What's it like to be an Anglican priest?

[Paidiske]

Is this problem specific to Australian Anglicanism and perhaps the Uniting Church and parts of the Catholic Church, or is it more widespread?

It's most churches, really. Maybe the Pentecostal mega-church types not so much, but everyone else is aging.

My diagnosis is that most local churches have become inward-looking, and more focussed on having church the way they like it ("the way we've always done things"), than building real relationship with people outside their membership. The younger folk, if they do come along, feel themselves on the outer, are not given opportunities for leadership or to shape the culture of the church, and don't find that this is a place where they can best contribute their gifts to making a difference in a way they find meaningful. (And often face personal judgement across the generational divide). So they go elsewhere, or build informal networks amongst themselves, and conclude (not without reason) that the institutional churches are "irrelevant" to them.

The common public perception that, if it knows anything about church, knows these three things: that we covered up child sexual abuse on an industrial scale, that we're sexist to the core, and wrestling with precisely how mean God requires us to be to gay people, doesn't help make us seem like a place which might nurture authentic relationship with God, or with our fellow human beings. That's quite a reputation to get past.

Also, what about Aboriginal communities?

I really don't know. I've never served in really remote areas, which is where those communities still thrive.

 

[Malleeboy]

This is pre covid, where our loooong shutdowns impacted churches (it has taken my church untl now to get back to pre covid service numbers)

A Demographic Snapshot of Christianity and Church Attenders in Australia - McCrindle

The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011

mccrindle.com.au

National Church Life Survey (NCLS) data shows that over the last four decades the proportion of Australians attending church at least once per month has more than halved from 36% (1972) to 15% currently. However this is still a significant proportion of the Australian population and indeed twice as many Australians attend church at least once per month (3.495m) as attend all AFL, NRL, A League and Super Rugby games combined per month (1.684m) during the football season.

Along with an ageing national population, the NCLS data shows the church going population is also ageing with an average age of adult church attenders being 53. While the 70 plus age group are strongly represented in church (comprising 12% of the population but 25% of all church attendees), the age groups under 50 are underrepresented. This divide is increasingly evident with the younger generations, for example the 20-39 year olds make up 34% of the population but just 21% of church attenders.

However the denominational grouping with the youngest church attending population is also the fastest growing denomination. Pentecostal churches had an average age of attending adults as 39 and they have a total church going population of 12% of all church goers. This means that Pentecostal churches are now the second largest denominational grouping of church attenders after Catholics (46%) and ahead of Anglicans (11%).

 

[The Liturgist]

that we covered up child sexual abuse on an industrial scale,

The Anglican Church in Australia had a child abuse issue? I was not aware of this.

 

[The Liturgist]

This means that Pentecostal churches are now the second largest denominational grouping of church attenders after Catholics (46%) and ahead of Anglicans (11%).

That makes me sad, considering Anglicanism seems to me to represent the very essence of what St. Paul meant about worshipping decently and in order. I largely agree with what St. John Wesley had to say about the Anglican liturgy.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Anglican Church in Australia had a child abuse issue? I was not aware of this.

I think it was the Catholics, but for a lot of people, Christians are Christians.

 

[Paidiske]

The Anglican Church in Australia had a child abuse issue? I was not aware of this.

Yes we did. The diocese of Newcastle, in particular, was an area with a massive issue, but to some degree it was everywhere.

 

[Christoph Maria]

That makes me sad, considering Anglicanism seems to me to represent the very essence of what St. Paul meant about worshipping decently and in order. I largely agree with what St. John Wesley had to say about the Anglican liturgy.

That's precisely how I see it too...

 

[RileyG]

Friendly reminder, this is an Anglican forum.

 

[Paidiske]

in scripture there is no Clergy", and "Laity" distinction. This was made up long after the scriptures were written.

Yes, that is true. That is part of the reason why we value the participation of everyone, and why we do not have a model of church which is clergy-run and which excludes lay people.

 

[RileyG]

I feel really dumb for asking, but what about when St. Paul addresses his letters to Bishops such as St. Timothy. Without rambling on about early Church history how bishop, priest, and deacon was founded, isn't it still implied in scripture? More or less?

I would like to know the Anglican response to this?

 

[Bob Crowley]

The early church was mainly comprised of house churches which were often persecuted. We now live in a world of 8 plus billion people and to do anything worthwhile requires a certain level of organisation. Try doing anything involving people without it. Even a house church requires communication, announcements, picnic parties, someone to set up the sound system and all the rest.

When Constantine legalised the church, it exploded and administration became important.

There was a need for church councils, always called to deal with heresies or problems of the day. They don't arise in a vacuum.

Even Paul had to deal with church governance right back at the very beginning.

The church has moved on. Iti's time we gave up the navel gazing back on the so-called good old days, when Christians had a good chance of being thrown to the lions.

God wanted Constantine to legalise the church. It was part of His plan for the stone which fell on the foot of the the giant statue to grow and cover the whole earth, which it is well on the way to doing. It started by taking over the old Roman Empire, even if the centre of gravity moved to Constantinople for a period. But it then moved back to the see of Peter and Paul.

The roles of clergy and laity are here to stay. Vatican II liberalised attitudes in the RCC so that the laity are more involved in church affairs, but there will always be a need for shepherds in the church. Christ set up the first clergy with His apostles. If it was good enough for Him, it's good enough for us.

