Charismatic v institutional - what happened next?

2

Comments

  • So what's your take: can you call somebody an apostle who isn't itinerant?
  • Given that apostello means "sent out" or "missionary," the person is going to have to fulfill that definition some way. Most commonly that is going to be by geographic movement, though it may occur only once (for example, the "apostle to Burma" Adoniram Judson, who went there and stayed for 40 years). I know Timothy did travel with Paul at least once, so we can scratch that requirement off his list, even if he was more or less stable for most of his life. But I'm wondering if simply crossing a major cultural divide, even a non-physical one, might be enough to justify the title. Imagine a Christian plopped down in a city with no other Christians around. Even if it's the city of his birth and residence, he is "out there" all by himself to be the Church in that place all alone until he can gather others. He is the first seed. I could see calling that person an apostle. For example, the Ethiopian treasurer who went home to be (probably) the first baptized believer in his nation, and the seed of the Church there?

    But of course there are several senses for the word "apostle," and some people will even apply it to the first missionary to quite a small people group. I've even heard it applied to Mr. Lamb on that basis, though he would have a fit if he knew. Way above our pay grade.
  • Also word meanings can change. We know what the etymology is, but that doesn't always drive meaning.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Also word meanings can change. We know what the etymology is, but that doesn't always drive meaning.
    True, but I don't think that can or should be allowed to happen to the word 'apostle'. It's only used because of its original religious meaning - whatever we think that was. That's what it gets all its meaning and resonances from. Giving it another meaning to suit ourselves is linguistic misuse, and is likely to be being done for rhetorical reasons that at least verge on the dishonest.

    The same applies IMHO to a lot of the casual way 'prophet' and 'prophetic' are thrown around, as I've already aired on this thread.

  • OffeiriadOffeiriad Shipmate Posts: 46
    The discussion seems again to be equating 'ministry/minister', with 'leadership/leader'. My original question was about 'ministry/minister' rather than 'church leader' which I think has to be a 'settled' role by the nature of the job surely?

    And in terms of 'Calling', I suppose the question is 'who is doing the Calling?' - God through the structured Church in whatever manifestation? Or the Holy Spirit speaking directly to that Believer and saying 'Go there and say/do this!'?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Offeiriad wrote: »
    The discussion seems again to be equating 'ministry/minister', with 'leadership/leader'. My original question was about 'ministry/minister' rather than 'church leader' which I think has to be a 'settled' role by the nature of the job surely?

    And in terms of 'Calling', I suppose the question is 'who is doing the Calling?' - God through the structured Church in whatever manifestation? Or the Holy Spirit speaking directly to that Believer and saying 'Go there and say/do this!'?

    I think the bigger question is how that calling and therefore the message authenticated? Is it enough for me to go down to the bus station and start shouting "I have a message from God?"
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Alan29: I think the bigger question is how that calling and therefore the message authenticated? Is it enough for me to go down to the bus station and start shouting "I have a message from God?"

    Charismatic leadership is not simply about the leader but the relationship between the leader and the led. Charismatic leaders somehow articulate the often inchoate feelings of those who feel the prevailing structures can no longer handle their needs and are looking for significant change. The message an individual proclaims at a bus station will only resonate if those there have ears to hear. It's not really a question of authenticity or integrity. As Trump demonstrates, charismatic leaders can be snake oil salesmen and utter charlatans.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    So what's your take: can you call somebody an apostle who isn't itinerant?
    From what I've read, the answer is Yes, I believe you can. For example, Titus seems to have been originally from Corinth, but Paul put him in charge of the church in Crete. The move to Crete is what makes him an "apostle." If he had been a native Cretan, and there had been no move from one place to another, the term wouldn't apply.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Also word meanings can change. We know what the etymology is, but that doesn't always drive meaning.
    True, but I don't think that can or should be allowed to happen to the word 'apostle'. It's only used because of its original religious meaning - whatever we think that was. That's what it gets all its meaning and resonances from. Giving it another meaning to suit ourselves is linguistic misuse, and is likely to be being done for rhetorical reasons that at least verge on the dishonest.

    The same applies IMHO to a lot of the casual way 'prophet' and 'prophetic' are thrown around, as I've already aired on this thread.

    He can't be an apostle because he's stationary VERSUS apostle can't mean stationary because he was an apostle, and he was stationary. Which argument will prevail? You toss your coin, and I'll toss mine.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    ... He can't be an apostle because he's stationary VERSUS apostle can't mean stationary because he was an apostle, and he was stationary. Which argument will prevail? You toss your coin, and I'll toss mine.
    I don't think one can maintain either restriction as an absolute from scripture or the earliest sources.

  • Offeiriad wrote: »
    The discussion seems again to be equating 'ministry/minister', with 'leadership/leader'. My original question was about 'ministry/minister' rather than 'church leader' which I think has to be a 'settled' role by the nature of the job surely?

    And in terms of 'Calling', I suppose the question is 'who is doing the Calling?' - God through the structured Church in whatever manifestation? Or the Holy Spirit speaking directly to that Believer and saying 'Go there and say/do this!'?

    I guess my issue is that prophecy implies a kind of leadership - if I am telling people 'God says we should do xyz', I am implicitly instructing them to do xyz.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    ... I guess my issue is that prophecy implies a kind of leadership - if I am telling people 'God says we should do xyz', I am implicitly instructing them to do xyz.
    Very good point IMHO @Ricardus.

