I would wish A.B. and all contributors a very Happy Christmas and a Blessed New Year. The Church in Wales faces many difficulties in 2023, and very much beyond. Perhaps, the “Church” be it the Ecclesiastical Heirachry, the Bench, or the H.Q., Callaghan Square led by the Provincial Secretary, or as he prefers C.E.O. Should lead us as the Bible instructs. Presently, we have an invitation from the Cellebrant, that all who have been Baptised may receive Communion. Surely this is the Greatest and most Solemn Grace and Privilege a Believer can receive. If you agree why demote the Communion to all who been Baptised, rather than encourage all who have been Baptised to receive the Blessing of Confirmation? As we stand the answer is obvious, let all male and female enter relationships prohibited in the Bible, let all in such relationships ignore the teachings of the Bible and ignore such teachings when “ordained”, and the supreme leader, that is “Bishop” be appointed and then “consecrated”?” very much against all teachings. It is time the whole organisation was called to explain itself, not only by the central Committee, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, also by the Governing Body of said Body and the “Bench”
It was reported on AB's blog at the time. Not too long before he retired, the Byzantine bully boy announced his decision that Holy Communion could be received without having been first confirmed (as if he had the authority to do so!). Just like he'd banned the option of intinction (by personal decree) several years before that. Caiaphas was bad enough and will not be missed in the least, but the arrogant tw*t Morgan was in a class of his own.
And where in Scripture is baptism - let alone confirmation - mentioned as a prerequisite for receiving Communion? Self-examination is clearly encouraged (1 Corinthians 11:27-28), as is good order (v.21), and the Church ought not to be "despised" (v.22) - but that's all a bit different.
According to the scriptures and chronologically, Christ was baptised before the last supper took place so at the very least, it's implied. That's good enough for me.
If the Apostles were not baptised then why, and by whom, has the habit and practise of Baptism passed down through two millennia? Did someone just make it up somewhere along the way and add it to the rituals?
Interesting question, to which I think the answer must be, "No-one really knows". The most probable derivation, apart from John (and where did he get it from?) seems to be Jewish proselyte baptism.
So if there's no record of the Apostles being baptised and no-one really knows why or by whom the practise of baptism was passed down through the ages, what is the point of Baptist churches, baptists and baptist trainfans? Even though there are so few nowadays, how and why have they ever existed?
Baptist Trainfan, Baptisms and Confirmations, in The Bible, perhaps not, appreciating Christ’s Baptism. I’m not a Biblical Scholar or an Ordained member oft The Cloth. No, I ama Pew Sitter with my own views, which I am glad this Site exists for those such as me can express such views
I haven't painted myself into a corner. Of course I respect baptism but (unlike some of my Strict Baptist colleagues) I don't see it as a necessary pre-requisite for taking Communion. Which is where we started; and in my church Communion is freely offered to all who wish to to take it, whether they feel their faith is strong or (especially) if they feel that it is weak.
The original theology around this which evolved in the primitive period was that an enquirer might approach the local church to explore the meaning of the faith. A period of instruction followed: one which, from the glimpses of its normal content which have here and there survived appear incredibly 'discreet' to our ears, but of course Christianity back then was seen as a 'fringe' eccentric cult widely disapproved of even when Christians weren't actually persecuted. And 'holy things' were for 'holy people' - not for those outside.
By and by the enquirer would be admitted to the synaxis - what the C in W has called 'the Ministry of the Word', which included the bishop's sermon and the intercessions - but s/he would be excluded from 'The Ministry of the Sacrament'. At least one of the Byzantine liturgies has actually preserved an archaeological memory of that in its current rite, when, at the appropriate point, the deacon calls out 'the doors; the doors' - though by now it's centuries since anyone was escorted to them!
Ultimately the enquirers would reach the climax of their instruction - the ceremonial details of which they were still officially told absolutely nothing - in the days immediately before Easter when their baptism would take place. This final solemn preparation for participation in 'the Mystery' was the origin of what over time came to be the observation, by the whole church, of 'Holy Week'.
But only after the neophytes had gone through 'the Mystery' of Baptism would they then go on, quickly afterwards in the early hours of Easter morning, to participate for the first time in 'the Mystery' of the Eucharist. So the view and the practice of the early church was invariably that only the baptized could receive the holy mysteries. It was simply 'the way it was'.
Thank you John for your comment which, as always, is helpful. I'd agree with you and indeed came across similar material when preparation my MA dissertation on baptism.
However I think you miss my point, as I was thinking back to the earliest period of the Church (i.e. the New Testament era) when affrairs and Order had not yet settled down and seem to be carried out a somewhat "ad hoc" basis and possibly differing from place to place. You will of course know that "the" Scripture passage - known in Baptist circles as "the words of institution" - comes in 1 Corinthians 11; however the only precondition for participation is not baptism (which isn't mentioned) but self-examination. Now of course baptism - and I have to say that the implication must be believers' rather than infant baptism - does come in chapter 1 of the same Epistle, and was obviously a rather touchy subject as folk were boasting about who had baptised them!
