Patriarch Feels "Crucified" in Turkey (1/2)

This report reveals the nature of Turkish persecution of the Eastern Orthodox Church's ecumenical Patriarchate. Turkey, while it claims to be a secular government and has been working hard to join the EU, nevertheless is systematically working to eleminate the ancient Orthodox Christian community based in Constantinople/Istanbul by closing seminaries, churches, and monasteries, and enacting laws that restrict who may become Patriarch.

I believe that Western nations should insist that Turkey give the Orthodox Church more freedom, work to prevent violence by the Muslim majority against Christians, and return the many churches and properties that have been seized over the centuries.

Patriarch Feels "Crucified" in Turkey (2/2)

Here is part 2

More thoughts on the ordination of women and Christian unity

One of the real challenges to the full ecumenical reunification of the Christian Church across the world is going to be the very different approaches taken by various churches toward the ordination of women. I do not say "women in ministry" as folks sometimes do because it seems clear to me from the Bible that the whole community of Christ is a priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9) and the whole community is called to be in ministry (Eph. 4:12) - men and women, young and old.

It is important that we who practice women's ordination explain ourselves thoughtfully, not with simple slogans.
For example, just because God loves all members of the church, just because God calls all into his royal priesthood and to be ministers of his new covenant, it does not necessarily follow that he intends that just any of them can be set apart as 'priests' in the more particular sense. Indeed, under the old covenant the whole community was likewise a 'kingdom of priests' (Ex. 19:6), all were called to be ministers in the world, and yet only certain Levite males were allowed to be ordained priests - even though God certainly loved the women and the males of the other tribes and really did call them into his covenant. So the argument "God loves women and calls them to salvation/therefore they should be ordained" (usually appealing to Gal. 3:28) simply does not hold up under thoughtful and Biblical scrutiny.

And this issue is critically important and needs to be throught through extremely carefully. My own communion - The United Methodist Church does ordain women as both deacons and presbyters, and also consecrates women to be bishops. My Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends, as well as my Episcoplians friends who are strong Anglo-Catholics would all say that this policy (at least as regards presbyters and bishops) is outside the will of God for the polity of the Church according to the Spirit-led Tradition and cannot, therefore, be condoned. Many of my Baptist and conservative Evangelical friends would say that this policy clearly contradicts several passages of the Bible - the authoritative Word of God - and likewise cannot be condoned.

I would say several things in response. First of all, it is vitally important (and on this I completely agree with my friends above) that the Church must submit itself to the will of God as that will has been revealed to us. I met some in seminary who seemed to believe that the Bible forbids the ordination of women, and that we should just do it anyway. At this point, they had apparently decided that their own preferences, or those of the Christians in their immediate circle are more authoritative than the Word of God revealed in the Bible or the leadership of the Spirit revealed in the Tradition of the Church - and this is a suicidal position for the Church to take. It cuts us off from any authority above our own selves and renders us incapable of truly saying (with any authority) to a broken world "Thus saith the Lord who made thee..." All we could then say is "It seems to me that..." And how sad that would be.

If we are going to ordain women, or if we are women who are going to seek to be ordained, we must do so because we have studied the Bible and have come to the conviction that God accepts and encourages women in the leadership of the Church. I have pointed out on a previous occassion that N.T. Wright makes the case (from the Bible!) for ordaining women to all levels of the Church's leadership - including the episcopate (he also briefly deals with the tradition). This is the track that churches (such as my own) who favor the ordination of women must take as they attempt to justify our postion and persuade other churches to adopt it.

Along those lines, I recently read this article by Ben Witherington III, that great evangelical United Methodist theologian and New Testament scholar, arguing (again, from the Bible) in favor of women's ordination and deflating some of the supposedly Biblical arguments against it. Witherington is certainly not a raging liberal or hyper-feminist. He is a Bible-believing Christian, committed to living his life in submission to the Word of God and also committed to understanding that Word as clearly as possible - whatever it may say.

