Chirpy vicars

11 Responses to “Chirpy vicars”

1. MadPriest says:
   

   Yeh. But no Quaker I know would ever diss the CofE and their vicars in this way, they’re far too well-mannered and respectful of others. Only real Anglicans like Terry and myself would talk such old-fart, reactionary tosh.

   October 9th, 2006 at 12:53 am
2. Aaron says:
   

   It sounds as if what Waite is looking for isn’t a Christian community but rather private devotion. That’s a valid and valuable part of faith, but not what the Eucharist is about. The reason you used to be “left alone” during Anglican worship was because the communal nature of communion had been lost to private pietism.

   October 9th, 2006 at 4:52 am
3. Karin says:
   

   Aaron, a Quaker Meeting isn’t entirely about private devotion. People do speak out in the silence and I’ve found what they’ve said helpful at times. Quakers are usually very involved in social action and work for justice and peace, which is perhaps why the hour of only slightly unbroken silence is so necessary for them.

   I’m not sure why Quakers don’t celebrate the Eucharist but they enjoy fellowship with each other and may well spend time with other Christians.

   Then again, did Jesus mean for us to have a special, token meal to commemorate him, or did he mean that everytime we sit down to an ordinary meal of bread and wine etc we should remember him?

   October 9th, 2006 at 8:10 am
4. Chris Clark says:
   

   “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf”

   This is Holy writ not just Anglican Liturgy. Whereas there is undoubtedly a need for private contempletion the Eucharist is definitely a shared meal.

   It is very hard for clergy to get the balance right in terms of chirpiness and quiteness. Different things appeal to different people and yet we are all supposed to one in Christ Jesus not just meeting with those who share our prejudices.

   October 9th, 2006 at 9:35 am
5. Mary says:
   

   Chris, you express my thoughts admirably.

   On a lighter note, I live close enough to Bury to check out this chirpiness for myself. Anyone want to advise me as to which church I should be attending, then I’ll report back…?

   Finally, can anyone tell me how to be “very” ecumenical, as opposed to just “ecumenical”?

   October 9th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
6. Karin says:
   

   Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

   What does this mean exactly? Is it a bit like Jesus talking about us being connected to the vine? Is he the bread we partake in and the bread we eat at mealtimes reminds us of this?

   I’m not sure this is a clearcut endorsement for a ritulised communion or eucharist.

   October 9th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
7. Chris Clark says:
   

   Karin, I appreciate your comments but personally I feel there have to be some bookends on what we believe. No one seriously disputes I Cor was written by the Apostle Paul and everybody from Pope Benedict to the strongest Calvinist would, I suspect, be in broad agreement that this means what it seems to mean. When a disparate bunch come together and eat the bread and drink the cup at the eucharist as well as being as of benefit to the individual it brings us together in the mystery whcih is the communion of the saints. Simple but at the same time mindblowing.

   I hope my certainty isn’t annoying!

   October 9th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
8. Karin says:
   

   You are entitled to your certainty as long as you leave some room for doubt, Chris.

   I am happy to take communion, but I seriously wonder if that’s what Jesus had in mind for us to do. On the other hand it is useful to sustain the faith of many. However, I wouldn’t say it defines someone as a Christian, though. IMO you can be a believer in and follower of Christ if you have never taken communion.

   October 10th, 2006 at 8:53 am
9. Chris Clark says:
   

   Karin I’m now feeling guilty in using Dave’s most excellent blogsite to have a debate with you. Nevertheless I feel the need to test his liberality

   I do have doubts as any honest person will admit. I am studying to be a reader and it has posed all sorts of questions I have never thought of before. Over history there have been great disputes and wrangles over who is in and who is out. Now I have always been bought up to believe that the individual response was all important but now realise that this thing called the church (the universal church that is) has an important role to play. I am not happy with a highly prescriptive model where the House Church leader or the Pope tells us what is right, but I am equally unhappy with totally leaving it to the individual to know what is right or wrong or what is worth believing.

   I have some Quaker friends and they are frankly nicer people than many from mainstream chuches. I wish they would take up the sacraments as the Church has held from the first century that these are at the very least important if not vital.

   Of course ultimately God will be the judge but he has chosen, I believe, to use scripture, tradition and reason to guide us and we ignore these at our peril.

   October 10th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
10. Karin says:
    

    As I understand it the early commemoration of the Last Supper seems to have been a type of bring and share meal. In fact I think that in one of his letters Paul told some Christians off for bringing and not sharing so that the rich Christians sat down to a 4 course meal and the poor ones had to watch or maybe chew on the piece of dry bread they’d managed to find from somewhere.

    Which seems to support my argument that Jesus intended it to be a proper meal and not just a token argument. I also wonder if he hoped we would remember him at least once every day as bread and wine were what people in his time usually ate every day. So is he asking us to remember him in the ordinary things we do, such as eating meals?

    October 10th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
11. Chris Clark says:
    

    You’re right to question I Cor as we cannot be sure excactly what situatiion Paul was addressing. It’s rather like listening to one side of a telephone converstaion and reading into it what the other person is saying. Caution needs to be exercised and yes we may have got it wrong. It would appear from 1 Cor 11 that the Corinthians had the rememberance as part of a bigger feast. However it seems that instead of being an act of love and unity people were abusing the event. Paul’s warning that the consequences of eating unworthily seem to me to indicate that it already had a deeper sacrimental meaning. It wasn’t just saying thank you for your food …which is a good thing to do of course….

    I have absoluletly no problem with returning the event to a 1 Cor model. I was at a good old fashioned harvest supper on Sunday and it would have been great to finish with a commemoration in my view.

    What am I saying…has the Church over the centuries made the eucharist too complex and devoid of its original context?…probably yes. Does that make what is does now do invalid?..I doubt it. Do I miss out if I don’t join in?…almost certainly yes.. is physically taking it more important than ones attitude internally?.. certainly not

    Oh dear I’ve ended with another certainty…can I ever be forgiven

    October 10th, 2006 at 10:53 pm