One might therefore say that baptism was so universal in the early Church that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the context of Communion. That is a valid position to take although one would be arguing from silence. The alternative (as is sadly the case in "open" but not "strict" Baptist churches today) is that people at all stages of their faith journey were included in the rite - which, incidentally, seems to have been much closer to a "fellowship meal" than a formalised "service".
One of the tedious things - at least from the modern scholarly Christian perspective! - about the earliest era of the Church is how tantalizingly little light such record that we have - primarily, of course, the New Testament - casts on the mind of the primitive church on issues of this nature.
But then, of course, the documents which we have weren't written as systematic doctrinal treatises, but are dynamic documents crafted to serve particular situations in the life of the primitive church - be it, as with St Paul's letters, immediate issues in the churches where he had apostolic oversight, or, in respect of the gospels an attempt to set out in written form the narratives around the life and ministry of Jesus Christ as human memory began to recede. So if they now and again seem to betray the odd glimpse of the order and discipline of the church in its earliest time, it's pretty much by accident and as an aside. In the nature of the literature, the Qu'ran, for instance, is much more of a systematic theological treatise than is the New Testament.
So we have to look to rather later days than the apostolic age to frame any more solid sort of picture as to how the church back then believed, worshipped, and exercised its order; and, as you rightly point out, in an age when communication was slow and laborious, it's hardly surprising if such things were to evolve in somewhat different ways, dependent on where the local church was and what degree of contact it had with other churches round and about.
One instance that sticks in my mind is certain - albeit unverified and uncertain - hints that in the sub-apostolic period the church in Egypt might have adopted a sort of corporate or collegiate episcopate rather than the general practice of jurisdiction by an individual bishop. But that was inevitably the nature of such things in the ancient world, and so the church in the ancient world of necessity adapted to it. They took seriously the promise in John 16:13 that '... when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth'. And when the entire church appeared gradually to move into a common way of doing, thinking on and deciding such things, the prevailing assumption within the church was that the Spirit was fulfilling the incarnate Word's pledge that they would indeed be 'guided into all the truth'.
Which never seemed to me, for a Christian, an unreasonable calculation.
I thought I'd share my experience of Christmas Eve/Day.
Christmas Eve. Anglican. Principal Christmas Service in a huge church. 1500. 12 communicants. Followed at 1600 with a Children's interactive 'play'. Around thirty, mainly non-church folk. It was good to see them. I hope they'll come back. Nothing else in the church until a week Sunday!
1900. Catholic. Vigil mass. Huge church. Standing room only 450 - 500 communicants. Every child got a pressie😊 . This was followed at 2100 by a Polish Mass - I did not attend but was told there were around 150 at this mass. The parish had two masses in two other large churches on Christmas day. I did not attend, but again, was told hundreds present in each church, standing room only. Mass every day (as usual) this week in the Catholic parish. Interesting to note that The Catholic parish is the same size as the Anglican Ministry Area. Catholic Parish, one priest. Anglican Ministry Area, FOUR full time Stipendiary priests.
Christmas Day. 1000. Anglican. Another huge church. 12 communicants. The final announcement. Nothing on here until next Sunday, so if you do turn up, you'll be joining me for breakfast.
It would seem that we no longer celebrate the lives/days of the Saints in the Anglican Church - certainly, St Stephen, St John and The Innocents have been consigned to the pages of carol leaflets.
A question. Is it still Anglican Canon Law that Morning and Evening Prayer be said In Church after the tolling if the bell?
Such a joy to be able to play at these locations but the Anglican experience left me cold and concerned for it's future.
Name and shame the Anglican church, Misery Area and the four stipendaries who are clearly not doing their work. Name and praise the Catholic churches, many more might want to go to them next year. Not much point going to Llandaff Cathedral this year. No Parish Choir at all and only the zero hours burger flippers coining it in for more trite Songs of Praise episodes and recording fees.
As one of the founders of the ACC in England ( I knew Leslie Hamlett) it seems to me a needless division in the ranks of Christians. It has become irrelevant since Pope Benedict provided for Anglican culture in a firm catholic framework.
The difficulty around the 'continuing' Anglican cause was its inveterate tendency to fragment. That was the pattern in north America, where the departure of the Anglican provinces from traditional catholic order occurred first, and it suffered the same fate here when the changes subsequently happened in the Anglican churches in the British Isles too.
My impression was that the not infrequent cause was a clash of clerical egos, followed by separations which inevitably led to ever tinier memberships. Maybe the problem may now have eased over time, but I recall, over twenty years ago, one such split which reduced one of Archbishop Hamlett's congregations to one priest and a single communicant.
Nothing to do with Anglicanism, but I do recall a respected Sierra Leoneian Baptist pastor working in London saying that the multiplicity of Afro-Caribbean churches to be found there owed a lot to leaders wanting to split from an existing church so they could "do their own thing". I am of course unable to verify whether that was true when he said it (20+ years ago) or is true today.
