Tonight I have a class on Old Testament prophets. One interesting matter which comes up is the question of the differences between the Hebrew text (MT) of Jeremiah and the Greek text (LXX) of Jeremiah. In some places these differences are significant and thus raise the questions such as which text is (closest to) the original text of Jeremiah, was there an 'original' text of Jeremiah, and can two different texts bear witness to the one Word of God through a single spokesperson whose name is associated with each of the texts?
I am no expert on Jeremiah, let alone on the Hebrew and Greek texts of Jeremiah, but a quick observation to make is this: the four gospels are four variant witnesses to the one Gospel of Jesus Christ. We accept them all and believe that God's Word is spoken through them all. Could we accept that God's Word is spoken through both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Jeremiah?
That question leads to a couple of others. What would people make of buying Bibles that included translations of both versions of Jeremiah? Mostly we accept that the prophets of the Old Testament were inspired spokespersons of God: could we accept that the scribes and translators of prophets such as Jeremiah were also inspired?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Do we make Romans too complicated?
Somewhere in the midst of all Anglican troubles and tribulations is the very important question of whether God is judge of the world or not. Will there one day be a day when we will be called to give account for our lives to God or not. We do not talk much about this, indeed it has the feel of a prohibited subject - one dare not talk about judgment in the church of the twenty-first century, but the New Testament (to say nothing of the Old Testament) talks quite a bit about it, in both Gospels and Epistles. Indeed much of the Bible revolves around God's forthcoming judgment. If there is a day of judgment then, like an exam at the end of a course, or an appraisal after a time in employment, or an election in a democracy, or even an appearance in court to answer a charge (see, we humans have quite a bit of experience of judgment!), being able to pass muster is - presumably - important.
If God is not going to judge the world, perhaps because, as atheists allege, there is no God, or there is no possibility of anyone failing God's judgment, as universalists propose, then a whole lot of issues have something of a different perspective on them. But if God is going to judge the world then that might - to give but one implication - inspire us Anglicans to take Scripture more seriously as the chief means by which God has spoken to us. After all, Scripture gives us a clue or three about how to prepare to give account to God!
At the epicentre of Scripture's talk about judgment is the Epistle to the Romans. It is right and proper that one of the major storm centres of biblical scholarship today concerns how we understand Romans (and Galatians). Great arguments - as reported on this site once or twice before - are reverberating around the Christian world about whether Paul meant this (the Old Perspective) or that (the New Perspective) or something else (some mixture of the two). One question I have is whether we make Romans too complicated. It is a dense piece of theological work, and it contains many verses over which one can ponder much, indeed write a whole doctoral thesis on a phrase here or there. But, reading through it as a whole, rather than verse by verse, I wonder if some things emerge more straightforwardly than appears to be the case reading current Romans scholarship? I put this thought forward very tentatively!!
Reading this morning in Romans 3 I noticed these words in verse 19:
"... the whole world may be held accountable to God ..."
Looking up the Greek we see that the word translated in the RSV/ESV as 'accountable' is upodiko which is, literally, 'under judgment'. It is a word found only on this one occasion in the New Testament.
Romans and the debates about it are often worked out in terms of the word 'justification'. Who or what justifies us? How may we be justified before God, or by God? Are we justified by righteousness given by God, or belonging to Christ? In any case, what is 'righteousness'? The focus on 'justification' has yielded a great controversy over whether justification is something 'imputed' to us or 'imparted' to us, with a great deal of suspicion falling on any Protestants who sign up to a less than 100% commitment to the imputation version.
But (it seems to me) it is possible that we could think, slightly differently, that Romans is an attempt to work out how we might give account before God at judgment, that is, what answer might we give to the charge against us that we are not righteous (3:10), have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (3:23), knowing that the wages of sin is death (6:23)? Then (and here my suggestion that we read Romans as a whole comes into play) we find that Paul develops an answer, or an account which we might give to God which is satisfying as a whole, but not in its parts. For in the flow of Paul's writing subsequently we find talk of justification, righteousness, faith, faith of/in Jesus Christ, 'reckoned to him', 'justified by faith', peace with God, free gift, demonstrated love, 'baptized into Christ', 'old self was crucified with [Christ]', 'set free from sin', 'no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus'.
