Richard Blight - 01 June 2008 01:17 AM

Can’t help but reply with a slight correction to this by Bob - which is nearly right . . .

The problem is that the word ‘Priest’ used to have the meaning of ‘elder’ over 500 years ago, but now has taken on the meaning of ‘sacerdos’ (not least because there is no other English word for ‘sacrificing priest’).

Hi Richard

You seem to be assuming that ‘priest’ can only have one meaning.  But that is not the nature of language.  While it might be true that for a long period the word was (and still is) used to describe a sacrificial ministry, I don’t think it ever had that meaning exclusively.  Cranmer himself retained the word, but sought to bring it back towards a more Biblical understanding.

It’s always nice to engage with another lover of words.

Bob

Bob Cameron said:

You seem to be assuming that ‘priest’ can only have one meaning.  But that is not the nature of language

What meaning liberal Christians apply to that word is possibly up to them. I hope they dont see the leader of the church as a person who is there to lead some kind of ritual religion. If they do, I think they miss the meaning of the role of a leader according to scripture.

The early leaders of the church didn’t call themselves priests, and saw themselves as presbyters.

I think the Roman influence, slowly elevated the sacerdotal aspect, which crept back again in in the early centuries.

Surely we, as biblical understanding christians (since the Reformation) have broken free from such ideas, and have gone back to the original intention of the role of leaders, as stated in scripture?

Calling our church leaders Priests is an error to my mind.

Ken (and others)

I’m not advocating the word priest at all.  I am an Anglican minister myself and I rarely use it (except when I think it is necessary for technical precision in terms of our Anglican formularies).  In fact, I mostly refer to myself as the senior pastor of the parish, so it probably won’t be long before someone out there ‘accuses’ me of being a Baptist!

I’m simply wanting to make the point that: 1) language is a rather fluid thing which generally refuses to be pinned down to narrow definitions, and 2) trying to get everyone to use the word ‘presbyter’ instead of priest is probably not going to do a whole lot to change people’s thinking.

Having said that, if we move to change all our Anglican terminology (in Sydney, at least) to excise priest and only use presbyter, I’ll quite hapily cooperate.  But I’ll also go on teaching what the scriptures say about ministry, about leadership/eldership, and about the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus at the cross, which I think will have far more long-term impact than the odd change of terms.

Regards,

Bob

I tend to see the terms as interchangeable, so I like Bob’s approach. Priest, minister, pastor, padre, vicar, presbyter, avocado.... (OK, avocado is probably out of place.. but worthy of respect), they are all the same to me.
Oh, and I agree, in part with Ken. Where ritual replaces faith then it’s the spiritual equivalent to a conversation full of cliches, it’s just that we’re talking to God in meaningless drivel and not so much to one another.

I’m confused… the female bishop was given oversight over traditionally “female” ministries, and not over a region, to appease evangelical Capital City Mexicans?

I think its great that she is given a crack at those ministries, but THERE IS A VERY LOADED SYMBOLISM WITH THE TITLE OF BISHOP. The Governor General might be just another public servant, with little impact on national affairs in a real sense, but she is still a head of state, and she still signs the paperwork from the Parliament. There is a powerful symbolism at hand, and that is what is creating problems.

Serving God doesn’t require the title of Bishop as I’m sure Mr Stewart or Mr Jensen would fall over themselves to mention. Why the desire to cause division and subvert the church by falling into Eve’s original sin - to lead man when she should be led? The fact that the Victorian bishop was given oversight over various feminine ministries implies to “me” (by its softness) that this was a political move for liberal sympathisers, rather than a genuine assertion of authority for the ladies. If she could be consdered a “real” bishop, she should have been easily placed over a geopgraphical region.

Owen Atkins - 03 June 2008 01:36 AM

I tend to see the terms as interchangeable, so I like Bob’s approach. Priest, minister, pastor, padre, vicar, presbyter, avocado....

I think my kids would approve of avocado - they would say it reminds them of their father-figure (or was that their father’s figure) . . .

this thread has gone pear-shaped, or is that the point?

I think we have had other threads on titles, however, minister is probably a misleading one to use as well, since Ephesians 4:10-12 in many translations says the purpose of the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/teachers is to get God’s people to minister and thus build the body. Yet Article XXIII of the 39 Articles says It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to iudge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

From that Article the church leader is to preach and minister the sacraments, thus minister is used in a different way to that in Ephesians 4:10-12.

Once again we have the problem of semantics. Minister in Articles XXIII, XXIV means the church leader is ministering the Sacraments. Minister in Article XXVI means the church leader is ministering the Word and Sacraments. Minister in Article XXXVI means someone in the order of deacons or someone in the order of priests. Whereas minister in Ephesians 4:10-12 is used in such a way that the people who have benefited from the gifts of prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors & teachers (or pastor-teachers) go on to use their gifts to build the body of Christ.

Church leaders are called many things in the New Testament, including bishops or overseers, presbyters (or priests), elders, deacons, Timothy, Apollos…

Non church leaders are also called many things such as believers, priests, saints, holy nation, ministers, body of Christ, followers of the way, Christians…

To justify the Anglican 3-fold structure of Bishop, Priest (Presbyter?) and Deacon, you need to begin with the New Testament, but move into the early church fathers to see it develop to similar to what we have. According to our Anglican Constitution & the 39 Articles I am a Minister. According to our Anglican Constitution & the 39 Articles I am in the order of Priests.

Semantics…

However, on the theme of the thread’s title, is anyone going to attempt to answer my question (in #14) about the Constitutional validity of female assistant bishops?

Whether or not “priest” is a valid translation of the Greek term seems irrelevant to me. It would be foolish to use the word because of associations with the Jewish and RC priests.

The terms can be helpful in some contexts and unhelpful in others.

Please do not give a blanket ban on the term so that it will be restricted in the times when it is helpful, such as when speaking with Anglicans who have not been used to the more evangelical parts of the Anglican church, & who may just see the term as meaning an officially recognised & ordained person who is authorised to “minister the Word and Sacraments”.

I don’t see how using the term to reinforce a misconception is helpful.

is anyone going to attempt to answer my question (in #14) about the Constitutional validity of female assistant bishops?

Sydney Diocese’s position is that women bishops (whether Diocesan or assistant) is unconstitutional. Am i right?

The Appellate Tribunal ruled 4-3 otherwise. That ruling doesn’t change the above.

You’d have to ask the Sydney bishops what agreement they came up with the other Dioceses at their meeting at Newcastle last month.

Sydney Diocese’s position is that women bishops (whether Diocesan or assistant) is unconstitutional. Am i right?

No. Glenn Davies wrote a report on what happened to change the situation. My remembrance of it was that he was convinced that the wording from the Tribunal said that Diocesan bishops could be either sex, but Assistant bishops had to be male.

AUSTRALIAN ANGLICAN BISHOPS’ PROTOCOL
YEAR: 2008
WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE

1.  As bishops of the Anglican Church of Australia, we recognise that the ministry of ordained women has been accepted in many dioceses of this Church, and also acknowledge that there are those who, for various reasons and to varying degrees, are unable to accept women in the ordained ministry.

2.  We recognise the good faith of those who support the ordination and consecration of women and of those who cannot receive these developments, and pledge that those who hold either conviction will continue to have a valued and respected place in this Church.

3. We resolve to nurture the highest possible level of collegiality as bishops, seeking to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4.  We affirm that all people are made in the image of God, and expressly reject any intolerance or unjust discrimination against any member of this Church on the grounds of gender, since all are one in Christ Jesus, while acknowledging that diverse biblical and theological views on the place of gender in the order of creation and the church are genuinely held.

5.  We affirm that episcopal ministry should be available to every community of faith and every member of this Church, whatever their belief as to the acceptability of a woman holding office as a bishop, and that the diocesan bishop will ensure that pastorally sensitive and appropriate episcopal ministry is provided.

6. We affirm that every diocesan bishop and every bishop providing episcopal
ministry within a diocese should be mutually accountable in collegial solidarity with his or her episcopal colleagues for ensuring that there are reasonable and appropriate arrangements for episcopal ministry. Accordingly, we encourage all dioceses who desire to appoint or elect women as bishops to make provision for reasonable and appropriate episcopal ministry, addressing matters including the following:
a. arrangements for episcopal visitation, confirmation and ordination;
b. provisions for matters of discipline and pastoral succession;
c. procedures through which a community of faith may request the provision of
this ministry; and
d. provision about the manner in which the costs of providing this ministry are
to be borne.
We also note the proposed provisions for alternative episcopal ministryin the Bill for
a Church Law (Further Clarification) Canon 2004 and commend these to the dioceses
for consideration in developing “reasonable and appropriate arrangements” with a
degree of continuity across the Anglican Church of Australia.

7.  We recommend that the custom of the Metropolitan or Primate acting as chief consecrator should be varied to the extent necessary when the Metropolitan or Primate is a woman or when a woman is to be consecrated.

8. We encourage Metropolitans, when planning consecration services, to consider that for some it will be important that three of the consecrating bishops are men, and we also pledge to act with respect for one another in the ordering of services of consecration.

I don’t see how using the term to reinforce a misconception is helpful.

I minister in an environment within the Sydney Diocese where using the term priest with some people is very helpful, and not a misconception. Using the term minister is usually OK. Using the term presbyter is unhelpful and often involves misconceptions by many hearers. I have mainly now use 2 terms:

1. Call me Rob
2. I am the Rector.

Both are understood.

However to some people they better understand “priest” and some better understand “pastor” and some better understand “minister”. (Although my Agricultural master at High school when he heard of my desire to become a minister, did ask which portfolio in the cabinet I preferred).