical circles, I think - was for churches to 'deconstruct' themselves and become more 'organic'.

Those churches I knew which went down that route simply fizzled out ... or else had to rein things back in to a more regular format.

I'm sure there must be ways of sustaining church that don't involve massive commitment in terms of committees and unwieldy infrastructure on the one hand nor the kind of 'all living in one another's pockets' charismatic claustrophobia on the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's when we pretend that our particular outfit doesn't have a hierarchy or doesn't have structures etc etc that we delude ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... The CofE experience of running congregations for centuries isn't a majority experience, and it can't represent a standard that everyone else must match - although plenty have tried. ...

---

I've got to say this. I can't help it. I know to us inside, the differences seem very important to us. But looked at objectively, if you were outside, do the other denominations really 'do church' or manage it that differently from the CofE?

If you are a Moslem or have been brought up completely secular, do a Roman Catholic church, a CofE church, a Methodist chapel, a Baptist chapel, a Brethren assembly or a Pentecostal church really look all that different.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


I don't know why you keep doing this, SvitlanaV2 - but you seem to assume that simply because I attend my local parish church I'm out to defend everything there is to defend about the CofE. I'm not.

Of course there are as many - if not more - churches that are non-Anglican. There have long been as many, if not more, Christians in the UK who are not Anglican too.

For instance, in the 1851 Church Census it was found that there was almost an equal number of practising Anglicans as there were Christians of non-Anglican churches - everything from Rome through to the Salvation Army - all the Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists etc etc and including the very minority groups such as the Catholic Apostolic Church and the Swedenborgians.

So I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

I've said upthread that I don't see why a 'higher' view of church and sacrament should - in and of itself - militate against flexibility and innovation. It does appear to, I'll grant that - but there are and have been various experimental attempts even within the very 'high' and sacramental traditions ... I've already cited the 'worker priests' thing in France.

I've acknowledged that flexibility is where we are all headed - regardless of churchmanship.

On one level, I'll admit, I'd love to see a kind of Barsetshire CofE - but without the simony, pluralism and so on - but I know that's not realistic - nor ever was.

So I don't know why you keep harping on about the CofE as if it's a yardstick I'm using with which to judge everything else. It isn't.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
I remember reading, some time ago, that the number of C of E and RC attendees at church in England was roughly the same. At that stage I suspect many of the regular RC attendees were Polish. Of course there were English attendees as well! But I think Poles attend Mass on Sunday from ingrained habit. It is a Polish identity thing to some extent. I would like to see the C of E as F D Maurice envisaged it: a comprehensive national church embodying mainstream Christianity in England as it did for centuries.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's debatable whether the CofE ever did that - Sir Pellinore - or whether it's always been an aspiration.

For a kick off there were always RC 'recusants' and it wasn't that long before various dissenting groups emerged.

I think SvitlanaV2 is right insofar as the Anglican claim or aspiration to be the 'default' church here in the UK is unrealisable ... for all its links with the Establishment.

Anglicanism here copes with that in various ways.

How successfully, is a moot point ...
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I don't know why you keep doing this, SvitlanaV2 - but you seem to assume that simply because I attend my local parish church I'm out to defend everything there is to defend about the CofE. I'm not.
[...]So I don't know why you keep harping on about the CofE as if it's a yardstick I'm using with which to judge everything else. It isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The RCC will be around to welcome those who want a lot more stability - although I don't know how they'll maintain that without seeing more vocations to the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whereas the average shelf-life for some of the 'new churches' was about as long as the life-times of their founder members.

He felt that we were seeing a generation of 'garage-churches' which would fizzle out all too quickly.

My own view is that some of the newer outfits will continue - and morph as they do so. I certainly think that the 'Quakers' of the future - their future equivalent I mean - are even now gestating in the womb of some of the 'new churches'. I fully expect some of these to adopt a more 'quietist' modus operandi over time. I think we can already see that happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whereas the average shelf-life for some of the 'new churches' was about as long as the life-times of their founder members.

He felt that we were seeing a generation of 'garage-churches' which would fizzle out all too quickly.

My own view is that some of the newer outfits will continue - and morph as they do so. I certainly think that the 'Quakers' of the future - their future equivalent I mean - are even now gestating in the womb of some of the 'new churches'. I fully expect some of these to adopt a more 'quietist' modus operandi over time. I think we can already see that happening.

---

That's about hit it on the nail on the basis of my experience of "new" movements.

People in general don't commit to the long term but to the immediate project based activities. [It happens within existing churches too - everyone has trouble filling key posts these days]. So it is with liquid church, organic church, emergent church, missional communities.

They have a limited life span because the DNA of the participants demands that. They get bored and want another new thing.

---

so the art of leadership is to repackage the same old stuff in a fresh way to keep 'em going
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha ...

For all the smilies, I think this is a serious issue. People's attention spans aren't what they were. The Orthodox Liturgy, for instance, dates from a time when people thought nothing of standing in church for hours on end.

I'm all for 'repackaging' things and making them easier to grasp etc but there's always the risk of dumbing things down.

I take Sir Pellinore's point about the Quaker 'back to basics' approach and clearing away the bullshit ... but I don't see that many people queueing up to sit in silence for an hour at our nearest Quaker Meeting House.

It's a tricky one. I overheard a conversation between our vicar's wife and a member of the congregation about an evening they're planning to update/inform people about a visit they made to a 'developing country' this summer to help with a Christian based development project.

'We don't want to put on a slide-show,' the vicar's wife said, 'That would be boring ...'

Would it?

Why would it be boring?

Why would that be any less 'boring' than if we were to all stand on our heads or dress up in the national costume of that country and 'do the little actions' and so on ...