These are the parts of the answer, and Paul never stops long enough with any one of them to nail down which is definitive (to our incontrovertable satisfaction, at least). But the whole of the answer is clear by the end of Romans 8: if we account for our lives by claiming in faith what Christ has done for us through his death on the cross and rising again from the dead, which includes Christ being in us, and us being in Christ, then we are safe: absolutely nothing 'will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord' (8:39). In summary the account we give to God which will pass muster is simply this: Christ!
If God is not going to judge the world, perhaps because, as atheists allege, there is no God, or there is no possibility of anyone failing God's judgment, as universalists propose, then a whole lot of issues have something of a different perspective on them. But if God is going to judge the world then that might - to give but one implication - inspire us Anglicans to take Scripture more seriously as the chief means by which God has spoken to us. After all, Scripture gives us a clue or three about how to prepare to give account to God!
At the epicentre of Scripture's talk about judgment is the Epistle to the Romans. It is right and proper that one of the major storm centres of biblical scholarship today concerns how we understand Romans (and Galatians). Great arguments - as reported on this site once or twice before - are reverberating around the Christian world about whether Paul meant this (the Old Perspective) or that (the New Perspective) or something else (some mixture of the two). One question I have is whether we make Romans too complicated. It is a dense piece of theological work, and it contains many verses over which one can ponder much, indeed write a whole doctoral thesis on a phrase here or there. But, reading through it as a whole, rather than verse by verse, I wonder if some things emerge more straightforwardly than appears to be the case reading current Romans scholarship? I put this thought forward very tentatively!!
Reading this morning in Romans 3 I noticed these words in verse 19:
"... the whole world may be held accountable to God ..."
Looking up the Greek we see that the word translated in the RSV/ESV as 'accountable' is upodiko which is, literally, 'under judgment'. It is a word found only on this one occasion in the New Testament.
Romans and the debates about it are often worked out in terms of the word 'justification'. Who or what justifies us? How may we be justified before God, or by God? Are we justified by righteousness given by God, or belonging to Christ? In any case, what is 'righteousness'? The focus on 'justification' has yielded a great controversy over whether justification is something 'imputed' to us or 'imparted' to us, with a great deal of suspicion falling on any Protestants who sign up to a less than 100% commitment to the imputation version.
But (it seems to me) it is possible that we could think, slightly differently, that Romans is an attempt to work out how we might give account before God at judgment, that is, what answer might we give to the charge against us that we are not righteous (3:10), have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (3:23), knowing that the wages of sin is death (6:23)? Then (and here my suggestion that we read Romans as a whole comes into play) we find that Paul develops an answer, or an account which we might give to God which is satisfying as a whole, but not in its parts. For in the flow of Paul's writing subsequently we find talk of justification, righteousness, faith, faith of/in Jesus Christ, 'reckoned to him', 'justified by faith', peace with God, free gift, demonstrated love, 'baptized into Christ', 'old self was crucified with [Christ]', 'set free from sin', 'no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus'.
These are the parts of the answer, and Paul never stops long enough with any one of them to nail down which is definitive (to our incontrovertable satisfaction, at least). But the whole of the answer is clear by the end of Romans 8: if we account for our lives by claiming in faith what Christ has done for us through his death on the cross and rising again from the dead, which includes Christ being in us, and us being in Christ, then we are safe: absolutely nothing 'will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord' (8:39). In summary the account we give to God which will pass muster is simply this: Christ!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Why not go to the top and read the best?
Christopher Johnson of Mid West Conservative draws attention to a sermon by Kallistos Ware and to the encyclical Caritas in Veritate by Benedict XVI.