My old boss - fifty years ago, and long departed this life - was given to dry sayings, one of which being 'Human nature's very prevalent'! I dare say ministers aren't exempt!
On the same topic, and at around the same time, a friend of mine moved to Newbridge in the Gwent valleys where, he said, there were either three or four (I now forget which!) separate Baptist congregations which had over time split from a single original one.
Each new one had ostensibly been established as a consequence of some local spat over doctrinal or disciplinary issues; but the main reason appeared to him to have been a difference between minister and/or deacons and some charismatic individual who thought that things needed to be done differently.
All too common, I'm afraid, and one of the bugbears of connexionalism/congregationalism. Often the split will be portrayed as a theological one when, as you suggest, what's really involved is a clash of egod and factional politics.
Wasn't there that hoary joke about the Welshman rescued from a desert island, who'd built two chapels so that he could of one, "That's the chapel I don't go to"?
Indeed - I've heard that joke myself in past years, and, like all the best jokes, it's funny precisely because it draws on an actual reality to which experience can relate.
As you say, that's a pitfall to which 'independency' and congregationalism is especially susceptible, and one from which episcopal polity is more - though, as we've seen in the last couple of decades, not wholly - likely to escape.
But sadly traditional catholic thinking has its own distinctive snares, pitfalls and occasions of sin. No use those who adhere to that mode of believing griping overmuch about the motes in protestant eyes if they're oblivious to certain planks in their own!
The problem with Continuing Anglicanism is that it can't mirror the geographical parish system of its parent body, so it inevitably becomes "just another sect" - or, as has been pointed out by John Ellis, just another series of sects, some of whose leaders can only be described as episcopi vagantes. And it has a very limited life expectancy: typically continuing congregations in England were formed in the mid 1990s in reaction to the ordination of women as priests, and if still in existence are reduced after nearly three decades to a handful of very old people. (This is certainly true of the Traditional Anglican Communion; Bishop Mead's Anglican Catholic Church is perhaps in better shape.)
I wonder what the membership figures were, and what proportion took the Roman route. Did any parishes other than St Agatha's, Landport, convert en bloc? The TAC website (now updated for 2023) lists half a dozen or so parishes and twice that number of clergy, perhaps half of whom are inactive through age and infirmity. Until recently they had a former Methodist chapel in the countryside not far from my home in Devon; although beautifully fitted out it never attracted more than a handful, and those I knew who went there were convinced Anglicans and would never have been keen to go to Rome.
The parish system is no longer in Wales ,we have the ministry area system ,many old parish church's in North East Wales have closed ,and those that remain open only have a handful of elderly people in the congregation
The Parish system worked well for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Misery Areas will never work. From the outset, they are designed for one purpose only, which is the futile attempt to cover up the truth of the collapse of the Church in Wales whilst the "senior" clergy proclaim "there's nothing to see here, all is well, we know what we're doing, we're not looking back but moving forwards with our new all-inclusive gospel of luurve and it's business as usual so please increase your giving once more".
Although there are obviously huge virtues in having churches in every community, and having clergy in each locality, I don't think that this necessarily means organisation into a parish system. Yes, it did work well for centuries - but that was when the vast majority of people lived, loved, worked, shopped and produced food within one very small geographical area. That is patently not the case today, with Cardiff and Newport people driving each day to Bristol for work, folk travelling for miles to an out-of-town shopping centre, and so on. Even I drive about 5 miles each way for my regular swimming exercise! And the same is true for churches; while some people do retain an affection for, and commitment to, their parish church many others will go some distance to another church because they like the people there, they appreciate the minister, they find its theology more congenial, they enjoy the music, there are good activities for the children ... Whether we like it or not, personal mobility, freedom of choice and (dare I say) consumerism have affected church-going and we're not going to turn back the clock!
While I do accept (from what has been said in my own Diocese) that the introduction of Ministry Areas has been proclaimed as a wonderful new way of working rather than a retrenchment, the fact is that church-goers are much thinner on the ground than they once were, and that church buildings and ministers are expensive and have to be paid for. All the major denominations are having to cope with these realities, hence the Methodists are enlarging their Circuits and closing churches, the United Reformed Church is salami-slicing its few ministers ever more thinly, Baptist churches are calling part-time rather than full-time ministers ... and so on. I realise that you may not like Ministry Areas, and accept that they may not be the best solution to the current situation. But do you have any better - and realistic - ideas?
Even if parishes have been lumped together into these new combines they are still geographical entities, whereas continuing congregations will be drawn from an indefinite and possibly quite wide area.
Virtually none of whom will get the chance to meet or form a personal relationship with the "priest" who has notionally been given the care of souls in their Misery Area. Pastoral care in the Cult in Wales is, to all intents and purpose, dead. Just like the Cult itself!
I ought, before being tempted into the discursive fray on this thread, have wished our host a blessed Christmas - too late for that now, I know! - and a very good new year, for which I'm just in time! So I do so now.
