Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Ordination in general Message-ID: Date: 8 Aug 90 07:21:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. Lines: 29 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >...We don't ordain >women simply because we don't "ordain" anyone, being instead entirely >lay-led (which renders moot any attempt at a clergy/laity distinction, >so "lay-led" is a misnomer for us anyway). Yes, we have elders and >deacons, but they aren't regarded as clergy. Despite being an Episcopialian, I tend very much to the opinion that ordination is not particularly mandated by Christ. (one advantage to being an Anglican - they won't throw me out for disagreeing with the Church :-) Christ bapitised. And baptism is the sole requirement for membership in the Christian faith. And all of us are called to preach and witness. So I see no extra role to be filled by the priest. Also the word is never applied to Christians in the new Testament. Bishop is, however. This is essentially an extreme Protestant position, isn't it? Luther either said or was accused of saying 'every man a priest'. I think the greatest extreme is found in the Society of Friends (Quakers) who have - in my understanding - no formal destinctions such as elders. I have a little book from SPCK called 'Priest or President' which presents the case for a liberalisation of who may consecrate and administer the sacrements. Anyone want to discuss it? -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |