Regulative Principles in Practice

Zachman comments that “… in the third edition of the Institutes of 1543, Calvin completely changes his position in the symbol of the laying on of hands.” (Image and Word etc. p315) Previously Calvin had rejected the practice since it not (explicitly) commanded in the New Testament but he later advocated it since the uniform custom of the Apostles means it is effectively commanded.

Ordination goes episcopal

Normally when presbyters are ordained in the C of E, other presbyters join with the bishop in laying hands on the ordinand deacon.

Apparently, in this diocese of Chichester, Bishop John has set the practice that now the bishop alone lays his hands on the candidate and ordains him. Other presbyters may then separately lay hands on the candidate and pray for them quietly as a sign of welcome and blessing.

I understand this arose because of the confusion over women's ordination. I guess some men did not want to be touched by women presbyters and some deny that they are such. I guess some men didn't want to touch women too. This way the peace is kept and contamination is spared.

As I understand it, in this diocese the ministry of women is welcomed but it is retired bishops who priest all the women. I'm not sure I understand that policy, but there we go.

George Herbert on Theological College

Here's a thought from George Herbert on minsterial formation:

Some [live in universities] in a preparatory way, whose aim and labour must be not only to get knowledge, but to subdue and mortifie all lusts and affections: and not to think, that when they have read the Fathers, or Schoolmen, a Minister is made, and the thing done. The greatest and hardest preparation is within: For, Unto the ungodly, saith God, Why dost thou preach my Laws, and takest my Covenant in thy mouth? Psal. 50.16

(Chapter 2)

George Herbert, A Priest to the Temple or, The Country Parson (1652)http://anglicanhistory.org/herbert/parson.html

Ministerial Formation Essay

The Lord being my helper, I've to write 2500 words by Wednesday on Ministerial Formation (for ordained ministry).

So any comments, questions, corrections etc. most welcome.

The essay gets entered for the Archdeacon Sutton Prize. I don't know what the prize is, but if you say anything helpful, I guess we could split it!

I don't even know who marks it / awards the prize but I guess we ought to think Anglican clergy.

They are after theological reflection and some comments on personal experience, I think.

I thought I might call it:

Theological and Trinitarian Perspectives

for Formation for Ordained Ministry

in Three Dimensions

3 aspects of ministerial formation:
- knowledge
- character
- competence

3 perspectives:
- normative
- existential
- situational

3 dimensions of ordianed ministry:
- diaconal
- presbyteral
- episcopal

3 orientations of ministry:
- the glory of God
- the pain of the world
- the renewal of the church

I hope I could make use of some of the ideas mentioned in previous posts and that I might manage some paragraphs on:

- the incarnation as public ministry
- the economic and immanent Trinity and the minister's private / public life, or inner / outer life
- the priesthood of all believers and a special priesthood
- the priest as example / icon / representative of Christ
- essence and fullness (cf. threshold learning outcomes and ideals)
- simplicity and integrity
- perichorisis and inseperable operation
- praxis and theory (cf. faith seeking understanding and service seeking understanding)
- ontology and function, being and doing, person and work
- creation, providence, salvation and life-long learning
- liturgical / baptismal / eucharistic formation
- ordination and ontological change, a decisive moment of formation
- a word study on "formation" / transformation in the Bible
- the gospel as maturation / transformation / sanctification from one degree of glory to another
- 9:38 apprenticeships and 2 Timothy 2:2
- ministerial selection criteria
- the ordinal
- the impossible vastness of the subject, because of who God is, the greatness of the gospel, the goals of ministry, the uniqueness of every minister and ministry

Any tips?

Priest / Elder / Bishop / Apsotles in NT & now for Anglo-Presbyterians

Off the top of my head, are we all agreed that:

(1) The English word "priest" as used in the Book of Common Prayer is related to the English word "presbyter" (elder) and not the Bible word "priest".

(2) When most informed Evangelicals think "priest" they are most likley to think mediator between God and man offering (propitiatory) sacrifices.

(3) Priests in the Bible are perhaps above all guard or guardians and stewards or servants.

(4) The terms elder (presbyter) and bishop / overseer (episcopos) are interchangable and refer to the same persons in the New Testament.