And to compliment him on posting perhaps the best and most poignant artistic depiction of the Nativity that I've ever seen - one which was previously entirely unknown to me. Most nativity paintings strike me as cloyingly sentimental and thus wholly unconvincing, but this one, though doubtless no less speculative than all the rest, has verisimilitude, and, therefore, conveys an especially powerful message.
Demise of 'parish' churches and strong congregations probably began in the 1950's when 'Nanny State' took over so many reasons people attended church. If jobless and noticed by the local employer as such, fair chance that he'd offer work. Sick and unable to afford medical attention, but worshipping in the pew behind the local doctor and his family, then some sympathy would be shown when time came to pay the GP bill. The NHS then stepped in. Even deaths in Welsh villages became source of benevolence at the graveside ... attend church and there'd be a decent whip-round to support the widow.
Then in the 1960's and early 70's TV emerged to make community reliance on the church for midweek entertainment redundant. Mid-week whist-drives, Mothers Union meetings, jumble-sale fun, Sunday School events, bell-ringing and choir practice mid-week gatherings ceased. Folk didn't need 'parish' entertainment. Ena Sharples and Dixon-of-Dock Green was their stay-at-home fun. Even the church affiliated Scouts and Guides began to suffer in membership.
But the Church (of all denominations in Wales) was once - and until the mid 1950's - the Social Services of parish community. Problem is, it still thinks it is, but hasn't the gumption to rediscover itself.
Agreed, but you get the gist. Even in my lifetime, the 'church' functioned as community umbrella for almost all needs - body and spirit - and in far more spheres than I cited. I remember that my old parish Vicar would regularly attend local Magistrates' Court to defend those who couldn't afford lawyers. He generally won. Then came Legal Aid. Then - again my lifetime - the Alms Houses (horrible term) and church-owned low-cost properties which served excellent function pre-dating 'social housing'. Many still exist under old terms and covenants: but are not used to intended purpose. Again, another attribute of the church which modern "bishops" have failed to update. Not surprising then that post-1948 when Socialist Britain began to assume the work of the traditional church that folk began to drift away. Demise of congregations began in the two decades later, and with a generation lost, its not surprising that the third generation has no need whatsoever for the 'church'; indeed its interesting to note that younger congregants are those discovering for themselves the spiritual gifts of church worship, not those who have inherited it from their parents.
Does this recent history matter? Of course it does. The C-in-W and perhaps Baptist churches need to focus on that 'missing community thirst' and it is NOT the whims of the Wimmin Lobby or LGBTQ hi-jackers. We appear to be a dressing-up theatre of actors without a plot, script or director. Sadly, the bishops and priests of yore are no longer around to point us back 'on-message'. Shame. No one of substance to mentor the priesthoods of our next generation of young ordinands either. Downwards we go.
What a pity the Archhypocrite doesn't concentrate on fixing the broken pastoral care system rather than trying to remove the splinter from the eyes of others. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64137439
There's plenty of in-house filth to be dealt with first. Welby and Cottrell are more interested in diverting public and media attention away from the failures of the Church of England.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/04/police-have-lost-interest-catching-fraudsters/ Police forces ignoring fraud. One wonders what the Police actually bother doing nowadays because it isn't patrolling the streets, dealing with burglaries, road traffic crime or street dealing of drugs!
West Midlands Plod. The thought police hard at work in Kings Lynn, persecuting a silent Christian. How proud of themselves they must be. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626
It isn't only the Church that is being "queered" to suit a tiny vocal minority. Now the ancient gendered celtic Welsh has to be modernised to suit the mentally ill for the sake of "inclusivity".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64164011
Have these poor sick "non-gendered" individuals really got nothing better to worry about?
Thank you for a superb, moving and sadly appropriate picture.
ReplyDeleteThank you AB. Keep up the good work . Happy Christmas.
ReplyDeleteUnison Off
Nadolig llawen AB.
ReplyDeleteOne can almost hear the parents sighing and muttering quietly in despair.
ReplyDelete"So sorry Yeshua but it will all be for nothing in England and Wales".
I would wish A.B. and all contributors a very Happy Christmas and a Blessed New Year. The Church in Wales faces many difficulties in 2023, and very much beyond. Perhaps, the “Church” be it the Ecclesiastical Heirachry, the Bench, or the H.Q., Callaghan Square led by the Provincial Secretary, or as he prefers C.E.O. Should lead us as the Bible instructs. Presently, we have an invitation from the Cellebrant, that all who have been Baptised may receive Communion. Surely this is the Greatest and most Solemn Grace and Privilege a Believer can receive. If you agree why demote the Communion to all who been Baptised, rather than encourage all who have been Baptised to receive the Blessing of Confirmation? As we stand the answer is obvious, let all male and female enter relationships prohibited in the Bible, let all in such relationships ignore the teachings of the Bible and ignore such teachings when “ordained”, and the supreme leader, that is “Bishop” be appointed and then “consecrated”?” very much against all teachings. It is time the whole organisation was called to explain itself, not only by the central Committee, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, also by the Governing Body of said Body and the “Bench”
ReplyDeletePerhaps you don't remember QP but it was Darth --Insidious himself who introduced that, not long before he was forced to b*gger off by Father time.