 

[Paidiske]

I feel really dumb for asking, but what about when St. Paul addresses his letters to Bishops such as St. Timothy. Without rambling on about early Church history how bishop, priest, and deacon was founded, isn't it still implied in scripture? More or less?

I would like to know the Anglican response to this?

I don't know that there's only one Anglican response to this, but my answer would be this:

By all means in Scripture we see deacons, elders (priests) and bishops (the roles that today we tend to consider "clergy"). And we also see, say, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and other roles that today we might consider laity. We see various people having gifts for, and being appointed to, various roles all of which are beneficial to the church. The idea of a clear divide where some roles are set apart from others, and some people are clergy, and others are laity, isn't there in Scripture; that whole concept is completely absent for a couple of centuries or so.

And I don't have a particular problem with the clergy/laity divide as long as we recognise that ultimately, that's just an administrative or organisational strategy. We recognise that particular roles require careful discerning, equipping, authorisation and so forth by the church. And that's fine. But it doesn't make the clergy any better, any more holy or special, or any more vital to the church's life, than what anyone else does.

 

[Malleeboy]

Paidiske,

Does the original meanings of the words impact that:

Bishop is rendering of Episkopos meaning overseers
Priest is rendering of Presbyters meaning elder.

The fact that we use priest for both presbyters and kohen (esdras in LXX).

Do I presume correctly that Anglican's see some sort of transfer of the role of OT kohen to NT presbyters?

 

[Paidiske]

Bishop is rendering of Episkopos meaning overseers
Priest is rendering of Presbyters meaning elder.

Yes. Although I'd also add that in the NT, these seem to be somewhat interchangeable terms. We don't really see a clear bishop/priest distinction emerge until a bit later.

Do I presume correctly that Anglican's see some sort of transfer of the role of OT kohen to NT presbyters?

No, very much not. We would make a distinction between priest in the sense of kohen (Greek hiereus), which is not an office in the Church, and priest in the sense of elder (Greek presbyteros) which is what we understand Christian priests to be.

The work of a kohen or hiereus was to offer sacrifices. Insofar as that exists in the NT at all, it is the priestly work of the whole body of believers, who are a living sacrifice, and who continually offer worship and praise as sacrifice.

 

[Malleeboy]

Elder Paidiske,

When people hear the word "priest", they don't think "elder", they think of a range of things:

a) Christian priests
b) priests from non Christian religions
c) old Testament priest and pagan priest

From my perspective, whatever you may mean by it, I think it inherently muddies the waters. People conflate the priest of Baal, Hindu priests, pagan priests and Christian priests. Now we may know that strictly speaking the usages in a, b, c and d may be supposed to be different, but IMHO average people don't see it.

Now whilst priest is etymologically derived from presbyter, to avoid the confusion, IMHO either

1) we stop using priest for roles that aren't a presbyter ( I would say an impossible task) or
2) we stop using priest for Christian clergy, and use the Greek term presbyter or its direct equivalent elder.

To me it is sensible to say all Christians are priests but not all Christians are presbyters\elders. However to say all Christian's are priests and the leaders are priests. Placing doubt in ordinary believers that the priesthood of all believers means they are really priests, given there is a special class that seem to use the title and are known universally as priests.

 

[Paidiske]

From my perspective, whatever you may mean by it, I think it inherently muddies the waters.

I agree. It is an unfortunate quirk of English that uses this same word for such distinct roles.

Now whilst priest is etymologically derived from presbyter, to avoid the confusion, IMHO either

1) we stop using priest for roles that aren't a presbyter ( I would say an impossible task) or
2) we stop using priest for Christian clergy, and use the Greek term presbyter or its direct equivalent elder.

I think there's an argument to be made for 2), but it's hard to work against the freight of centuries of accepted use.

It is also particularly fraught for women, who have to fight hard to be accepted as priests on the same terms as men (whatever those terms are understood to be); to deliberately avoid the use of the word priest would play into the perception that we are less than/different to the men who hold exactly the same office.

 

[The Liturgist]

1) we stop using priest for roles that aren't a presbyter ( I would say an impossible task) or
2) we stop using priest for Christian clergy, and use the Greek term presbyter or its direct equivalent elder.

Or 3) we demand translators of the Bible not use the word Priest when translating Kohen, Hierus and Sacerdos, since the word is etymologically an Anglicization of Presbyter. Or better yet, 4), do nothing, for the reasons stated by @Paidiske and since there is not a major issue of confusion between Anglican priests and bishops and those of other Christian denominations that retain those titles and the Kohanim of ancient Judaism, and the hieratic ministers of Pagan religions (who, like the Kohanim, are often members of a distinct hereditart priestly caste, such as in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Mandaeism, Yazidism and several other religions).

By the way, the Anglican priest John Wesley* attempted to promote the second option, which you can see in his modified recension of the Book of Common Prayer, but even within the Methodist Episcopal Church they wound up using the title Bishop in addition to Superintendent.

*Despite being the de facto founder of what became the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, Fr. John Wesley at the time of his repose remained a curate priest in the Church of England. It was only some years after his death, in the 1790s, that the British Methodists separated from the Church of England, for reasons I don’t understand.

By the way, one of the best composers of English language anthems in the Anglican musical heritage is the 19th century Samuel Sebastian Wesley, who was a nephew or great nephew of John and Charles Wesley. His works such as The Wilderness are exquisite and moving, and he also composed settings of Choral Evensong and other Anglican services.