To those who think that we United Methodists (and others) are unbiblical in ordaining women, please read these articles and think again. Even if you still come to the same conclusion (that we are all in error), I hope you will at least respect that we are trying to do business with what the Bible as a whole actually teaches.

What of the Tradition of the Church? Is it not clear that the whole church, always and everywhere has held to an all-male ordained ministry?

There are several books out there now about acceptance of women deacons and perhaps even presbyters in parts of the Ancient Church. I want to do more research here, but as I understand it, there is some evidence that before the "standardization" that occured in the Church when Christianity became legal, the ordination of women was accepted in some places giving us a precedent in the very early layers of the Tradition for this practice. However, it certainly cannot by any means be said that there exists a clear catholic consensus across the ages and across the whole Church in favor of this practice. At best we might argue that it was a minority practice in the Ancient Church and has progressively reappeared in the last couple hundred years as a more wide-spread minority practice.

And so, for those of us who do ordain women, and are part of churches that do so, there can be no place for self-righteous triumphalism: "We are the truly liberated church and they are just backward and patriarchal and mean, etc." I believe I encountered this attitude several times in seminary and it is deeply distressing. We who ordain women should have confidence that we can make a case, from the Bible and perhaps the Early Tradition in favor of our practice; but we should also walk with the humility that comes from the awareness that the majority of the Church today and throughout history - saintly men and women who truly loved the Lord, his church, and his word - disagree with us on this issue and do have reasons for doing so (that is, they are certainly NOT irrational or unholy simply because they disagree here). This should not make us defensive or shrill, but it should make us humble in offering our reading of the text for their consideration.

This brings me back to the quest for ecumenical unity. While a case can be made for women's ordination from Scripture, the Biblical warnings against schism (and exhortations toward unity) are crystal clear. As long as we are divided, we are not fully obeying God's Word.
It is clear to me that some of the innovations that are currently dividing the historic Protestant elements of the Western church (such as homosexual clergy) will never (and should never) recieve an ecumenical consensus and will have no place in a fully-reunified Church. Some (especially among my Anglican and Catholic friends) would lump women's ordiantion into this same catagory. Yet I am not convinced it belongs there since a case can be made, from the Bible certainly, and perhaps in a limited way from the earliest layers of the Ancient Tradition, in favor of this practice. And I am aware that there have been relatively mainstream Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican theologians who have suggested that this is at least a possibility as well.

Yet this remains a stumbling block to ecumenical reunion. Recall the recent offer of Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church to conservative Anglicans: women's ordination was one of the three positions (along with adherance to the "filioque" and 5-point Calvinism) that still stand in the way of reunion. Drop those three, he said, and the Orthodox will recognize the ACNA Anglicans as a legitimate Orthodox Church (see here). It is an offer of historic proportions.

The easiest way forward would be for churches on both sides of this issue to decide that it is "non-essential" and that a church's ecclesiology may be legitimate and valid with or without ordained women. However, because ordination is a sacrament in some traditions (and a rite of sacramental character in others, such as my own) it is not likey that everyone will really accept this as non-essential. Anglicanism has tried with some success to hold this position internally yet it has been a source of stress on the unity of the Communion. A compromise position - of say women as deacons only, or women as deacons and presbyters only in a reunified Church - might work better, but would certainly not please many on both sides of the question. Perhaps we could follow the example of Anglicanism and say "practice need not be uniform in all places on this question" so that some dioceses or provinces ordain women and others do not.

In any case it is only in being true - meticulously true - to the Bible and the tradition that we will ever persuade other Christians to even consider that the ordination of women is legitimate and not simply another example of the Church following the lead of culture and being "blown about by every wind of doctrine."