He also makes comparison between the profoundness observable in these pieces and the lack thereof in some other places! We live in interesting times as Anglicans ...
He also makes comparison between the profoundness observable in these pieces and the lack thereof in some other places! We live in interesting times as Anglicans ...
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Anglican priesthood and eucharistic presidency (2)
Following up on an initial posting here, I have some further thoughts on eucharistic presidency, beginning with some clarifications from the first, in response to some comments.
Clarifications
Scriptural underpinnings
In some ways I can only state that not everything about being Anglican is 'scriptural' if, by that, one means that we do nothing without clear Scriptural warrant. It is part of historic Anglicanism that we did not accede to Puritan tendencies to become a bibliocratic church.
But this, we might observe, is not weird with respect to the Reformation! A recent read of a paper on Calvin's eucharistic theology, "Union and Communion: Calvin’s Theology of Word and Sacrament" by MICHAEL S. HORTON in International Journal of Systematic Theology Volume 11 Number 4 October 2009 (h/t to my friend Bryden Black), reminds me that no less a person than Calvin, seeking in his predictably intelligent and learned way to develop as error-free a theology of the eucharist as possible (i.e. avoiding some of the pitfalls that Luther and Zwingli fell into) found his way as much by digesting the subtleties of Eastern Orthodox eucharistic theology as by absorbing the participationist understanding of St Paul himself (1 Corinthians 10). In taking up the former subtleties, Calvin was very much in favour of the epiclesis - the calling of the Spirit - which is about as 'unscriptural' as one can get when reviewing important aspects of eucharistic theology and practice
Change in Anglicanism
When some moot change in Anglicanism, and others respond that change should be through consensus rather than unilateral action, a swift response often cites the case of the ordination of women, which was introduced to the Communion through unilateral action (although reasonably quickly received and accepted as a viable change even though not unanimously agreed with).
My argument re consensus being required for the introduction of lay presidency is that this is a more significant change to Anglican orders of ministry than the ordination of women (which, after all, did not introduce a new order of ministry) and arguably requires a greater degree of agreement than for the ordination of women. But I use the word 'arguably' advisedly: there is an argument to be had over whether any one province could decide for lay presidency and not cut itself off from Anglicanism.
A key issue
One of my correspondents to the first post raised the practical question which, across the Communion, must often arise: when a priest is not available to be president at a eucharistic service, why cannot another person such as a deacon or a lay leader be authorized to preside at communion until such time as a regular priest is available? One tension in modern Anglicanism is between the desire for weekly eucharist (rather than, say, weekly Morning Prayer and monthly or even irregular Holy Communion) and the supply of priests to fulfil the role of priest-in-charge or vicar of a parish (to say nothing of priests to preside at eucharists across a multi-centre parish). It certainly seems like a good idea to appoint non-priests to preside when priests are not available.
One response to such an idea is to make the point that presiding at the eucharist is a special task, in particular a special task of leadership. The eucharist is not a mere recitation of prayers in thankful remembrance of Jesus' death, followed by distribution of cup and bread. Rather, the eucharist is a gathering of the community of the faithful with the risen Christ in their midst, with the intention of feeding and drinking of Christ in accordance with his teaching and his commandment. Over this event which lies at the centre of the life of the church one ought to preside who is discerned and recognized as an appropriate leader to do so: eucharistic presidency is a special task of leadership (according to long and unbroken Christian tradition from the days of the apostles). This leadership is associated with episcopacy and eldership (bishops and presbyters or priests, in terms of church office set out in Scripture). On this line of thinking, a deacon or lay leader authorized to preside would logically be authorized to be a temporary presbyter.
In turn this would raise questions about whether (a) temporary presbyters are a good idea (they might be) and follow a concept known in Scripture (that, in my opinion, would be difficult to substantiate), (b) people can become presbyters on the basis of either authorization (without ordination) or ordination which has only temporary effect (either is possible, but neither, as far as I am aware, has precedent in the tradition of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican churches).