(5) It may be possible to distinguish the roles of "presbyters" and "bishops" in the New Testament (if not the terms) with "bishops" acting as senior presbyters with a wider geographical remit than ordinary presbyters.

(6) So all NT and modern presbyters are NT bishops and NT priests. Modern bishops are (senior) NT presbyters and priests.

(7) There are basically 2 orders of ministry: (1) deacons (2) priest / presbyters / bishops (2a) senior priest / presbyter "bishops"

(8) The Apostles were elders but not all elders were apostles even if eldership is somewhat apostolic. The modern role of bishop may be seen as especially apostolic since the NT figures who correspond to modern bishops were apostolic deligates or substitutes in a more direct way than elders were.

(9) This view may be thought of as a modified presbyterianism or a reduced episcopasy and has eccumenical potential! It is historically and biblically accurate and adapted to contemporary and abiding needs. It represents a classical Anglican understanding even if Anglicans today generally think more in terms of a 3 fold ministry.

Clear? Any corrections, additions?

Calvin on Electing Elders, Bishops etc.

In Calvin’s view a number clergy and the people to be served should be involved in candidates to the ministry.

In opposing the idea that Bishops (or even the Pope himself) have (or has) the sole and unilateral apostolic succession power of ordination, Calvin seemingly endorses the Early Church principle of having the people “elect” their elders (presbyter Pastor-teachers) in the sense that the magistrate and / or the people should usually have a veto on an appointment.

Calvin quotes Leo with approval:

Let him who is to preside over all be elected by all; for he who is appointed, while unknown and unexamined, must of necessity be violently intruded. (Ep. Xc)

Again:

Let regard be had to the attestation of honourable men, the approval of the clergy, and the consent of the magistracy and people. Reason permits no other mode of procedure. (Ep. Lxxxvii)

Calvin finds the same in Gregory and Cyprian.

(LCC, Calvin’s Theological Treatises, ‘Necessity of Reforming the Church’, p207)

This also has the practical advantage that the people are agreeing to follow and obey the godly teaching and example of the elder in approving him.

Calvin also explains the tradition that all the bishops of the provinces should assemble for an ordination, or if this cannot be conveniently done, “at least three… that no man might force an entrance by tumult, or creep in by stealth, or insinuate himself by surreptitious artifices. To the ordination of a presbyter, each bishop admitted a council of his own presbyters.” (p208)

Calvin is stinging, by the way, about Bishops who either through wickedness or fear keep good men out of the ministry and refuse to remove the unfaithful but rather try to unseat the godly Bible teaching ministers (p208f).

As Gregory said, Calvin says of Bishops: “those who abuse privilege deserve to lose privilege.” (p209). The Bishops must either change and appoint a different kind of man, Calvin says, or they cannot complain when they are despoiled of what is justice belonged to them. If they wish to be recognised as Bishops they must do their duty. Any man, whatever his title, who shows himself by his conduct to be an enemy of sound doctrine has lost all right to that title and office and authority. The ancient Canons of Church expressly forbid anyone to apply to a heretic so-called Bishop for ordination. Calvin is willing to face the charge that he has illegally made an incursion into the province of the Bishops (p209).

False Teachers in the Church of England

Here are some comments I made over at Daniel Newman's new blog (a wordpress thing with a funny latin title about the Trinity, I think). He is considering seeking ordination in the C of E sometime and from the little I know of him and it, I think he should go forward with that.

Who says you should publicly say so whenever you disagree with the Bishop or Archbishop on a serious issue? Surely no one assumes you agree. Disagreements in the C of E are all over the papers. I would have to spend a lot of time placarding my disagreements!

Always remember the distinction between believing and teaching many false things (which no doubt we all do) and being a False Teacher who will be damned and lead others to hell, with whom we must not associate or even eat.

And whoes job is it to deal with false teachers? Granted that there may be some false teachers in the C of E, they should be excommunicated by the church, its elders and people acting together after a due public quasi-legal process. It is not for you or me to excommunicate them on our own on our blogs though we must do what we can to promote biblical church discipline. As an elder, next year, d.v., I will have a responsibility to take a lead in that in my own congregation (under the vicar's oversight, under the Bishop...). Till then, if he's baptised and says "Jesus is Lord!" and is in good standing with the church, I'd have to have a pretty serious case made for having nothing to do with him.