Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Okay, I'll start it off.

There's the expense.

The cost of professional clergy, wages and benefits, possibly including a
housing and car allowance, is often the largest portion of a church's annual
budget.

Shalom,
Richard

    I will answer from the advantage of not having professional clergy.
    
    The advantage is that every member of the church is empowered to
    contribute time and energy to creating the kind of spiritual community
    desired.  Lay persons preach, provide pastoral care, and build the
    community.
    
    The hierarchical differences between layperson and clergy is
    eliminated.
    
    Members are encouraged to enhance their (informal) theological educations to
    preach and teach.
    
    A closer community is possible.
    You truly could have a "priesthood and prophethood of all believers".
    
    Of course the absence of the expense cannot be ignored.

With professional clergy, you often have an outsider propped up in a
leadership position.  Depending on the guidelines of the particular
denomination, employment of professional clergy can be terminated at
the discretion (majority vote) of the congregation.

Shalom,
Richard

Hierarchy can be a problem.

I'm a member of a denomination that pays lip service to equality.  It is
professed that every member is a minister, that the church is "a priesthood
of believers."  Yet the professional clergy, the ordained ministers, are held
unspoken as somehow a notch above.

In the Jewish faith, I've noticed while the rabbi is honored as a teacher,
it's a position more of influence than of ecclesiastical power.

Shalom,
Richard

>It is professed that every member is a minister, that the church is
>"a priesthood of believers."

That is exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

/john

    If the Catholic church truly beliefs that the Church is a priesthood of
    all believers,  does that mean that women are in that priesthood or
    that women do not qualify as believers?
    
    Does that mean that women are lay priests but cannot be professional
    priests?
    
                                  Patricia

    I believe that ALL believers are of the priethood of believers.  I
    believe this is mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews
    
    The Levitical tribe was of the priesthood of Aaron.  Jesus was the high
    priest of the order of Melchizidek.  As co-heirs with Christ, we are of
    a royal priesthood, yet it is important to remember that we are his
    adopted sons; therefore it is indeed a privelage to have this role.
    
    The priesthood of believers is gender blind. Being a priest or a pastor
    is a title to an undershephard or an overseer.
    
    -Jack

    Who are the "We" who are the adopted sons of Christ?
    
    (By the way, I believe that the Bible says we are by adoptions children
    of God the Father, not children of Christ)
    
    
                                        Patricia
    

Women are members of the priesthood of all believers.

The issue over women in the ordained priesthood revolves around one
and only one thing: presiding at the Holy Sacrifice.

/john

>The issue over women in the ordained priesthood revolves around one
>and only one thing: presiding at the Holy Sacrifice.

what is the "Holy Sacrifice"? is this something which only the roman catholics
practice?



andreas.

May a non-priest serve as an instrument of consecration of communion
elements?

In the United Methodist Church there are two sacraments: baptism and
communion.  With few exceptions, presiding over these is the exclusive
realm of ordained clergy.

It sure seems like a power thing to me.

Shalom,
Richard

.10

>what is the "Holy Sacrifice"? is this something which only the roman catholics
>practice?

I believe John is referring to what many call Communion or Holy Communion.

Shalom,
Richard

> I believe John is referring to what many call Communion or Holy Communion.

you realise of course you're walking on thin ice here richard since john is 
the ultimate authority in our midst on both catholic and Catholic faiths! ;-)


andreas.

    So,
    
    There is a priest hood of all believers but a clearly deliniated
    hierarchy within that priesthood of all believers.
    
    some priests are more Priestly than others.
    
    And of course the most important qualification to go from
    priest to More Priest is
    
    What

    Patricia:
    
    I stand corrected, we are the adopted children of God the Father.
    
   ZZ     And of course the most important qualification to go from
   ZZ     priest to More Priest is
    
    1. Must be a servant.
    2. Must be called to the ministry
    3. Must follow the precepts of overseer described in Timothy and Titus.
    
    -Jack 
      

    All are called to servanthood.
    All are called to ministry.
    In a very real way, these terms are redundant.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I brought up servanthood to let Patricia know that being a priest or
    pastor doesn't mean being above others.  It means having enough
    spiritual maturity to guide yet also having enough humility to wash the
    feet of their flock!
    
    -Jack

    The Greek for 'overseer' in Timothy may be translated 'bishop.'
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Jack,
    
    I am well aware that Jesus redined what it meant to be a disciple and
    established a community that eliminated all hierarchical ordering.
    
    I am aware that Jesus established a role model of the minister as the
    servant.
    
