On Saturday I went to a Melbourne Anglican Church ordination service. This is essentially a service where the church forgets it's almost 2009 and reverts to some sort of 1700's style worship and liturgy. See this picture for example...
From a much less cynical point of view, this is a service where the new leaders of our church are commisioned by the Arch-Bishop to be God's servants and messengers to the world and in particular their communities where they will be working in a church context.
The reason I went is because my friend and colleague Jono Smith got ordained. He pulls off the whole robes thing quite well!
I managed to get a front row seat, so I was able to get a pretty good look at the action up front! There was a really really long procession at the start.
I thought the way the Arch-Bishop stood up the front and made a various number of declarations was a little too Pope like for me. There was one particular line when he was 'ordaining' the people where he said words to the effect of, "When you forgive peoples sins they will be forgiven, when you retain them, they will be retained." This sits very very uneasily with me as I hold that only God can forgive or retain sins.
On the positive side, I did like the way heaps of ministers and stuff gathered round to lay hands on the people as they were getting ordained by the Arch-Bishop. I thought that was a nice supportive touch. However, I thought it was stupid that family members who so happened to not be ordained couldn't get up and also lay hands on their loved one as they took a big step in their ministry. I also thought it silly that only people in robes could do this.
We also sang a lot. We had a very good choir, although not something I'd chose to listen to much if at all. But i could still appreciate their talent! There was also a bit of an awkward moment where they got the bible and went on a little procession halfway down the isle to read it out. Apparently you were meant to turn around and look at it when this happened. However, I thought this made the bible seem way overly special and unusable by the ordinary every day person (don't get me wrong, I think the Bible is very special as God by His Holy Spirit speaks to us through it) but this seemed odd. Anyway, I didn't turn around to look at the bible, so I'm hoping that means I'm not now destined to hell!
It did get me thinking about my future a little. Is the ordained ministry something I could ever do? There are theological and churchmanship issues that I need to think through seriously and carefully as I think and pray about my future.At least God knows what lies in store for me!
one small reason I'm not a anglican. I also don't fully understand the role of ordination - since you already work for the anglicans how is it different or is something you do when you graduate from college?
can I just clarify thou I'm not anti anglican.
So Chris - here's some homework for you. What would a "fresh expression" ordination look like? In other words - how would you do it?
W.
Hey sunshine. Nice post.
Lucky you didn't get chucked out for taking those pictures during the "service".
Astrid - as far as I can see ordination is the Anglican churches organisational way of ensuring that the right people are leading and pastoring churches. The lines do get blurred though when you have say senior church staff who aren't ordained but have as much authority as an ordained person would (except for doing communion and baptism i think)... But i'm not very well thought out on my ordination theology.
Will - "I have no idea what a "fresh expression" of ordination would look like... I think it would have more to do with the power of influence than the power of the orginisation and it would look far more organic and be related to much more to the context the minister was going to be in at the time of ordination.... that's like my exam answer with no study! ;)
Interesting post.
Some Anglican things are mega weird! ;)
Hey Chris,
I've written a response to your discomfort with the 'sins forgiven/retained' thing over on the www.masg.net.au forum after Luke linked from there to your blog. Thread is "Diocese's largest number ordained".
Thought I should pop in and let you know!
Cheers
Matt
Dude, this has (or may be about to) hit the fan over at MASG...
Thanks for posting a photo of me in robes too; it really tells a thousand words about my ministry, faith, theology, wants, needs, desires, etc. etc. etc.
You're a true friend.
J.
I agree that the traditions of the church can be barrier, and Anglican need to remember the context in which they are operating. Re your comment that you could never bring yourself to wear robes, I think of what Paul said to the Corinthians:
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
Whilst the Anglican Diocese doesn't seem willing to become anything other than what it has always been, I don't know if we should claim that we could never worship in a manner which is beneficial to some and not contrary to the gospel. Perhaps, to the unchurched it is appropriate to do away with the robes/candles/liturgy but to the old style Anglicans it is better to keep it (excluding unbiblical liturgy, like the forgive/retain bit you cited).
I know this is a little late in the piece, but I just read that latest comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what Paul is saying to the Corinthians (about being all things to all men) referring to the unsaved? In other words, the 'unchurched' who won't respond well to the robes/candles/liturgy? The old-style Anglicans, we assume, are saved already. So that passage is not really relevant to how we should present the gospel to Anglicans and the 'churched'.
If I'm interpreting Paul's words correctly, then in light of this discussion, the robes can have very little benefit. I don't know many unsaved people who would easily relate to the whole robes thing. Thoughts?
I think that as the wearing of robes becomes important to less people its a practice that should be phased out. This will prob happen over time.
Interms of your comment renae I think you are right in terms of context - and right in action to a degree.
maybe these things should stay for now because they help to retain the faithful that see these as important maybe its comparable to the eating of meat in the new testament - like the apostle paul didn't want peoples faith weakened we shouldn't do anything to weaken others faith by removing things that they see as important in church. I might be woefully wrong on this though.
Sorry to say, your ignorance on the matters on which you write is quite astounding. It is best to form a sound, grounded theology of ordination before dismissing so readily what has been an unchanging and essentail aspect of the Church of God. And on the matter of 'the sins you forgive they are forgiven...' READ THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW!!! Simple as that! The authority Christ bestows on his Apostles is the same authority the ordained share in.
Thanks for expressing your opinion Nico.
I certainly never claimed to be outlining my well grounded theological position, just my discomforts and current thoughts. Firstly, I'm not sure the whole ordination thing as we currently have it has been unchanging since Jesus.
Can you point me to exactly where in Matthew you were referring? I know in John, 20:24 Jesus gives the disciples such power. But I'm unconvinced that you can build that into modern day ordained people?
I feel you perhaps would need to qualify your last statement somewhat?
Happy to learn and be less ignorant!