DeleteLux et Veritas, please expand
DeleteIt was reported on AB's blog at the time.
DeleteNot too long before he retired, the Byzantine bully boy announced his decision that Holy Communion could be received without having been first confirmed (as if he had the authority to do so!).
Just like he'd banned the option of intinction (by personal decree) several years before that.
Caiaphas was bad enough and will not be missed in the least, but the arrogant tw*t Morgan was in a class of his own.
And where in Scripture is baptism - let alone confirmation - mentioned as a prerequisite for receiving Communion? Self-examination is clearly encouraged (1 Corinthians 11:27-28), as is good order (v.21), and the Church ought not to be "despised" (v.22) - but that's all a bit different.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the scriptures and chronologically, Christ was baptised before the last supper took place so at the very least, it's implied.
DeleteThat's good enough for me.
We have no record of any of the disciples being baptised, although it's obviously possible that some were baptised by John.
DeleteIf the Apostles were not baptised then why, and by whom, has the habit and practise of Baptism passed down through two millennia?
DeleteDid someone just make it up somewhere along the way and add it to the rituals?
Interesting question, to which I think the answer must be, "No-one really knows". The most probable derivation, apart from John (and where did he get it from?) seems to be Jewish proselyte baptism.
DeletePerhaps in answer to my own question, does the Bible, require those who wish to be Ordained,be followers of the Teachings of the Bible? Yes they must
DeleteSo if there's no record of the Apostles being baptised and no-one really knows why or by whom the practise of baptism was passed down through the ages, what is the point of Baptist churches, baptists and baptist trainfans?
DeleteEven though there are so few nowadays, how and why have they ever existed?
Because, whatever the origins of baptism may be, it is clearly something that was practised in the Early Church from the Day of Pentecost onwards.
DeleteSo why did you question its origins and validity in your first post?
DeleteIt seems to me that you might have painted yourself into a corner. 😂
Baptist Trainfan, Baptisms and Confirmations, in The Bible, perhaps not, appreciating Christ’s Baptism. I’m not a Biblical Scholar or an Ordained member oft
DeleteThe Cloth. No, I ama Pew Sitter with my own views, which I am glad this Site exists for those such as me can express such views
I haven't painted myself into a corner. Of course I respect baptism but (unlike some of my Strict Baptist colleagues) I don't see it as a necessary pre-requisite for taking Communion. Which is where we started; and in my church Communion is freely offered to all who wish to to take it, whether they feel their faith is strong or (especially) if they feel that it is weak.
DeleteThe original theology around this which evolved in the primitive period was that an enquirer might approach the local church to explore the meaning of the faith. A period of instruction followed: one which, from the glimpses of its normal content which have here and there survived appear incredibly 'discreet' to our ears, but of course Christianity back then was seen as a 'fringe' eccentric cult widely disapproved of even when Christians weren't actually persecuted. And 'holy things' were for 'holy people' - not for those outside.
DeleteBy and by the enquirer would be admitted to the synaxis - what the C in W has called 'the Ministry of the Word', which included the bishop's sermon and the intercessions - but s/he would be excluded from 'The Ministry of the Sacrament'. At least one of the Byzantine liturgies has actually preserved an archaeological memory of that in its current rite, when, at the appropriate point, the deacon calls out 'the doors; the doors' - though by now it's centuries since anyone was escorted to them!
Ultimately the enquirers would reach the climax of their instruction - the ceremonial details of which they were still officially told absolutely nothing - in the days immediately before Easter when their baptism would take place. This final solemn preparation for participation in 'the Mystery' was the origin of what over time came to be the observation, by the whole church, of 'Holy Week'.
But only after the neophytes had gone through 'the Mystery' of Baptism would they then go on, quickly afterwards in the early hours of Easter morning, to participate for the first time in 'the Mystery' of the Eucharist. So the view and the practice of the early church was invariably that only the baptized could receive the holy mysteries. It was simply 'the way it was'.
Thank you John for your comment which, as always, is helpful. I'd agree with you and indeed came across similar material when preparation my MA dissertation on baptism.
DeleteHowever I think you miss my point, as I was thinking back to the earliest period of the Church (i.e. the New Testament era) when affrairs and Order had not yet settled down and seem to be carried out a somewhat "ad hoc" basis and possibly differing from place to place. You will of course know that "the" Scripture passage - known in Baptist circles as "the words of institution" - comes in 1 Corinthians 11; however the only precondition for participation is not baptism (which isn't mentioned) but self-examination. Now of course baptism - and I have to say that the implication must be believers' rather than infant baptism - does come in chapter 1 of the same Epistle, and was obviously a rather touchy subject as folk were boasting about who had baptised them!