Certainly it is true that Anglicans in different parts of the Communion have raised the question of lay presidency over several (or more) decades now. Various commissions have looked into it, reports written and recommendations made. The Diocese of Sydney seemingly has been within a hair's breadth of promulgating lay presidency for time beyond remembering. It may be an idea whose time will yet come.
But it is also true that it is the task of Anglican churches to discern priests, and the role of bishops to ordain priests and to appoint priests to communities of faith in order to ensure that eucharistic worship is conducted 'decently and in order'. A church working in this way is acting consonant with Scripture.
Clarifications
Scriptural underpinnings
In some ways I can only state that not everything about being Anglican is 'scriptural' if, by that, one means that we do nothing without clear Scriptural warrant. It is part of historic Anglicanism that we did not accede to Puritan tendencies to become a bibliocratic church.
But this, we might observe, is not weird with respect to the Reformation! A recent read of a paper on Calvin's eucharistic theology, "Union and Communion: Calvin’s Theology of Word and Sacrament" by MICHAEL S. HORTON in International Journal of Systematic Theology Volume 11 Number 4 October 2009 (h/t to my friend Bryden Black), reminds me that no less a person than Calvin, seeking in his predictably intelligent and learned way to develop as error-free a theology of the eucharist as possible (i.e. avoiding some of the pitfalls that Luther and Zwingli fell into) found his way as much by digesting the subtleties of Eastern Orthodox eucharistic theology as by absorbing the participationist understanding of St Paul himself (1 Corinthians 10). In taking up the former subtleties, Calvin was very much in favour of the epiclesis - the calling of the Spirit - which is about as 'unscriptural' as one can get when reviewing important aspects of eucharistic theology and practice
Change in Anglicanism
When some moot change in Anglicanism, and others respond that change should be through consensus rather than unilateral action, a swift response often cites the case of the ordination of women, which was introduced to the Communion through unilateral action (although reasonably quickly received and accepted as a viable change even though not unanimously agreed with).
My argument re consensus being required for the introduction of lay presidency is that this is a more significant change to Anglican orders of ministry than the ordination of women (which, after all, did not introduce a new order of ministry) and arguably requires a greater degree of agreement than for the ordination of women. But I use the word 'arguably' advisedly: there is an argument to be had over whether any one province could decide for lay presidency and not cut itself off from Anglicanism.
A key issue
One of my correspondents to the first post raised the practical question which, across the Communion, must often arise: when a priest is not available to be president at a eucharistic service, why cannot another person such as a deacon or a lay leader be authorized to preside at communion until such time as a regular priest is available? One tension in modern Anglicanism is between the desire for weekly eucharist (rather than, say, weekly Morning Prayer and monthly or even irregular Holy Communion) and the supply of priests to fulfil the role of priest-in-charge or vicar of a parish (to say nothing of priests to preside at eucharists across a multi-centre parish). It certainly seems like a good idea to appoint non-priests to preside when priests are not available.
One response to such an idea is to make the point that presiding at the eucharist is a special task, in particular a special task of leadership. The eucharist is not a mere recitation of prayers in thankful remembrance of Jesus' death, followed by distribution of cup and bread. Rather, the eucharist is a gathering of the community of the faithful with the risen Christ in their midst, with the intention of feeding and drinking of Christ in accordance with his teaching and his commandment. Over this event which lies at the centre of the life of the church one ought to preside who is discerned and recognized as an appropriate leader to do so: eucharistic presidency is a special task of leadership (according to long and unbroken Christian tradition from the days of the apostles). This leadership is associated with episcopacy and eldership (bishops and presbyters or priests, in terms of church office set out in Scripture). On this line of thinking, a deacon or lay leader authorized to preside would logically be authorized to be a temporary presbyter.
