Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Ordination in general Message-ID: Date: 20 Aug 90 02:45:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 52 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes: >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. It is true that Christ himself neither explicitly endorsed the concept of an ordained Christian priesthood (indeed, some parts of the Gospel could be quoted in support of the contention that Christ intended His followers to remain Jews), nor did he expound the rest of Christian sacramental theology as we have it today. This framework, however, was in place by, say, the end of the 3rd century AD. It was established by the early Church fathers, and thus by abandoning the priesthood, or the other features of Catholic sacramentalism, we reject nearly the whole of Christian tradition except what is contained in the New Testament canon, which was after all formed by the same men whose teaching we thereby abandon. This is basically the reasoning which John Cardinal Newman used in leaving the Church of England; namely, that the Reformation was not really a reformation, because the elements that were repudiated by the reformers were part of the Church from the beginning. Read the _Apologia_pro_Vita_Sua_ for the details of Newman's argument. Another instructive reference is the first chapters of Tillich's _A_History_of_Christian_Thought_. I personally have not left the Anglican communion, nor do I have any intention of so doing; but I am in the process of reexamining my belief in Protestant doctrines. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [Part of this depends upon what you think ordination means. For most Protestant groups it's simply a way of publically dedicating yourself to certain kinds of ministry. It does not give you any special powers. In the Presbyterian Church, for example, there is no difference in principle between the ordination of a full-time pastor and of an elder or deacon. The same basic ordination service is used, and pastors and elders are considered variants of the same NT office. That there should be some concept of special offices seems implied in much of Paul's advice to his churches, e.g. I Cor 12:27 ff, and in the ordination of the first deacons, in Acts 6. In particular, Acts 6:6 describes what I consider an ordination: People have committed themselves to a particular ministry, and a formal acknowledgement is made, including prayer and laying on of hands. --clh]