    I am aware that Jesus preferred the company of sinners, tax collectors,
    samaritians, and women over the company of the hierarchical religious
    leaders.
    
    I am aware that Jesus selected women and men into discipleship.  Women
    and men among the ranks of fishermen, tax collectors, sinners, etc
    
    I maintain it is the institutionalization of the church, beginning with
    the writing of Timothy and Titus that distorted this model.
    
    Jack, I do believe that you should put more emphasis on the Gospels
    than on Hebrews, Timothy and Titus.  I think you rely almost
    exclusively on those books because they say what you want to hear.
    
                                       Patricia
    
    
    
                               Patricia

    Right...as in...It's a man's job...is that what you think I'm
    thinking?!  Patricia, I consider the epistles as carrying the same
    exact weight as the gospels.
    
    -Jack

>  being a priest or pastor doesn't mean being above others.  It means having 
>  enough spiritual maturity to guide yet also having enough humility to wash 
>  the feet of their flock!

right. just a few days ago as i brought a friend to the railway station, in 
passing the first class compartment of the train, i see this distinguished 
gentleman sitting inside, dressed in a black robe with that little straight 
white inset collar. the golden chain around his neck holding a prominent 
crucifix on his chest, the jewelery on his fingers and the thin lips on the 
man's face all gave this humble servant a most pieous appearance.


andreas.

    .21  Ideally, no.  In practice, all too often.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

well, he might've been a pharisee... 



andreas.

    Jack,
    
    It just seems like about 90% of your theology comes from the book of
    Hebrews with backup from Leviticus.
    
    I feel on a little bit more solid ground sticking with Matt, Mark,
    Luke,John, Acts, Romans, & Corinthians & Galatians.
    
                                       Patricia 

    Hmmm...Interesting that the epistles you left out just happen to deal
    with issues regarding the roles of women, men, wives, husbands, slaves,
    pastors, bishops...and of course Revelation is simply too horrible to
    be inspired.
    
    -Jack

    Gee,
    
    Am I the one responsible for ratholing this discussion!
    
    Since we are discussing the advantageous and disadvantageous of
    professional clergy, I will state that ideally it would be wonderful if
    a congregation could manage itself without professional clergy.  The
    lay people would get the proper education, everyone would share in all
    the tasks of the church and things would be wonderful.
    
    Practically speaking, most congregations really do rely on well loved
    ministers, pastors, and priests, clerics, and religious educators. It
    does make things a whole lot easier for the members of the
    congregation.

    Some day I may be able to deal intelligiently with Revelations.  I
    cannot get over thinking it is just a bizarre book.
    
    The Epistles that I left out are for the most part late 1st century
    works with anonymous authors.
    
    If I am going to study  Christianity, I am going to rely on
    authoritative accounts of Jesus' life and on the work of Paul, the only
    know early Biblical writer.  The rest is interesting, authoritative
    where it supports the Gospel and Pauline witness, but in error where it
    contradicts this witness.

    I will say however, in the synagogues of Jesus time, that the members
    were able to stand up and speak their peace.  This is why Jesus was
    able to teach from the pulpit (just before they dragged him out to
    throw him off a cliff!)
    
    -Jack

Of Peter's mother-in-law, it might be said:

		"Okay, woman.  You're well now.  Hop to it!"

  Luke 4.39  And he (Jesus) stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and
  it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them (served
  them, waited on them).
				  also

  Matthew 8.15  And he (Jesus) touched her hand, and the fever left her:
  and she arose, and ministered unto them (served them, waited on them).

Shalom,
Richard

    What about Deborah?!
    
    -Jack

    Deb Arch.  God, I miss her!
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Deb Arch!!  Was she a former C-P'er??

    Not only a former C-Per, but a moderator of another conference you
    frequent and favor.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.21

> right. just a few days ago as i brought a friend to the railway station, in 
> passing the first class compartment of the train, i see this distinguished 
> gentleman sitting inside, dressed in a black robe with that little straight 
> white inset collar. the golden chain around his neck holding a prominent 
> crucifix on his chest, the jewelery on his fingers and the thin lips on the 
> man's face all gave this humble servant a most pieous appearance.

yesterdays newspaper had a photograph of the pope's ambassador to the country,
the "papal nuntius" as he was referred to. a man wearing much the same attire 
as described above with that golden chain around the neck, that jewelery on 
the fingers and to my surprise looking much the same as presumed overseer in
the train!

how about that...if that was mr. ambassador whom i spotted back there in .21, 
how very commendable of his excellency not to travel in a big black chauffeured
mercedes benz but by train! ;-)



andreas.