Sure, I'm not advocating a high-falutin' academic lecture but there seems to be this obsession at the moment with making everything 'fun' ... lest everyone gets pissed off and doesn't bother ...
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
She might have seen the slides already
Joking aside it is very hard to be both accessible and profound.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
[QUOTE]so the art of leadership is to repackage the same old stuff in a fresh way to keep 'em going

---

It could be - but it depends. Most of life is doing the same things in different ways.

I wouldn't reduce church life to "stuff" especially since it's the DNA of a living and developing relationship.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
I suppose your Vicar's wife is afraid to do something in a cliched way, Gamaliel. You are right about attention spans though. I am sure, at my last Anglican parish, many people came to "events" like that because they had nothing else to do. There were a couple of parishes like this I remember, one in Sydney and one more immediately "here". There were the boredom element, the loneliness element and the possible undiagnosed psychological problem element. One of the things about a Quaker meeting is that you have to be able to sit still. Catholic mystics often stress this stillness element: you have to quieten yourself so you might, with God's grace, perceive something. Many modern pew sitters are very unquiet people: they cannot sit still. They always want something done for them. One of the reasons for the interest in many forms of Eastern meditation is the fact that, in Asia, they have a different approach to things. In Vipassana, Zen etc. they actually teach you how to sit and slow down the monkey play of the mind. We need this introduced or reintroduced to Western Christianity, otherwise it is in grave danger of becoming overly intellectual, with no "grounding" and/or obsessed with social concern for the sake of social concern. Unless social concern proceeds from deep Christian wellsprings within it is not genuine Christian social concern. Funnily enough, historically it was often great Western Christian mystics (in the true Christian sense of the word) who revolutionised social action e.g. Francis of Assisi.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - it's a both/and thing, I think ... rather than an either/or one ...

Incidentally, whilst I tend to give our vicar's wife as wide a berth as possible - she's far too bouncy and liable to get anyone within reach into a half-nelson and force them to lead or get involved with some activity or other ... - I'm not really knocking her in this instance.

I've seen some of the photos and heard some of the stories and I think the project they're involved with is intrinsically worthy and interesting without it having to be given some kind of jazzed-up treatment.

I'm only using it as an example of a particular tendency I'm noticing all ways round ... ie. we have to compete with what's on t' telly, what's going on down the pub etc etc.

Cut it how we may, the figures and studies do seem to suggest that church attendance dropped dramatically here in the UK as soon as there were other things to do on a Sunday ...

There was a very detailed and fascinating study done into church life/attendance in Huddersfield and you can see a massive and surprisingly fast fall-off from about 1920 onwards when the buses and cinemas started to arrive and proliferate ...

Prior to that, you had to rely on your local church or chapel for your sporting activities, for entertainment (magic-lantern slides) and much else ...
 

---

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus said 'do this in remembrance of me'. He was breaking bread and drinking wine with his closest friends.

Lets do that - remember Jesus when we eat with our closest friends, be it pasta and beer or bread and wine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, the whole of a priest's life is about being taken, broken and shared - not just during the time of mass.

---

As is the life of every believer - does that mean we're all priests?

---

If you're a Protestant, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To be concrete, the NT situation exactly mirrors the OT one. As you can read in Exodus 19:6, all of Israel was considered a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". This is the universal priesthood of the faithful. Yet of course this did not stop the Jews from also having a ministerial priesthood, and indeed a high priest. This differentiation is by the way also there in Exodus 19, see in particular verses 21-22 & 24. Precisely this pattern persists among Catholics, who have their High Priest Jesus Christ, a ministerial priesthood in charge of the sacraments and oversight of the faithful, and a universal priesthood of all the faithful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Except that the NT seems not to refer to local church leadership as being specifically "priestly".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Also how does a universal priesthood operate in constrast to a ministerial one? Is it that we can all intercede and pray for example or something more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're right, of course. It would be extremely difficult to develop this intentionally...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're right, of course. It would be extremely difficult to develop this intentionally...

---

I don't see why this should be the case, to be honest. Churches could emphasise home-based small groups over and above Sunday service attendance, they could provide training and resources for home-group leaders and family heads (however that's interpreted in any given culture), and they could put effort into developing ways of allowing the sacramental aspects to happen in homes.

If churches did all these things, I imagine there's be a steady but noticeable increase in home-based Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oh, the churches could do it. But liking the idea is one thing; generating the energy, the vision, organising (and paying for) the training and getting enough labourers ready to do the actual work - especially in the churches where it's most needed and where church leaders are the most stretched - is another matter entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To be concrete, the NT situation exactly mirrors the OT one. As you can read in Exodus 19:6, all of Israel was considered a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". This is the universal priesthood of the faithful. Yet of course this did not stop the Jews from also having a ministerial priesthood, and indeed a high priest. This differentiation is by the way also there in Exodus 19, see in particular verses 21-22 & 24. Precisely this pattern persists among Catholics, who have their High Priest Jesus Christ, a ministerial priesthood in charge of the sacraments and oversight of the faithful, and a universal priesthood of all the faithful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Except that the NT seems not to refer to local church leadership as being specifically "priestly".

---

Except that it does, explicitly. In reference to his apostolic mission, St. Paul specifically calls himself a priest. He doesn’t use the noun, ἱερεύς (hiereús, ‘sacrificial priest’), but he uses the verb, ἱερουργέω (hierourgéo, ‘to act as a sacrificial priest’), in its present participle form (ἱερουργοῦντα, hierourgounta), in Romans 15:16. As an apostle, St. Paul “acts as a priest with the Gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, hallowed in the Holy Spirit.” (My translation). St. Paul’s work with the Gospel – which seems to transcend just preaching – involves offering the Gentiles to God, perhaps through offering their sacrifices to God on their behalf (cf. Philippians 2:17). The phrase ‘the offering of the Gentiles’ may refer to the Gentiles being an offering themselves, or their sacrificial offerings (offered to God by Paul on their behalf). Or, likely, both. Our gifts should represent ourselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Also how does a universal priesthood operate in constrast to a ministerial one? Is it that we can all intercede and pray for example or something more?

