Thursday, May 08, 2008

Calvin on lay precidency

I guess everyone knows this, for what its worth, but since lay presidency is fashionable in some circles it may just be worth noting that we can be pretty certain Calvin would have been against it, at least as a rule.

Moreover, since God has placed the sacraments as a sacred deposit in his Church, we believe that individuals are not to use them apart, but that the use of them ought to be common to the assembly of the faithful, and that they ought to be administered by the pastors to whom the charge and dispensation of them has been committed.

Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches of France 1562, section 24


I think lay presidency is certainly possible (you don't need a priest to do his magic) but not the most appropriate. Whilst I can see there could be practical circumstances where it could be helpful, I think its in danger of being a reactionary departure from the tradition of the church (including the Reformed tradition). I reckon there are more important things for us to campaign on! For example, it would be great if the C of E sought to prevent people bowing down to the reserved sacrament before it introduced lay presidency.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I struggle to get my head round this one.

a. It seems reasonable that elders of the church officiate to ensure things like discipline.

b. Also if it is a visible word then there may be a link into the teaching authority.

So if by lay presidency you mean anyone can stand up and lead the Lord's Supper then no

But -if by lay presidency you mean that recognised leaders and teachers in the church do not need a dog collar, do not need to be called reverand, do not have to attend vicar factory first -then to disagree with that seems to be putting yourself on the wrong side of the argument.

Marc Lloyd said...

Yes, what I was trying to say is that I think it would be best if as a rule the ordained Bible-teacher pastor elders presided at the Lord's Supper and I think Calvin and the Reformed tradition, not to say the wider tradition of the church would agree with me.

I'm inclined to think that dog collars are a good thing and vicar factory is probably the most effective thing we've got at the monent, but they would be other stories!

Anonymous said...

And therein perhaps is the problem.

You need to agree on that story before you can agree on this one!

Nb -It's different to say that dog collars and vicar factory are a good thing (or that at least they have their place) and saying that only those who have been processed that way are legitimate elders of the church.