One might therefore say that baptism was so universal in the early Church that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the context of Communion. That is a valid position to take although one would be arguing from silence. The alternative (as is sadly the case in "open" but not "strict" Baptist churches today) is that people at all stages of their faith journey were included in the rite - which, incidentally, seems to have been much closer to a "fellowship meal" than a formalised "service".
One of the tedious things - at least from the modern scholarly Christian perspective! - about the earliest era of the Church is how tantalizingly little light such record that we have - primarily, of course, the New Testament - casts on the mind of the primitive church on issues of this nature.
DeleteBut then, of course, the documents which we have weren't written as systematic doctrinal treatises, but are dynamic documents crafted to serve particular situations in the life of the primitive church - be it, as with St Paul's letters, immediate issues in the churches where he had apostolic oversight, or, in respect of the gospels an attempt to set out in written form the narratives around the life and ministry of Jesus Christ as human memory began to recede. So if they now and again seem to betray the odd glimpse of the order and discipline of the church in its earliest time, it's pretty much by accident and as an aside. In the nature of the literature, the Qu'ran, for instance, is much more of a systematic theological treatise than is the New Testament.
So we have to look to rather later days than the apostolic age to frame any more solid sort of picture as to how the church back then believed, worshipped, and exercised its order; and, as you rightly point out, in an age when communication was slow and laborious, it's hardly surprising if such things were to evolve in somewhat different ways, dependent on where the local church was and what degree of contact it had with other churches round and about.
One instance that sticks in my mind is certain - albeit unverified and uncertain - hints that in the sub-apostolic period the church in Egypt might have adopted a sort of corporate or collegiate episcopate rather than the general practice of jurisdiction by an individual bishop. But that was inevitably the nature of such things in the ancient world, and so the church in the ancient world of necessity adapted to it. They took seriously the promise in John 16:13 that '... when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth'. And when the entire church appeared gradually to move into a common way of doing, thinking on and deciding such things, the prevailing assumption within the church was that the Spirit was fulfilling the incarnate Word's pledge that they would indeed be 'guided into all the truth'.
Which never seemed to me, for a Christian, an unreasonable calculation.
It's the Magestirium of The Church, formulated over millennia. Obviously not the teaching of a sect that has almost disappeared.
ReplyDeleteUnison Off
I thought I'd share my experience of Christmas Eve/Day.
ReplyDeleteChristmas Eve.
Anglican. Principal Christmas Service in a huge church. 1500. 12 communicants.
Followed at 1600 with a Children's interactive 'play'. Around thirty, mainly non-church folk. It was good to see them. I hope they'll come back. Nothing else in the church until a week Sunday!
1900. Catholic. Vigil mass. Huge church. Standing room only 450 - 500 communicants. Every child got a pressie😊 . This was followed at 2100 by a Polish Mass - I did not attend but was told there were around 150 at this mass. The parish had two masses in two other large churches on Christmas day. I did not attend, but again, was told hundreds present in each church, standing room only. Mass every day (as usual) this week in the Catholic parish. Interesting to note that The Catholic parish is the same size as the Anglican Ministry Area. Catholic Parish, one priest. Anglican Ministry Area, FOUR full time Stipendiary priests.
Christmas Day.
1000. Anglican. Another huge church. 12 communicants. The final announcement. Nothing on here until next Sunday, so if you do turn up, you'll be joining me for breakfast.
It would seem that we no longer celebrate the lives/days of the Saints in the Anglican Church - certainly, St Stephen, St John and The Innocents have been consigned to the pages of carol leaflets.
A question. Is it still Anglican Canon Law that Morning and Evening Prayer be said In Church after the tolling if the bell?
Such a joy to be able to play at these locations but the Anglican experience left me cold and concerned for it's future.
Anglicanism has a future in Wales?
DeleteWhat a quaint notion.
Name and shame the Anglican church, Misery Area and the four stipendaries who are clearly not doing their work.
DeleteName and praise the Catholic churches, many more might want to go to them next year.
Not much point going to Llandaff Cathedral this year. No Parish Choir at all and only the zero hours burger flippers coining it in for more trite Songs of Praise episodes and recording fees.
Does the Ordinariate not offer a home for Anglican refugees in Wales?
ReplyDeleteThe Anglican Catholic Church does
ReplyDeleteWe certainly do! Please visit our website.
DeleteAs one of the founders of the ACC in England ( I knew Leslie Hamlett) it seems to me a needless division in the ranks of Christians. It has become irrelevant since Pope Benedict provided for Anglican culture in a firm catholic framework.
DeleteThe difficulty around the 'continuing' Anglican cause was its inveterate tendency to fragment. That was the pattern in north America, where the departure of the Anglican provinces from traditional catholic order occurred first, and it suffered the same fate here when the changes subsequently happened in the Anglican churches in the British Isles too.
DeleteMy impression was that the not infrequent cause was a clash of clerical egos, followed by separations which inevitably led to ever tinier memberships. Maybe the problem may now have eased over time, but I recall, over twenty years ago, one such split which reduced one of Archbishop Hamlett's congregations to one priest and a single communicant.
