ember days are always dangerous, especially today when the first reading for this morning is the second chapter of ezekiel.
so, here's my proposal, even though it might require me to leave my little hermitage amongst the loblolly pines:
rather than encourage ordination in the various "brands" of churches, a term i know every sort of division of the church hates for itself but is happy to call her sisters, why not begin ordination in the one church, holy, apostolic, catholic? the standards might be those proposed by the chicago-lambeth quadrilateral:
1. the holy scriptures of the old and new testaments as the revealed word of god.
2. the nicene creed as the sufficient statement of the christian faith.
3. the two sacraments--baptism and the supper of the lord--ministered with
unfailing use of christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by him.
4. the historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of god into the unity of his church.
but, although this would be the basis of ordination into the one church, i am suggesting that we would recognize that "no one can call jesus lord without the holy spirit," (i corinthians 12:3), so we would not "excommunicate" any part of the church. rather we would seek that all the church would recognize her unity because she is the bride of christ, his body, built on the one foundation of her lord.
education for ordination would be in any seminary of the whole church, one's course of study being determined by one's bishop or the person or group of person who exercised the equivalalent of episcopal ordination within one's local congregation, but ordination would be within apostolic tradition.
i am sure there are many possible objections to this modest proposal, but i think it is at least a recognition of the largely post-denominational, post-reformation nature of today's church. it would look back to the early, councilar church for that heritage of understanding and teaching that belongs to the whole church, and it would look to proclaim ministry of reconciliation for which we pray in today's collect from the anglican book of common prayer:
"O ALMIGHTY God, who hast committed to the hands of men the ministry of reconciliation; We humbly beseech thee, by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, to put it into the hearts of many to offer themselves for this ministry; that thereby mankind may be drawn to thy blessed kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
6 hours ago
6 comments:
In some ways I like this idea. Denomonationalism does get fairly absurd. I do have some questions before we go forward with it though. How would this happen? There have been many attempts to do away with denominations but all these attempts have only created new denominations. Also, this sounds very similar to the Independant Catholic/Apostolic Church movement.
Dale,
Dare I say that unity within the Body is no modest proposal, but one that rings with a prophetic edge. It is a clarion call that almost all followers of Jesus would quickly give lip service to, until it infringed upon the various traditions we all hold so dear. I'm quite sick of the endless "brands" of churches, yet somewhat paralyzed as to what to do.
The holy scriptures sure. The nicene creed (as guess it's as good as gets), but the whole 4th century under Constantine leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The 2 sacraments. Yes! As far as the historic episcopate (locally adapted), I'm in the process of rethinking many of the hurch traditions with the help of Frank Viola's book "Pagan Christianity". He, rather convincingly, argues that the church building, order of service, professional clergy, tithing, worship song leader, etc. all find their roots in paganism, and not in the Bible or the early church. Even as a part of a "non-traditional" community, this undoes quite a few things in my paradigm. I'm trying to process it all patiently, while I await the leading of the Spirit.
Just a thought, but in rethinking the New Testament church, you seem like somewhat of an apostle. One who helps establish gatherings of followers of Jesus, and revisits them from time to time for mutual encouragement.
As far as ordination goes, I'm becoming more and more disenfranchised with the idea. It seems to set apart a special few and in it's essence deny the priesthood of all who follow Jesus.
May the Lord lead you, lead us, lead his church in a ministry of reconciliation.
re: knightr4's comment:
ah, yes. that is the problem: everything tends to become its own denomination. and indeed my own background is in the independent catholic/apostolic church movement (and in the baptist and the methodist and the episcopal parts of the church). one can not of course always know what the results of one's actions ultimately will be. however, it does seem that the time is ripe in a way it has not been for a very long time for the church to take a leap forward (backward?). of course there are denominations which would find the whole idea absurd (baptist, for instance, i expect, and other very congregational expressions of the church).
and a big seeming disadvantage which i really find to be a huge advantage is that anyone being ordained in the "mere" church would not have an insurance group or a retirement fund or a guaranteed minimum income.
on the other hand, it also seems that the writings of such folk as brian mclaren, particularly in a generous orthodoxy and everything must change seem to suggest that the time is ripe for a recognition that the divisions of the tenth and sixteenth centuries no longer need paralize us. indeed, the work of e. l. mascall, particularly recovery of unity suggests that it is our agreements on some of the issues of the reformation which continue to divide us.
as i said, this is a suggestion for an area of work and discussion, not a finished idea.
re: ryan's comment:
ah, yes, constantine and the 4th century. and of course, although i haven't read viola's book, but i will now, there is a tendency these days to assure us that everything in "christianity" is from pagan sources of one sort or another.
one of the saving images of the fourth century for me, after of course the absurdity of suggesting that the bishops who had previous to constantine been used as tiki-torches in roman gardens, and so were not unaccustomed to being suspicious of the emperor, and also of course that they probably did not know how things would turn out, is that of john chrystosom, a little bitty black man, grabbing constantine's horse's bridal and upbrading the great ruler of the known world.
i would also point out that ordination is pretty firmly demonstrated in the new testament, and is not the same thing as the priesthood of the whole body of christ. this of course is counter to our american individual, i'm-the-center-of-the-world thinking, suggesting that we are baptized into a community. the few are set apart to service, not for honors.
so i am definately down with this plan now that i see were not talking about pope dale leading the One Catholic And Apoostolic Church denomination(not that i dont think you would be good for the job, i would just never wish such a thing upon you). i try to work towards this kind of church by acknowledging one church in my speech, prayers, practice and imagination. what else is to be done?
also, as josh and i head down to see nedi, i would like to be thinking about how ordination by a bishop in the episcapal brand of the church would not be what you are talking about. what, if anything, would i be agreeing to that would be superflous to membership in the one church. i suppose i could answer the question by rereading the ordination service in the bcp which we will probably be doing on our way down on sunday.
where do find ordination in the NT? where does the hierarchy so predominant in church history come from? it seems as though the reformers merely spoke against structure of the roman church and spoke up for the priesthood of all believers, yet they never applied their declarations to their ecclesiology. in the end does ordination really mean anything, or has it just furthered the distance between so-called clergy and laity?
Post a Comment