In turn this would raise questions about whether (a) temporary presbyters are a good idea (they might be) and follow a concept known in Scripture (that, in my opinion, would be difficult to substantiate), (b) people can become presbyters on the basis of either authorization (without ordination) or ordination which has only temporary effect (either is possible, but neither, as far as I am aware, has precedent in the tradition of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican churches).
Certainly it is true that Anglicans in different parts of the Communion have raised the question of lay presidency over several (or more) decades now. Various commissions have looked into it, reports written and recommendations made. The Diocese of Sydney seemingly has been within a hair's breadth of promulgating lay presidency for time beyond remembering. It may be an idea whose time will yet come.
But it is also true that it is the task of Anglican churches to discern priests, and the role of bishops to ordain priests and to appoint priests to communities of faith in order to ensure that eucharistic worship is conducted 'decently and in order'. A church working in this way is acting consonant with Scripture.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Dioceses supporting the Covenant
According to The Living Church's report the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams,
"has welcomed an endorsement of the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant by the Diocese of Central Florida’s board and standing committee".
Presumably ++Rowan will also be pleased to learn that the Synods of the Dioceses of Nelson and Christchurch in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia have resolved as follows:
"(1) That this Synod notes the Ridley Cambridge Draft (RCD) of the Anglican Communion
Covenant;
(2) That this Synod notes the Resolution of ACC 14, held in Jamaica, May 2009:
“Resolution 14.11: The Anglican Communion Covenant - Resolved, 08.05.09
The Anglican Consultative Council:
a. thanks the Covenant Design Group for their faithfulness and responsiveness in producing the drafts for an Anglican Communion Covenant and, in particular, for the Ridley Cambridge Draft submitted to this meeting;
b. recognises that an Anglican Communion Covenant may provide an effective means to
strengthen and promote our common life as a Communion;
c. asks the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Secretary General, to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee;
d. asks the Standing Committee, at that meeting, to approve a final form of Section 4;
e. asks the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge Text, at that time, only to the member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as The Anglican Communion Covenant;
f. asks those member Churches to report to ACC-15 on the progress made in the processes of response to, and acceptance or adoption of, the Covenant.”
(3) That this Synod:
(3.1) Supports in principle the Anglican Communion Covenant process as initiated by The Windsor Report (2004);
(3.2) Commends the Ridley Cambridge Draft as it currently stands as the practicable means available to make the Anglican Communion Covenant process become effective in the life of the Anglican Communion;
(3.3) Conveys this Synod’s commendation to our General Synod Secretariat and the Covenant Working Group by the Feast Day of All Saints, 1 November, 2009."
Provinces sign up to the Covenant, but provinces are made up of dioceses. The more dioceses queuing up to endorse or commend the Covenant the better for those concerned that provinces reflect grass roots support rather than the views of those who can afford the time to be at general conventions and general synods!
Conversely, those not supportive of the Covenant - remember, that includes those on the 'left' and the 'right' of Communion life - are committed to the life of the Communion and will be keenly aware of any momentum generated through diocesan synods and the like which begins to give a clear sense of the mind of the Communion on the Covenant.
"has welcomed an endorsement of the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant by the Diocese of Central Florida’s board and standing committee".
Presumably ++Rowan will also be pleased to learn that the Synods of the Dioceses of Nelson and Christchurch in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia have resolved as follows:
"(1) That this Synod notes the Ridley Cambridge Draft (RCD) of the Anglican Communion
Covenant;
(2) That this Synod notes the Resolution of ACC 14, held in Jamaica, May 2009:
“Resolution 14.11: The Anglican Communion Covenant - Resolved, 08.05.09
The Anglican Consultative Council:
a. thanks the Covenant Design Group for their faithfulness and responsiveness in producing the drafts for an Anglican Communion Covenant and, in particular, for the Ridley Cambridge Draft submitted to this meeting;
b. recognises that an Anglican Communion Covenant may provide an effective means to
strengthen and promote our common life as a Communion;
c. asks the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Secretary General, to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee;
d. asks the Standing Committee, at that meeting, to approve a final form of Section 4;
e. asks the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge Text, at that time, only to the member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as The Anglican Communion Covenant;
f. asks those member Churches to report to ACC-15 on the progress made in the processes of response to, and acceptance or adoption of, the Covenant.”