Practical tips in celebrating the Lord's Supper

When John Wesley sent Bishop Thomas Coke along with the Articles of Religion and The Sunday Service Book across the ocean to found The Methodist Episcopal Church (now The United Methodist Church) he urged the ordained elders to celebrate Holy Communion "every Lord's Day" using this official liturgy. With the adoption of "This Holy Mystery" the General Conference of The United Methodist Church has repeated this call to our clergy and congregations: move toward weekly communion and use the established liturgy.

As a campus minister who travels to various churches, I have had opportunity to witness a number of different Methodist pastors celebrate the sacrament and have a few practical observations and pointers to improve what we actually do at the table. Those pastors who are not detail-oriented may not think these tips are significant or worth bothering to think about ahead of time, yet these practices will make a difference for the people of your congregation.

1) This one I am less adamant about, but it is very appropriate, and a venerable old tradition, for representatives of the congregation to present the elements during the presentation of the offering (see page 8 of the Hymnal); another nod to this same tradition is to simply uncover the elements and set the table during the offering.

2) Have an altar-table, even if a small and portable one, that can be used to set the elements upon and which may support a worship book. Don't allow the table to become overly cluttered with decorations so as to obstruct your hand motions (see #5). Think dignity, beauty, and simplicity when decorating it. There are prayers for setting aside and dedicating a table for this sort of use in The Book of Worship.

3) As I have argued many times before, use the Church's Great Thanksgiving prayer from the worship books; don't just make it up as you go. The Church's prayer tells the story of God, and communicates the Church's beliefs (not only the individual pastor's) about the Lord's Supper. If you check out Great Thanksgiving #2 or #3 in the Hymnal, you will note that there are places where the pastor may "say words appropriate to the occassion" and this is the proper place to pray "as the Spirit leads" (perhaps touching upon the message of the sermon), yet doing so within the structure of the Church's ancient and communal prayer. Thus, in our United Methodist liturgy, there is both form and flexibility and this we should own and celebrate.

The use of the Church's prayer should include breaking the bread with the words from the liturgy after the Lord's Prayer (see United Methodist Hymnal page 11).

Do not divide the prayer up with different people saying different parts. It is a single prayer and should be led by a single elder/presbyter (or bishop).
4) Stand at the altar-table during the Great Thanksgiving - do not read the prayer from the pulpit or some other place. This may mean getting an assistant, or a book stand, to hold the worship book if need be, as it certainly makes a lot more sense for me to stand close enough to touch the elements while I am actually consecrating them. Likewise you should have all of the elements that you intend to consecrate on (or very near) the table during the Great Thanksgiving.

If your table is attached to the back wall (as in many gothic buildings) you may proceed in several ways.
I have been to Anglo-Catholic services where the priest faces the altar (and not the people) and actually find it inspiring - he is, after all, leading us in talking to God, not talking to us, so don't be afraid to try that. Or you could pull in a portable table (see #2) so as to face the people. Or you could compromise and face the people from the beginning of the prayer ("The Lord be with you...") until the Words of Institution at which point you could turn and face the altar. If you try this it might still be appropriate to turn towards the people when saying "Take, eat..." and "Drink from this..." and holding up the appropriate element.
5) What are you doing with your hands? I have noticed some clergy seem undecided about their hand motions, sometimes holding them up or folding them, appartently at random. Use your hand motions deliberately. Here is what I suggest and always do (I believe this is what the Book of Worship also commends):

I lift my hands (palms up) at the beginning of the prayer, and keep them raised until the words of institution (except I fold them during the Sanctus, "Holy, Holy...").

During the words of institution I lift the bread and then the cup at the appropriate points, then fold my hands during the Memorial Acclamation ("Christ has died...").
During the Epiclesis I elevate my hands, palms towards the people ("Pour out your Spirit on us gathered here..."), and then move them over the elements, palms down (and on these gifts of bread and wine...).