---

Well, it could just mean that there are different tasks here. As a Lutheran, I see that the question is: Who can officially preach and administer the sacraments on behalf of the Church (cf. Confessio Augustana, articles 5-7 and 14)? But there are many ways of seeing this. The bottom line, though, is that the New Testament clearly says that the ‘local church leadership’ are specifically ‘priestly.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
E.g. a granny who does a bit of babysitting and wants to teach her neighbour's children how to pray; how would that be covered on a training course? Are there training courses that help parents develop a home-based devotional life that won't bore their children to tears? Or courses on the home-based devotional life for Christians whose family members are non-Christians? Courses to help ordinary people talk about their faith in their daily lives? And is this training promoted among non-churchgoing Christians, not just church members?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But if the church as an institution doesn't always actively seek to nurture the independent spiritual energy of its own members, how is it going to create a home-based faith culture among everyone else??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
ISTM that there is a complete absence of NT verses that refer specifically to the settled leaders (elders/overseers) of local churches as priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
As for "St. Paul’s work with the Gospel – which seems to transcend just preaching" the only non preaching and proclaiming aspect of his work (not the fruit) in the text seems to be "signs and miracles through the power of the Spirit".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
I imagine that you could rightly extrapolate that the preaching, teaching and miraculous ministry of the church is somehow priestly because it produces a fruit of sacrifice in the lives of those who receive it, but that seems to be a very different concept than is presented normally when "priestly ministry" is discussed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Phil 2v17 seems to picture Paul as the sacrifice more than the priest in the same way that Roms 12v1 pictures every Xtian as a sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
The idea that we are all priests and that some Xtians (leaders/ministers/pastors) at times officially exercise their ministry to express that does make sense, that is why someone "presides" at a Eucharist. But in this model surely the priesthood still resides in the whole church but is being expressed by an individual, it's not a different type of priesthood.

---

Maybe, but then we need to ask what it means to be an apostle, since St. Paul connects his sacrificial ministry to his apostolic mission specifically, and what he means when he, in Romand 15:15, talks of the grace or gift given to him by God, enabling him to perform this ministry. It seems to me that this is the same grace given to St. Timothy when he was ordained by St. Paul and the presbyters (cf. 1. Timothy 4:14).

And we also once again come back to the question of how we should do exegesis. I prefer to read the text in light of their actual reception history. And in ways that doesn’t mangle their words. Note, one again, that, in Romans 15:16, it is St. Paul, not the Gentiles, who is said to have a ‘priestly service.’ It seems that there IS a distinction between what St. Paul speaks of in Romans 12:1 and what he speaks of in Romans 15:16. They are connected, but not necessarily the same.

As IngoB has already pointed out, pointing to 1. Peter 2 as a proof that there isn’t a ‘special’ (or, in lack of a better term, ‘ministerial’) priesthood in the New Covenant is like pointing to Exodus 19:6 as a proof that there wasn’t a ‘special’ priesthood in the Old Covenant.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
@ K-mann
Bit of housekeeping first re usage of "leaders" I've been trying to use universal terms like "Eucharist" instead of "Mass" or "Lords Supper". I'm certainly not trying to import John Maxwell or Bill Hybles into the discussion . I'll stick to "elders", "pastors", "presbyters" and "ministers" if that helps.

I find a disconnect between a couple of things you have said
firstly

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
ISTM that there is a complete absence of NT verses that refer specifically to the settled leaders (elders/overseers) of local churches as priests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That might be. But since when did anyone read any text, religious or otherwise, completely outside of its context, both its specific historic place and its reception history?

---

quote:

---

Why assume a tortured metaphorical reading, when you can easily read it literally?

---

quote:

---

the fact that the early Church did indeed see presbyters as sacrificial priests

---

however if we take Phillip Schaffs Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol (which contains St. Clement, Mathetes, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Papias, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus.) as being representative we find that of the 162 references to the word "priest" only one (in Ignatius) makes reference to a Xtian minister as being in any way a sacrificial priest and the minister referred to is NOT a presbyter but the Bishop, every other reference follows the NT usage as outlined above.
From my, admittedly limited, research it seems that Tertullian and Cyprian (Third Century Men) are the first writers to speak in these terms. The notion of a Xtian sacrificing priesthood seems to be an post-apostolic innovation.
Further if we were to assume that IngoB's correlation of OT and NT cultus was taught in the early church then we would surely find that Xtian apologetics to a Jewish Audience (and I'm thinking of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the work of Justin Martyr particularly) would take a different shape because as well as having to prove that the Messiah could legitimately exercise a non-Aaronic great high priesthood there would have to be clear arguments demonstrating that:
a) a Xtian ministerial priesthood exists
b) that it is legitimate
c) that it is superior to and/or the fulfilment of the Levitical one
and d) that it can somehow include uncircumcised gentiles.

Have we lost a few key chapters of scripture or the early fathers?
 

---

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
I will come back with a more detailed answer later, but for now I will just add that if the word used by St. Clement, Mathetes, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Papias, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus is ἱερεύς, then it is sacrificial.

Ἰερεύς means 'sacrificial priest.' No more, no less.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
and they use it in the context of
1. Pagan priests
2. Jewish priests
3. Jesus our great high priest
4. The priesthood of all believers
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I also think that SvitlanaV2 is bang on in her analysis and also, I'm afraid, that South Coast Kevin is being rather optimistic and even naive.