Nothing to do with Anglicanism, but I do recall a respected Sierra Leoneian Baptist pastor working in London saying that the multiplicity of Afro-Caribbean churches to be found there owed a lot to leaders wanting to split from an existing church so they could "do their own thing". I am of course unable to verify whether that was true when he said it (20+ years ago) or is true today.
DeleteMy old boss - fifty years ago, and long departed this life - was given to dry sayings, one of which being 'Human nature's very prevalent'! I dare say ministers aren't exempt!
DeleteOn the same topic, and at around the same time, a friend of mine moved to Newbridge in the Gwent valleys where, he said, there were either three or four (I now forget which!) separate Baptist congregations which had over time split from a single original one.
Each new one had ostensibly been established as a consequence of some local spat over doctrinal or disciplinary issues; but the main reason appeared to him to have been a difference between minister and/or deacons and some charismatic individual who thought that things needed to be done differently.
All too common, I'm afraid, and one of the bugbears of connexionalism/congregationalism. Often the split will be portrayed as a theological one when, as you suggest, what's really involved is a clash of egod and factional politics.
DeleteWasn't there that hoary joke about the Welshman rescued from a desert island, who'd built two chapels so that he could of one, "That's the chapel I don't go to"?
Indeed - I've heard that joke myself in past years, and, like all the best jokes, it's funny precisely because it draws on an actual reality to which experience can relate.
DeleteAs you say, that's a pitfall to which 'independency' and congregationalism is especially susceptible, and one from which episcopal polity is more - though, as we've seen in the last couple of decades, not wholly - likely to escape.
But sadly traditional catholic thinking has its own distinctive snares, pitfalls and occasions of sin. No use those who adhere to that mode of believing griping overmuch about the motes in protestant eyes if they're oblivious to certain planks in their own!
I knew him.
DeleteHe called the first Chapel Bethel and the second Beulah.
🤣
No, no - the second chapel was called Sardis.
DeleteThe problem with Continuing Anglicanism is that it can't mirror the geographical parish system of its parent body, so it inevitably becomes "just another sect" - or, as has been pointed out by John Ellis, just another series of sects, some of whose leaders can only be described as episcopi vagantes. And it has a very limited life expectancy: typically continuing congregations in England were formed in the mid 1990s in reaction to the ordination of women as priests, and if still in existence are reduced after nearly three decades to a handful of very old people. (This is certainly true of the Traditional Anglican Communion; Bishop Mead's Anglican Catholic Church is perhaps in better shape.)
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of the TAC petitioned for full doctrinal union with the Holy See and their action led to the creation of the Ordinariate.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the membership figures were, and what proportion took the Roman route. Did any parishes other than St Agatha's, Landport, convert en bloc? The TAC website (now updated for 2023) lists half a dozen or so parishes and twice that number of clergy, perhaps half of whom are inactive through age and infirmity. Until recently they had a former Methodist chapel in the countryside not far from my home in Devon; although beautifully fitted out it never attracted more than a handful, and those I knew who went there were convinced Anglicans and would never have been keen to go to Rome.
DeleteThe parish system is no longer in Wales ,we have the ministry area system ,many old parish church's in North East Wales have closed ,and those that remain open only have a handful of elderly people in the congregation
ReplyDeleteThe Parish system worked well for hundreds and hundreds of years.
DeleteThe Misery Areas will never work.
From the outset, they are designed for one purpose only, which is the futile attempt to cover up the truth of the collapse of the Church in Wales whilst the "senior" clergy proclaim "there's nothing to see here, all is well, we know what we're doing, we're not looking back but moving forwards with our new all-inclusive gospel of luurve and it's business as usual so please increase your giving once more".
Although there are obviously huge virtues in having churches in every community, and having clergy in each locality, I don't think that this necessarily means organisation into a parish system. Yes, it did work well for centuries - but that was when the vast majority of people lived, loved, worked, shopped and produced food within one very small geographical area. That is patently not the case today, with Cardiff and Newport people driving each day to Bristol for work, folk travelling for miles to an out-of-town shopping centre, and so on. Even I drive about 5 miles each way for my regular swimming exercise! And the same is true for churches; while some people do retain an affection for, and commitment to, their parish church many others will go some distance to another church because they like the people there, they appreciate the minister, they find its theology more congenial, they enjoy the music, there are good activities for the children ... Whether we like it or not, personal mobility, freedom of choice and (dare I say) consumerism have affected church-going and we're not going to turn back the clock!
DeleteWhile I do accept (from what has been said in my own Diocese) that the introduction of Ministry Areas has been proclaimed as a wonderful new way of working rather than a retrenchment, the fact is that church-goers are much thinner on the ground than they once were, and that church buildings and ministers are expensive and have to be paid for. All the major denominations are having to cope with these realities, hence the Methodists are enlarging their Circuits and closing churches, the United Reformed Church is salami-slicing its few ministers ever more thinly, Baptist churches are calling part-time rather than full-time ministers ... and so on. I realise that you may not like Ministry Areas, and accept that they may not be the best solution to the current situation. But do you have any better - and realistic - ideas?