Finally I lift my hands again (palms up) for the concluding doxology.
I try to make all of my motions slow-ish and deliberate. At any rate you should do something with your hands, as it will engage the congregation more in the sacramental moment. Do not underestimate the importance of body language.
6) What about the vessels? I always use, and recommend, a single loaf and a single cup (just the way Jesus and the Apostle Paul do it in the Bible). I consecrate the same vessels that we will actually use in distribution (no "prop" vessels). I avoid and dislike the "communion shot glasses" as they destroy the whole "one body" image.

7) Let the people come (as they are physically able) to the altar area to recieve, do not pass the elements around the pews. It is strongly encouraged in our Methodist tradition that we sing during this time.
8) Use handsome vessels since the beauty or ugliness of our vessels communicates about the reality of what is happening as surely as our words do. I generally use a silver chalice and patten (a small plate), since I think the "clay-ware" chalices are (generally) quite ugly looking. I have seen some nice wooden and glass sets, however. Again, don't underestimate the importance of visual cues and the ways that images communicate - especially for Postmodern young people.
9) Along the same lines as #8, do use some vestments when celebrating the Lord's Supper. Several points are worth noting here:

a) We are heirs to a rich tradition of vestments from the Early Church and the Anglican Tradition and that is a legacy that we ought not cast off lightly. Among other things that they do, vestments visually connect us to the Church through history and visually enhance the total worship experience.

b) You can have energetic cutting-edge/contemporary music and vestments in the same service. Believe me, people do it. Don't allow yourself to be caught up in a false antithesis between "traditional worship" and "contemporary worship." Feel free to boldly blur those artificial lines.

c) If you don't wear a clergy robe or an alb during the service, you might consider at least wearing a stole - the symbol or ordination, sacramental authorization, and servant leadership - during the Great Thanksgiving. I don't generally wear a full robe at the campus ministry where I serve, but I do always drape a stole of the appropriate liturgical color over the altar-table and put it upon myself just before the Great Thanksgiving prayer. Sometimes I wear a collar.

The practice of always wearing a white stole for communion is a relic of the days when communion was not celebrated regularly. For weekly celebration the appropriate liturgical color should be worn. In terms of robes, the white Alb, the "standard" black clergy robe (Geneva gown), or the cassock and surplice are those most often used among United Methodist clergy and (along with the stole) all have precedent in the Anglican and/or Early Church tradition.
10) Wash your hands before the service. In some traditions (Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism) it is the custom for the priest to ceremonially wash hands before the Great Thanksgiving. You might want to introduce this as some Methodist clergy have done. You might also want to use sanitizer wipes, although if you do this do not tear open a wipes packet or use a squirt bottle right in front of everyone. This is tacky. Rather, have your wipes ready to go on the table. Slowly wipe your hands with them, and then carefully fold them and place them on the table just before the Great Thanksgiving prayer (do not wad them up and chunk them in the trash as this too is tacky). Better still would be to have wipes by your chair to use before you approach the table. Again, keep in mind that all your body language communicates and that this is a sacred, beautiful, and reverent moment.
11) Have both a bread-breaker and a chalice-bearer when distributing the elements since this is more sanitary than letting each person grab the loaf themselves, and provides and excellent opportunity to better involve a deacon or lay person in the service.
12) Don't be afraid to experiment with the musical responses during the Great Thanksgiving prayer, especially after people have gotten accustomed to the flow of the Great Thanksgiving prayer. There are several musical responses in the Hymnal and The Faith We Sing and they can enrich your worship service.
13) Enjoy what you are doing! You are a presbyter of Christ's one holy Church and you have been given the sacred honor and responsibility to lead in consecrating the elements of Holy Communion and to facilitate an encounter between Christ and the people at the Lord's Table - that is awesome! So please don't just stand there and read a prayer like as though bored or "zoned out". Savor and enjoy what you are doing - and the other people will too.

SO - those are a few practical steps I hope every Methodist elder will consider taking as we attempt to lead the Church toward a more frequent and more engaging celebration of Holy Communion. What might you add to that?