There isn't a culture of 'house-hold' religion here in the UK ... nor even in the USA these days. What we've got is an emphasis on the personal and the atomistic.

We have a very different culture to that of South America which is more family and community oriented.

Where there is a family element - as in the US megachurches - the emphasis is more on 'who has got the best youthwork or kids' programme'.

Our local evangelical Anglican parish is effectively marketing itself as a 'family' affair with Messy Church and things you do together as a family with your kids.

In most UK homes these days you'll find people under the same roof doing very different things - one'll be on Facebook, another will be X-Box-ing, another will be watching the telly ...

To co-ordinate some kind of consistent collective spiritual development and activity in that kind of environment would be difficult to achieve.

It's one thing to say that the will isn't there from the nasty old professional clergy ... but I'd also suggest that there isn't a great deal of appetite there from the punters - as it were.

I was once part of a church which stopped having Sunday meetings for a season - in order for people to use the time to develop friendships and contacts outside ...

All that happened was that people lay in bed on a Sunday morning or watched 'Little House on The Prairie' ...



So - sorry Kevin ... but I just don't see it happening.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I often find that those who make a big deal out of 'organic' church and informal forms of church tend to cite examples from cultures vastly different from our own - such as Communist China or Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa ...

I think the most we could realistically expect from more organic forms of church - and flexibility is where we are all headed - is 'survival' rather than 'revival.'

I'd be happy with the former if the latter isn't likely - and it doesn't look at all likely at the moment, at least not in the way that revivalists often envisage.

The 18th century Great Awakening happened in a very different culture and society too - one where the basic Christian message was known to most people - even if they rarely darkened the doors of a church or meeting house.

Context is everything.

I fully agree that we are going to have to find viable models - what I don't see is how these could quickly lead to the kind of societal and cultural changes that we would require in order for there to be a 'revival' in the traditionally understood sense.
 

---

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
and they use it in the context of
1. Pagan priests
2. Jewish priests
3. Jesus our great high priest
4. The priesthood of all believers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
as an expression of 4 (as per Augsberg Conf?)

---

quote:

---

As I understand it, and if I understand it correctly, the Orthodox believe that all believers are priests - but they also believe that some are called to a sacerdotal ministry as 'priests'

---

quote:

---

There isn't a culture of 'house-hold' religion here in the UK ... nor even in the USA these days. What we've got is an emphasis on the personal and the atomistic.

We have a very different culture to that of South America which is more family and community oriented.

Where there is a family element - as in the US megachurches - the emphasis is more on 'who has got the best youthwork or kids' programme'.

Our local evangelical Anglican parish is effectively marketing itself as a 'family' affair with Messy Church and things you do together as a family with your kids.

---

very true, the last bit made me think of the recent National Trust advertising campaign.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Thanks for the kind comments above.

I understand that Fresh Expressions have gone some way to slowing down 'church decline' or providing growth, at least for the CofE. (They don't seem to have had the same impact in Methodism, even though the Methodists are also enthusiastic about FEs.)

The question is whether there is the capacity to increase and develop this work. Some commentators feel that there would be mileage in the FE movement developing relationships with and learning from the growing non-white churches, and also looking into the experiences of indigenous churches (e.g. the Baptists) that have bucked the trend towards seemingly inevitable decline. (Read from p. 62 and p.72).

But I feel that institutional responses will only go so far. Many concerned individuals won't be part of congregations that are willing or able to embark on these projects (although such congregations may be admirable in many other ways). Very little support might be forthcoming from these quarters. In such cases, it'll be down to those concerned individuals to reflect on their own ways of developing spiritual fellowship and community among the de/unchurched. Perhaps a website or a blog could be set up to help such Christians learn from and support each other.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm sure that would be a start ... how about starting a website or a blog on these issues?

However we cut it, though, we still need some kind of 'institution' even if it is a minimalist one.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Baptist shipmates will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard - from Baptists - that the 'bucking the trend' thing is more that the rate of decline has been slower and that, like other denominations - what growth there has been is largely among predominantly ethnic-minority congregations in the large cities.

That said, I do think there is much to commend in the Baptist model when it works well.

However, as with the independent evangelical and charismatic churches, the Baptists also suffer from something of a 'revolving-door' syndrome.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
What I said in my last post was that Fresh Expressions were having some success. The institutional churches should obviously keep on with these and other initiatives. However, there should also be more informal networks. Not every initiative should be institutional, i.e., by being sanctioned from on high.

As for the Baptists, whichever way you look at it they seem not to have resigned themselves en masse to the gradual decline of Nonconformity. For that alone, I admire them. True, they benefit from multicultural congregations in the cities - but that's a reality for practically all churches in the cities! And the revolving door experience seems to be a feature of most busy, evangelistic churches. Early Methodism went through the same thing. I'm sure it's easier if things are more settled, but can any of us expect our churches to be 'settled' these days? There are some congregations that can flourish by keeping everything on an even keel, but they must be in the minority. They benefit from environmental/social factors that may not be relevant elsewhere.

I expect that a good percentage of people tend to move on from FEs or other contemporary forms of alternative church (just as they may move on from the Baptist churches, or wherever), although it's very soon to put a number on it. The book I quoted from above has some early figures regarding FEs.
 

---

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
(Word of warning: all the below is just my impression of what's been happening in Baptist-land and shouldn't be taken as in any way "authoritative"!)