(3) That this Synod:
(3.1) Supports in principle the Anglican Communion Covenant process as initiated by The Windsor Report (2004);
(3.2) Commends the Ridley Cambridge Draft as it currently stands as the practicable means available to make the Anglican Communion Covenant process become effective in the life of the Anglican Communion;
(3.3) Conveys this Synod’s commendation to our General Synod Secretariat and the Covenant Working Group by the Feast Day of All Saints, 1 November, 2009."
Provinces sign up to the Covenant, but provinces are made up of dioceses. The more dioceses queuing up to endorse or commend the Covenant the better for those concerned that provinces reflect grass roots support rather than the views of those who can afford the time to be at general conventions and general synods!
Conversely, those not supportive of the Covenant - remember, that includes those on the 'left' and the 'right' of Communion life - are committed to the life of the Communion and will be keenly aware of any momentum generated through diocesan synods and the like which begins to give a clear sense of the mind of the Communion on the Covenant.
Anglican priesthood and eucharistic presidency (1)
A few posts below a stream of comments has been generated around questions of Anglican priesthood, with specific reference to presidency at communion and whether it is necessary to have a priest preside.
Last night, catching up on the internet, I noticed a comment along the following lines (wording deliberately revised so you cannot google this person!), "Anglican ordination is coming up for me soon, but it's not my understanding that a priest is required for eucharistic presidency. Hope no one finds out before I am ordained (despite me giving my diocese and my first name in this comment)."*
Here, for what it is worth, is a brief and beginning reflection on the reasons for priestly presidency, from an evangelical perspective:
(1) Many things Anglican, including priestly presidency, have been inherited unreformed from the undivided church of the apostles, first bishops, and church fathers. To reform them now should be on the basis that we now have sufficient grounds to judge that (a) the English reformers were wrong to pass this reformation by, and (b) our ancient forbears in the undivided church were wrong. I suggest that sufficient grounds should include a Communion wide consensus for change. I do not detect such an emerging consensus, do you?
(2) Evangelical Anglicans have many options to progress the cause of evangelicalism, including leaving the church for another, or founding a new church, as has happened on many occasions in the past (Puritans, Dissenters, Methodists, Brethren, etc). If the strength of concern over priestly presidency is sufficient to seek change without consensus then the door to departure is open. Conversely, evangelical Anglicans who remain in the Anglican church need to squarely face the fact that our church is a church in which many Anglicans are committed to priestly presidency, unlikely to change that commitment, and thus it might be a better investment of time and energy appreciating why we have priestly presidency rather than arguing against it!
There is a subsidiary note to this observation: as I understand the way other denominations work, the number of non-Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox denominations which permit 'lay presidency' at the eucharist is less than the number of non-Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox denominations! That is, it is not uniquely Anglican within the Protestant wing of the worldwide church to have a high view of the connection between 'the minister' and eucharistic presidency!
(3) The fact that many Anglican churches permit lay preaching but not lay presidency is not a very good argument for permitting lay (or diaconal) presidency. The premise seems to be this: the ministry of the word and the ministry of the sacrament are equal, so if one, then the other. But such argument cuts another way: if the unintended consequence of sharing the pulpit between lay and clergy is pressure on eucharistic presidency, why not prohibit lay preaching?!
That's enough for today ... more to come on another day.
