- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,225
- 19,070
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
As far as the dress is, it only functions as you laid out if there is anonymity to it.
I completely disagree. Anonymity is anathema to good ministry, which is always inherently relational.
I agree, but we have to operate under the realization that such class distinctions are almost inevitable and do all we can to resist them.
I don't know about "almost inevitable," although I agree they must be resisted. I'm disagreeing with your proposed methods, is all.
Even having an authority of "the church" which is held by office holders feeds the class distinction.
I would argue that this is necessary, though, and has been seen so since even the New Testament. We have always needed leaders, elders, overseers, teachers, pastors, and the like; and we have always recognised that not everyone should seek those roles.
Prior to the Donatist controversy anyone was able to administer rites so long as they were in good standing.
Early patristic sources such as the Shepherd and the Didache would suggest otherwise.
If someone is unable to participate in full membership, why are they still in your number?
Because we believe everyone ought to be able to seek God's grace in community, albeit - in this sort of instance - in very tightly controlled ways. My point was simply to illustrate that not everyone is a fit person to hold office in the church. I would have thought that was a fairly uncontroversial thought.
Agreed, but having distinctions where some are allowed to handle the materials exclusively and administer them exclusively is bound to have the sacred nature be identified with the adminstrators because of their special privileges.
But that is not the case. Anyone may baptise. Lay people may handle administer the sacrament of communion. There are very, very few things only an ordained person may do.
Upvote
0