I think Baptists (at least BUGB*-affiliated Baptists - it's quite possible to be a Baptist not be part of BUGB) have become aware in recent years of the decline, not least because BUGB found themselves with a massive hole in their finances a few years ago. So conversations/discussions/arguments about change within the denomination have been taking place and changes, at least structural ones, have been happening. For example, there's been a fairly significant rationalisation at BUGB's HQ in Didcot, in response to what many saw as an over-centralised structure. Some power has been devolved to the regions (such as decision-making on "Home Mission" grants to support churches); there was also a suggestion that regions could be linked into "super-regions" (that's not the official title, I can't remember what it is), though whether this has happened, I'm not sure.

There's also been a push for more "pioneering" forms of church and ministry to be recognised and emphasised and to see ourselves less as a denomination and more as a "movement" (though that feels fairly cosmetic to me). So, for example, BUGB now brands itself as "Baptists Together" rather than BUGB. The emphasis is being placed more and more on "incarnational" church rather than "attractional" church (which is a bit of a bummer if your church, like mine, is more "attractional" in nature).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of this. Personally, I think the critique that some had of BUGB being this over-weening, over-centralised bureaucracy that was impeding churches' attempts to "do" mission was a bit of a caricature: it certainly never felt that way to me, though other people's experiences may differ. For some, the changes will have gone too far, for others, not far enough. Certainly from a financial point of view, my understanding is that BUGB is in a better position than it was, but this doesn't tell us whether decline has slowed or even stopped in any other ways.

But I think it's fair to say - at least for me - that Baptists haven't simply carried on the way they were in the face of difficulties and are seeking to do something about it. Whether what we've done is sufficient or not, I don't know. But I think there has been some attempt, however faltering, to grasp the nettle and actually begin to change things.

*Baptist Union of Great Britain - which, confusingly, doesn't include Scotland.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's about 7 or 8 years since I was in a Baptist church, Stejjie, but what you say rings true. I didn't have that much exposure to the central HQ down at Didcot but my impression of it wasn't of some kind of bureaucratic monster ...

To all intents and purposes we weren't that 'aware' of it on a day-to-day basis, anymore than your average Anglican parish is that au fait with what's going on at a Diocesan level unless there's a problem or some difficulty or other.

The Methodist circuit-system seems far more apparent - and potentially constraining - to me.

As for SvitlanaV2's point about initiatives not having to be 'sanctioned from on high' and 'official' and so on ... fair enough - that's an aspiration that is all very well and good until you come up against the need to finance and resource things.

Just suppose there was some kind of grass-roots initiative between the Methodists and Baptists, say, in Town X. All very commendable.

What happens when it gets to a scale where it needs an input of funds - some kind of grant applications, perhaps?

Unless the individuals involved are going to dig deep into their own pockets then there's going to have to be some kind of 'official' sanction or backing - either to bid for an injection from 'central' or 'regional' funds - or to make official grant applications to this that or the other funding body - if it's some kind of community initiative, say.

It depends on the nature of the initiative, I suppose. Not everything needs a rubber-stamp at diocesan, or synod or regional or whatever level it happens to be within whatever church or denomination, network or 'stream' we're talking about.

But if we're talking about initiatives of sufficient scope and size to require some kind of funding or support in terms of wider resources then I can't see how we can get around the 'official' aspect ... and that applies to the more ostensibly 'informal' churches just as much as it does to the more avowedly formal ones.

One wonders what these informal initiatives are of which SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin speak.

I don't get much impression of what they might be or might actually involve - except they're meant to be spontaneous and grass-rootsy without much by way of organisation.

Having something organisation-lite sounds wonderful, until you actually try to organise something and then you realise how much organisation is involved ...


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'm not sure what the problem is, really. Few churches are itching to support lay initiatives with cash, so many are bound to remain small. And if a small home-based fellowship does expand its remit and is taken over by church officials at a later date does that undermine the work of the founder? That's normally perceived as a win-win situation by the Church's standards, even if it's not what the founder envisaged or hoped for.

But not everything has to swallow up money. I'm part of a care home fellowship that was started decades ago by a Methodist laywoman who still runs it today. She invites local clergy to lead worship, but she often does it herself, and I've done it occasionally. This requires a little expenditure on useful books, and there's a small collection for charity, but what's required most of all is time and a concern for people, not money.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - but look at the context, SvitlanaV2. That fellowship is in a care home - it's a pretty circumscribed environment. I'm not knocking it - I'm sure it does very valuable work and I'm sure there are lots of similar initiatives around that go relatively unseen and unsung.

But a care-home fellowship is rather different from the kind of things that some 'organic church' proponents are suggesting. It's a low-cost, low maintenance example. There are other examples, I'm sure, which wouldn't be quite so light on resources.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And I wasn't just thinking of money ... the kind of organic, grass-roots fellowships of the kind that South Coast Kevin champions and envisages seem to be incredibly labour-intensive to me. Perhaps that's a good thing ... I don't know ... but for them to work effectively it would occupy almost all the waking hours of those involved with them ...

At least if they were to expand beyond a couple of pals meeting in Starbucks to chew the fat and encourage one another ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:



For instance, in the 1851 Church Census it was found that there was almost an equal number of practising Anglicans as there were Christians of non-Anglican churches - everything from Rome through to the Salvation Army - all the Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists etc etc and including the very minority groups such as the Catholic Apostolic Church and the Swedenborgians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...the kind of organic, grass-roots fellowships of the kind that South Coast Kevin champions and envisages seem to be incredibly labour-intensive to me. Perhaps that's a good thing ... I don't know ... but for them to work effectively it would occupy almost all the waking hours of those involved with them ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A care-home fellowship is rather different from the kind of things that some 'organic church' proponents are suggesting. It's a low-cost, low maintenance example. There are other examples, I'm sure, which wouldn't be quite so light on resources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
(Word of warning: all the below is just my impression of what's been happening in Baptist-land and shouldn't be taken as in any way "authoritative"!)