* I am not sure which is the more egregious misunderstanding: re Anglican eucharistic presidency or the public nature of internet comments :)
Last night, catching up on the internet, I noticed a comment along the following lines (wording deliberately revised so you cannot google this person!), "Anglican ordination is coming up for me soon, but it's not my understanding that a priest is required for eucharistic presidency. Hope no one finds out before I am ordained (despite me giving my diocese and my first name in this comment)."*
Here, for what it is worth, is a brief and beginning reflection on the reasons for priestly presidency, from an evangelical perspective:
(1) Many things Anglican, including priestly presidency, have been inherited unreformed from the undivided church of the apostles, first bishops, and church fathers. To reform them now should be on the basis that we now have sufficient grounds to judge that (a) the English reformers were wrong to pass this reformation by, and (b) our ancient forbears in the undivided church were wrong. I suggest that sufficient grounds should include a Communion wide consensus for change. I do not detect such an emerging consensus, do you?
(2) Evangelical Anglicans have many options to progress the cause of evangelicalism, including leaving the church for another, or founding a new church, as has happened on many occasions in the past (Puritans, Dissenters, Methodists, Brethren, etc). If the strength of concern over priestly presidency is sufficient to seek change without consensus then the door to departure is open. Conversely, evangelical Anglicans who remain in the Anglican church need to squarely face the fact that our church is a church in which many Anglicans are committed to priestly presidency, unlikely to change that commitment, and thus it might be a better investment of time and energy appreciating why we have priestly presidency rather than arguing against it!
There is a subsidiary note to this observation: as I understand the way other denominations work, the number of non-Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox denominations which permit 'lay presidency' at the eucharist is less than the number of non-Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox denominations! That is, it is not uniquely Anglican within the Protestant wing of the worldwide church to have a high view of the connection between 'the minister' and eucharistic presidency!
(3) The fact that many Anglican churches permit lay preaching but not lay presidency is not a very good argument for permitting lay (or diaconal) presidency. The premise seems to be this: the ministry of the word and the ministry of the sacrament are equal, so if one, then the other. But such argument cuts another way: if the unintended consequence of sharing the pulpit between lay and clergy is pressure on eucharistic presidency, why not prohibit lay preaching?!
That's enough for today ... more to come on another day.
* I am not sure which is the more egregious misunderstanding: re Anglican eucharistic presidency or the public nature of internet comments :)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Covenant critics covet uncovenanted Communion
Back from off-line leisure to find the Covenant is twisting and turning on choppy waters. "Lord, save us"! Mark Harris points us in two important directions.
(1) The ABC confirms that Dioceses may endorse the Covenant but only Provinces may formally adopt it. Check here.
(2) Bruce Kaye, Editor of the Journal of Anglican Studies, leading Anglican thinking, fellow Anglican down under (resident across the Tasman from me), has come out against the Covenant. Read here.
I will post further when I have read the article. UPDATE: The article promises a more detailed future exposition which I shall look forward to. In my own comments on the article, in summary, I raise the question what, if the Covenant is a "bad idea for Anglicans", are the better alternatives? The point about the Covenant is not whether it is the perfect solution, even the "Anglican" solution to our present difficulties, but whether it is the best solution!
Incidentally Bruce Kaye has posted this article on a newly noticed blog he has started, called World Anglicanism Forum. I shall add it to my bloglist!
(1) The ABC confirms that Dioceses may endorse the Covenant but only Provinces may formally adopt it. Check here.
(2) Bruce Kaye, Editor of the Journal of Anglican Studies, leading Anglican thinking, fellow Anglican down under (resident across the Tasman from me), has come out against the Covenant. Read here.
I will post further when I have read the article. UPDATE: The article promises a more detailed future exposition which I shall look forward to. In my own comments on the article, in summary, I raise the question what, if the Covenant is a "bad idea for Anglicans", are the better alternatives? The point about the Covenant is not whether it is the perfect solution, even the "Anglican" solution to our present difficulties, but whether it is the best solution!
Incidentally Bruce Kaye has posted this article on a newly noticed blog he has started, called World Anglicanism Forum. I shall add it to my bloglist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)