Even if parishes have been lumped together into these new combines they are still geographical entities, whereas continuing congregations will be drawn from an indefinite and possibly quite wide area.
DeleteVirtually none of whom will get the chance to meet or form a personal relationship with the "priest" who has notionally been given the care of souls in their Misery Area.
DeletePastoral care in the Cult in Wales is, to all intents and purpose, dead.
Just like the Cult itself!
I ought, before being tempted into the discursive fray on this thread, have wished our host a blessed Christmas - too late for that now, I know! - and a very good new year, for which I'm just in time! So I do so now.
DeleteAnd to compliment him on posting perhaps the best and most poignant artistic depiction of the Nativity that I've ever seen - one which was previously entirely unknown to me. Most nativity paintings strike me as cloyingly sentimental and thus wholly unconvincing, but this one, though doubtless no less speculative than all the rest, has verisimilitude, and, therefore, conveys an especially powerful message.
Demise of 'parish' churches and strong congregations probably began in the 1950's when 'Nanny State' took over so many reasons people attended church. If jobless and noticed by the local employer as such, fair chance that he'd offer work. Sick and unable to afford medical attention, but worshipping in the pew behind the local doctor and his family, then some sympathy would be shown when time came to pay the GP bill. The NHS then stepped in. Even deaths in Welsh villages became source of benevolence at the graveside ... attend church and there'd be a decent whip-round to support the widow.
ReplyDeleteThen in the 1960's and early 70's TV emerged to make community reliance on the church for midweek entertainment redundant. Mid-week whist-drives, Mothers Union meetings, jumble-sale fun, Sunday School events, bell-ringing and choir practice mid-week gatherings ceased. Folk didn't need 'parish' entertainment. Ena Sharples and Dixon-of-Dock Green was their stay-at-home fun. Even the church affiliated Scouts and Guides began to suffer in membership.
But the Church (of all denominations in Wales) was once - and until the mid 1950's - the Social Services of parish community. Problem is, it still thinks it is, but hasn't the gumption to rediscover itself.
Old Bill
"The Forsyte Saga" and "Jesus of Nazareth" didn't help ... but there were wider societal changes which we more significant.
ReplyDelete@ Baptist Trainfan
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but you get the gist. Even in my lifetime, the 'church' functioned as community umbrella for almost all needs - body and spirit - and in far more spheres than I cited. I remember that my old parish Vicar would regularly attend local Magistrates' Court to defend those who couldn't afford lawyers. He generally won. Then came Legal Aid. Then - again my lifetime - the Alms Houses (horrible term) and church-owned low-cost properties which served excellent function pre-dating 'social housing'. Many still exist under old terms and covenants: but are not used to intended purpose. Again, another attribute of the church which modern "bishops" have failed to update. Not surprising then that post-1948 when Socialist Britain began to assume the work of the traditional church that folk began to drift away. Demise of congregations began in the two decades later, and with a generation lost, its not surprising that the third generation has no need whatsoever for the 'church'; indeed its interesting to note that younger congregants are those discovering for themselves the spiritual gifts of church worship, not those who have inherited it from their parents.
Does this recent history matter? Of course it does. The C-in-W and perhaps Baptist churches need to focus on that 'missing community thirst' and it is NOT the whims of the Wimmin Lobby or LGBTQ hi-jackers. We appear to be a dressing-up theatre of actors without a plot, script or director. Sadly, the bishops and priests of yore are no longer around to point us back 'on-message'. Shame. No one of substance to mentor the priesthoods of our next generation of young ordinands either. Downwards we go.
Old Bill
What a pity the Archhypocrite doesn't concentrate on fixing the broken pastoral care system rather than trying to remove the splinter from the eyes of others.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64137439
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/23-december/news/uk/lincoln-priest-found-guilty-of-indecent-assault-on-six-boys
DeleteThere's plenty of in-house filth to be dealt with first.
Welby and Cottrell are more interested in diverting public and media attention away from the failures of the Church of England.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/04/police-have-lost-interest-catching-fraudsters/
ReplyDeletePolice forces ignoring fraud.
One wonders what the Police actually bother doing nowadays because it isn't patrolling the streets, dealing with burglaries, road traffic crime or street dealing of drugs!
Plod.
DeleteNot fit for purpose.
The filth have been unreliable for years.
DeleteGlad to see I'm not the only one to realise it.
West Midlands Plod.
DeleteThe thought police hard at work in Kings Lynn, persecuting a silent Christian.
How proud of themselves they must be.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626
It isn't only the Church that is being "queered" to suit a tiny vocal minority.
ReplyDeleteNow the ancient gendered celtic Welsh has to be modernised to suit the mentally ill for the sake of "inclusivity".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64164011
Have these poor sick "non-gendered" individuals really got nothing better to worry about?
Bewildered