But I think it's fair to say - at least for me - that Baptists haven't simply carried on the way they were in the face of difficulties and are seeking to do something about it. Whether what we've done is sufficient or not, I don't know. But I think there has been some attempt, however faltering, to grasp the nettle and actually begin to change things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...there are certainly Christians around that I'd regard as very special, very close and among my closest friends/confidantes. They aren't in my church but in other churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
Twangist: Coffey/Edwards refers to the last two General Secretaries of the Baptist Union, David Coffey and Jonathan Edwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'BME' means 'Black/Minority/Ethnic'. This was a reference to Baptist churches whose membership is largely non-white. The Ship rarely mentions the challenges presented by such congregations in the West, but the reality is that in the large British cities many of the churches will be multicultural and/or majority non-white, which adds an extra layer of complexity to the issues that we like to discuss here.

For example, over half of churchgoers in Central London are now non-white, and in Greater London the figures are also fairly high. The Baptists have a higher proportion of black members than most other indigenous denominations, so any cultural differences regarding DH issues or other theological matters are perhaps more problematic in their denomination than in others.

Whether 'BME' ministers have a distinctive influence on their congregations in this respect is an interesting question.

---

Thanks
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's also worth bearing in mind that there are figures which show that 60% of all church-goers under the age of 25 are concentrated in the Greater London area - which suggests that a significant proportion will be in BME churches.

The rest will be spread pretty thinly across the rest of the UK.

SvitlanaV2 is right, the BME church issue doesn't crop up on Ship very often - largely, I suspect, because few UK Shipmates are actually from that particular background.

We're largely white and middle class, although some of us do trumpet our working-class credentials (sometimes unconvincingly it seems to me) ...

On the BUGB thing, I'm vaguely aware of changes in the Coffey era - but not entirely sure what they actually entailed ...

On the organic church thing and @SvitlanaV2 - I'm not entirely convinced I've got a different idea of 'organic church' to you - what my main concern is in that respect isn't around issues you've raised but the expectation in some quarters that if only we could be more 'organic' (whatever that means in practice) then somehow we'd see and experience revival and all would be fine and dandy.

A care-home fellowship is a good thing, but it doesn't equate across to some of the expectations that certain of the more revivalist proponents of 'organic church' are expecting.

All I'm saying is that as soon as any organic groups grows beyond a bunch of mates meeting in Starbucks to indulge in some pietistic navel-gazing over their lattes (which is unfair of me, but there we go ... ) then it has to think about things like resources and finances.

None of which grow on trees.

And that applies to time as well as money.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'd be impressed if the sorts of engagement I'm thinking of grew big and important enough to be absorbed by the Church and then get money thrown at it. I doubt very much that this would be the outcome.

Perhaps it's a question of context, though. I'm generally thinking of a post-Christian context where the churches have more than enough to do already and not a lot of money to do it with. H
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Oops! I think I failed to press the edit button above. What I meant to say was this:

I'd be impressed if the kind of engagement I'm thinking of grew big and important enough to be absorbed by the Church and then get money thrown at it! Your more usual claim is that these things fizzle out eventually. This would be the most likely outcome for individual lay fellowships, I think. Most people, whether inside or outside the Church, simply wouldn't care what these fellowships were doing.

The interesting question is whether these fellowships would become new denominations in themselves. This has happened in the past, but it's not necessarily so advantageous today. ISTM that this process is most useful for the independent BME churches mentioned earlier. They may want or need to convince the wider society that they're respectable, organised churches rather than badly-run cults, and institutionalisation would help them achieve this.

However, in many areas where church plants are most needed there's very little spare Christian money floating around, few middle class lay Christians willing to roll their sleeves up, and the clergy available are already overworked, so for new church fellowships in these places to drift towards an expensive hierarchical model without good reason doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[ 11. October 2014, 22:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
ISTM that this process is most useful for the independent BME churches mentioned earlier. They may want or need to convince the wider society that they're respectable, organised churches rather than badly-run cults, and institutionalisation would help them achieve this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. On the BUGB thing, I'm vaguely aware of changes in the Coffey era - but not entirely sure what they actually entailed ...

2. .... the expectation in some quarters that if only we could be more 'organic' (whatever that means in practice) then somehow we'd see and experience revival and all would be fine and dandy.

A care-home fellowship is a good thing, but it doesn't equate across to some of the expectations that certain of the more revivalist proponents of 'organic church' are expecting.

All I'm saying is that as soon as any organic groups grows beyond a bunch of mates meeting in Starbucks to indulge in some pietistic navel-gazing over their lattes (which is unfair of me, but there we go ... ) then it has to think about things like resources and finances.

None of which grow on trees.

And that applies to time as well as money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's post Coffey that the major changes have come about - although one could argue that the seeds of liberalisation in BUGB were sown in DC's (as he was known in Didcot) time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:


There's a desire to pioneer but to pioneer what? Perhaps we're seeing the church mirror society here: people get involved for a short term project (a church "plant" for want of a better term) for typically 3 or so years, then move on. Gone are the days when people are in it for the long term. Now it's meeting with people with whom you have something in common: where did learning from/engaging with people who are "different" from you go to?

To keep such things alive, something "new" always has to be happening or around the corner. Sometimes it does of course but sometimes you get the syndrome that is all too well known on these pages -- churches imploding (e.g. Lakeland, Victory church) on the back of hype not hope.

---

My understanding is that the early days of any church movement tend to attract the kind of people who like to build things. When those days are over and the more settled stage begins, those people find themselves out of place.

Perhaps this issue seemed less obvious in the past because there were simply more people involved to do the work at the later stages. But today the numbers of people who join overall are lower, so when the 'builders' (or the 'pioneers', as you might call them) move on, their loss is felt more keenly.

Some studies have genderised this problem (and class is also relevant). Church movements that initially appeal to young(ish) men will become more female over time, as the 'builders' find their skills less relevant and leave, while the women stay. Women can be builders, of course - although ISTM that fewer of today's new church movements and plants in the UK are started by women than used to be the case in the past. I don't know why that is.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've been thinking a bit more about 'lay-led' or grass-roots projects within the churches I know or have had experience of, SvitlanaV2.

The conclusion I've come to is that I can think of some highly successful and indeed impressive initiatives that have come from the pews or the plastic chairs as it were - to do with issues around childcare and protection, adoption/fostering issues and various relief and development projects internationally.

I can't think of any 'organic' church-planting activity as such - although I have been involved with church-planting attempts and initiatives in the past.

I come back to my point that a 'care-home fellowship' is one thing, an 'organic church' development something else again and a lot more difficult to 'pull-off'.

Unless I'm missing something, I can't see how it can be otherwise. I'm not necessarily thinking about expensive plant and top-down heirarchical models here.

A 'care-home fellowship' is a 'care-home fellowship', a church which sets out, however informally and in as low a maintenance way as possible, to extend across a wider constituency than that ie. beyond the care-home - is going to face inevitable choices and decisions that will, sooner or later, lead it into more 'institutional' territory.

I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Well, sooner or later there'd have to be a rota for getting the tea bags in - we wouldn't want to create a culture of dependency!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Heh heh ...

I sang with the Methodist choir today - two services and about a million hymns.

I thought I'd lend them a hand. I'm not sure I'll be in a hurry to do so again ... my vocal chords are shot ...



The minister made a quip about if we do something twice it becomes a tradition ...

I reckon there's a lot in that.

We can be as organic as we like but sooner or later we've got traditions, we've got committees, we've got structures ...

However we do church there's a lot more to it than meeting in someone's house over a cuppa and a few print-outs from some faddy book or other about how to do 'organic church' ...



Anyhow - enough teasing ... I'm going to be away for a few days so I hope things have developed organically by the time I'm back.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The minister made a quip about if we do something twice it becomes a tradition ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The house churches of the 80s wanted to conquer the nation but were unsuccessful; my view is that today's new churches should accept and prepare theologically for their limitations from the very beginning, rather than drifting towards being big, organised and powerful, then having to orchestrate a dignified retreat when decline sets in a few years or decades down the line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


The house churches of the 80s wanted to conquer the nation but were unsuccessful; my view is that today's new churches should accept and prepare theologically for their limitations from the very beginning, rather than drifting towards being big, organised and powerful, then having to orchestrate a dignified retreat when decline sets in a few years or decades down the line.

---

I think there's a lot of wisdom in this.

The trouble is, it doesn't make for a particularly rousing rallying cry ...

As realistic as it undoubtedly is.

On the innovation thing ... perhaps I'm old and past my sell-by date, but I'm still finding it hard to envisage what these 'new' things are supposed to look like ...

After all, there are only so many ways one can 'do' church - I'd imagine.

If there were all sorts of wonderful ways of doing it that hadn't been thought of or attempted before then surely someone would have done it by now?

I'm finding it hard to envisage what something so spectacularly 'new' would look like ... people standing on their heads to receive communion?



There's nothing particularly 'new' about people meeting in homes or developing so-called contemporary styles of worship (none of which are as 'contemporary' as they claim to be as far as I can make out ...)

Sure, people are, by and large, passing the older forms of churchiness by ... and we've not developed anything that seems to flow with the zeitgeist.

My main concern with the newer/more experimental side of things is that it easily becomes faddish and exhausting.

As far as the charismatic side of things go, I've not heard or seen anything that has particularly struck a chord with me that's come from that side of things for quite some considerable time ...

Other than the recovery, in some quarters, of traditional spiritual disciplines ...

Which might be the answer to some extent ... traditional, tried and tested 'means' expressed in contemporary ways. I dunno.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I must thank you for previous posts in which you've talked about the trajectory of many evangelical house churches in the 80s. Very instructive. We should learn from the past.

The past shows that there's nothing new in the world, just things that are old to you and new to me, and vice versa. But it also shows that all kinds of congregations can stumble and fail. The landscape doesn't reveal the number of church buildings that have been demolished in the past; but a bit of digging into local church history shows that that there were loads of them. And I could draw up a list of existing church buildings in my city that have long been converted to other uses.

IOW, there's no stability, really. The mainstream denominations have been around for a long time, but individual congregations do come and go. 'Alternative' church leaders burn out, but lay workers (and often even clergy, e.g. in the RCC) in traditional churches too get worn down and weary because there's noone willing or able to replace them. I'm a Churches Together secretary, and I'm aware that no one denomination is protected.

No individual or group has all the answers. That might not be a great 'rallying cry', but neither you nor I would claim to be looking for one, so we don't have a problem, do we?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Just thinking aloud, SvitlanaV2.

I agree with you that there's no such thing as 'steady state'. We're always in a state of flux and change.

I s'pose the point I was making was one that was in broad agreement with the one you'd made ... that it would behove new church set-ups to bear in mind that they too might prove transitory ... rather than seeing themselves as somehow God's last word on any matter ... which was essentially how the house-churches of the 1980s saw themselves.

The rallying-cry comment wasn't aimed at you, necessarily, but at those who might wish to rally behind such things ...



I don't know whether I've mentioned this before, forgive me if I have, but I once heard an RC priest observe - after he'd returned from a conference on such issues - that the average life-span of a religious order (the Cistercians say) was about 600 years, whilst that of a Protestant denomination was about 200 - 300 years and that of a 'new church' was less than a single generation - essentially the lifespan of its leadership.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Yes, you did mention those figures earlier in the thread.

Unfortunately, the longevity of the RCC isn't much help if you live in a parish where the RC priest is sick and elderly, and where the mission of the local church doesn't line up with your or your family's needs. But to you that's probably a dreadfully Protestant and 'consumerist' way of looking at it!

My impression is that the historical churches do well at pastoral work with the elderly, and are generally good at a more reflective, sedentary approach. So perhaps the ideal trajectory is a bit like yours; we should spend our youth in the dynamic 'alternative' churches, and transition to the more traditional ones in middle and old age. Then the denominational longevity of a particular 'new' congregation won't matter.

[ 01. November 2014, 13:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's one way of looking at it.

Then everyone would be like me and I'd feel very smug and self-satisfied.

Thanks for the tip!



On the RC thing - I don't know enough about how RC parishes function on the ground so I can't comment on whether or not they are selling people short.

My impression is that in most inner-city areas RC parishes are generally migrant ones.

Here, our local RC parish is relatively small but very active. In one of the nearest bigger towns the RC parish is very multicultural - but that's less the case here where most of the faithful seem descended from a handful of local RC families who stuck with things and built it up self-sacrificially from scratch. I can forgive them the tacky plastic iconography because I know something of the background.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The point is that RCC clergy in the UK and elsewhere are ageing and in short supply. Perhaps this doesn't bother most RCs because they don't necessarily have high expectations of a dynamic, active priesthood, but this isn't going to convince charismatic evangelicals or proponents of organic church that the RC way is the best way!

I'm glad that the RC parish where you are is doing well, but their success couldn't be replicated everywhere. People have to develop their own way of being and doing church for the situation in which they find themselves, rather than waiting for the RCC to do brilliant things for everybody.
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
The typical RC parish does not include only the 'ageing' clergy.It is indeed the 'people of God on their way through life and on to eternity'.There are the old and the young,the rich and the poor,the devout and the curious, the chewers of the altar rails and those who turn up at funerals.All have to be accommodated and considered.All have to be reminded in some way of the joy of the Gospel and brought,if possible, to a real encounter with Jesus Christ.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What the heck?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The point is that RCC clergy in the UK and elsewhere are ageing and in short supply. Perhaps this doesn't bother most RCs because they don't necessarily have high expectations of a dynamic, active priesthood, but this isn't going to convince charismatic evangelicals or proponents of organic church that the RC way is the best way!

I'm glad that the RC parish where you are is doing well, but their success couldn't be replicated everywhere. People have to develop their own way of being and doing church for the situation in which they find themselves, rather than waiting for the RCC to do brilliant things for everybody.

---

Who is talking about replicating our local RC parish anywhere else? They've got their problems just as everyone else has ... all I'm saying is that they've done very well over the years to build a parish from a very small base and against all the odds.

I admire them for that.

I'm by no means suggesting that they have a template that can be franchised elsewhere nor that what they are doing is some kind of model for anyone else to follow - such as charismatic evangelicals or whoever else.



Who is talking about the RCC doing 'brilliant things for everybody'?

These people didn't wait around for the RCC to do anything either - they simply got on with it and raising sufficient funds over the years to carve out an RC parish where one hadn't previously existed.

I don't know why you keep harping on about these larger and more venerable churches such as the RCC or the Anglicans as if somehow they don't face similar issues to anyone else.

All kinds of churches are struggling. Because our local RCC parish managed to establish itself from a standing start doesn't mean that it's going to carry all before it ...

I'm just making a few observations and acknowledging that they've done well to get themselves established, that's all.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I also don't think we can generalise about what RCs do or don't want from their priests.

I know an RC lady locally who - rather unusually perhaps - drives four miles to another town to attend Mass there because she likes the priest.

The local RCs seem to have an ambivalent attitude towards their priest - they think he's a good bloke but feel he's a lot better with toddlers and young kids than he is with adults.

He is a nice guy, rather otherworldly perhaps ...

I haven't a great deal of direct experience of everyday RC parish life - I tend to come across our local RCs at ecumenical gatherings and some Lenten activities. So I couldn't begin to comment on what they do or don't expect from their priesthood.

My impression, though, is that it doesn't seem to differ massively from the expectations that Anglicans or non-conformists might have of their clergy/ministers ...

They want them to be good pastors, good listeners and good all-rounders.

So their expectations are probably just as unrealistic as anyone else's ...


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gamaliel

You're the one who brought the RCC into it. I had no intention of referring to them, but you wanted to restate the point that RCC has lasted a long time while new churches often only last as long as the leader.

I assumed from this that you thought the RCC had something to teach the new churches. Or perhaps that Christians in the new churches ought to join the RCC. I'm not sure what your point was otherwise, because I certainly haven't said that the RCC is incapable of doing anything well.

The existence of an organic church community should't negate the ministry of a local RC parish church. Indeed, the two types of church are likely to attract rather different kinds of people, so I don't see why there would be a problem.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The point I was trying - and obviously failing - to make was that my local RC parish developed organically ... from very small beginnings with a few faithful families who formed the nucleus of a fledgeling parish.

My point was that this was an organic process and yet one which derived from and drew upon an old and venerable tradition.

That's all.

The 'let's all be trendy and talk about organic church brigade' don't have a monopoly on being organic.

That's all I'm saying.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


The 'let's all be trendy and talk about organic church brigade' don't have a monopoly on being organic.

That's all I'm saying.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0