    If somebody says - or implies - 'this is the word of the Lord', they are raising the stakes. They are saying that they, or their pet guru, is speaking with God's voice. Either you've got to agree with them, and if you don't obey, you are disobeying God or you're condemning them as a false prophet. The consequences for you if you are wrong are serious. The potential implications for them, if you are right, are possibly even more serious. There isn't really any middle position.

    That is yet another reason why the misuse of the words 'prophet' and 'prophetic' is so dangerous and reprehensible.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    ... I guess my issue is that prophecy implies a kind of leadership - if I am telling people 'God says we should do xyz', I am implicitly instructing them to do xyz.
    Very good point IMHO @Ricardus.

    If somebody says - or implies - 'this is the word of the Lord', they are raising the stakes.

    In my experience, people in circles where this is common learn to live with a fair amount of dissonance.

    (I appreciate that this may not be the answer you are looking for).
  • I expect they do, in much the same way (if you'll forgive the analogy) that abused spouses learn to live with gaslighting and the ever-present threat of violence.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ... He can't be an apostle because he's stationary VERSUS apostle can't mean stationary because he was an apostle, and he was stationary. Which argument will prevail? You toss your coin, and I'll toss mine.
    I don't think one can maintain either restriction as an absolute from scripture or the earliest sources.

    Exactly my point.
  • Fascinating thread.

    A few random thoughts. Were the Methodists 'kicked out'?

    I was more under the impression that they were on a trajectory that meant they'd leave sooner or later (and then start to splinter).

    Roger Forster having one of the 'finest minds' in UK evangelicalism. Not actually that difficult. I'm sure he does have a very fine mind, though.

    The Didache? What the heck was going on there? I've read it several times and it freaks me out.

    Itinerants. I've always thought Benedict was being harsh and polemical in the way that writers in those days were often harsh and polemical about those with whom they disagreed. A 6th century version of the Ship's Hell, perhaps?

    Celtic Saints roaming around. I think I'd itinerate too if I found I could float over to Cornwall or Brittany on a millstone...

    My guess would be that it was only those who travelled around that we get to hear about. The fact that they were known across a wide area contributed to their eventual canonisation.
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    I believe that Wesley and others were not allowed to preach in Anglican churches (he preached in the church yard of my village church instead, for example), so, perhaps not technically kicked out, but with the same outcome. I agree it was inevitable though.
  • Especially if it's true that the response of Bishop Butler of Bristol (after hearing of the scenes when Wesley preached to the Kingswood miners) was indeed, “Enthusiasm, sir, is a horrid thing!"
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    Especially if it's true that the response of Bishop Butler of Bristol (after hearing of the scenes when Wesley preached to the Kingswood miners) was indeed, “Enthusiasm, sir, is a horrid thing!"

    Indeed! In his early C19th diary (still in print, I believe), the Revd Skinner of Camerton, a small mining village, had some interesting things to say about the increasing influence of Methodists - not very complimentary!
  • Doone wrote: »
    I believe that Wesley and others were not allowed to preach in Anglican churches (he preached in the church yard of my village church instead, for example), so, perhaps not technically kicked out, but with the same outcome. I agree it was inevitable though.

    That wasn't because he was a Methodist I suspect, there were (and are?) canons about where Anglican clergy could preach. They just can't turn up anywhere and expect to do so.

    Wesley remained an Anglican all his life. Those Methodists connected with Wesley didn't secede from the CofE until after his death.

    Wesley didn't have a parish as such - 'the world is my parish'.
  • Especially if it's true that the response of Bishop Butler of Bristol (after hearing of the scenes when Wesley preached to the Kingswood miners) was indeed, “Enthusiasm, sir, is a horrid thing!"

    The good Bishop Butler (of Gloucester, I believe) actually said, 'Sir, the pretending to special revelations and gifts of the Holy Spirit is an horrd thing, a very horrid thing.'

    I can think of quite a few people I'd like to say that to and would also like to see it printed on large laminated posters in some churches or projected on their PowerPoint screens.

    'Rational Enthusiast' is the title of the best biography of Wesley I know.

    I'm a big Wesley fan but if we are talking about issues between the charismatic and the institutional then you couldn't get more institutional than the way he ran his 'societies' and 'class-meetings.'
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I can think of quite a few people I'd like to say that to and would also like to see it printed on large laminated posters in some churches or projected on their PowerPoint screens.

    Only if in white Comic Sans MS lettering on a background of a light blue waterfall with green vegetation, with a dove shooting flames out of its backside to the lower right.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I can think of quite a few people I'd like to say that to and would also like to see it printed on large laminated posters in some churches or projected on their PowerPoint screens.

    Only if in white Comic Sans MS lettering on a background of a light blue waterfall with green vegetation, with a dove shooting flames out of its backside to the lower right.

    Quotes file.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I can think of quite a few people I'd like to say that to and would also like to see it printed on large laminated posters in some churches or projected on their PowerPoint screens.

    Only if in white Comic Sans MS lettering on a background of a light blue waterfall with green vegetation, with a dove shooting flames out of its backside to the lower right.

    You've forgotten the dolphins leaping out of the mountain stream below the waterfall.
  • And a tiny ad for the pastor's latest self-published book, available at the table after service...
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Gama GamalielL Wesley didn't have a parish as such - 'the world is my parish'

    The above statement fits in perfectly with the Weberian understanding of the role of charisma in challenging the efficacy of prevailing structures, as does your observation, Gamma Gamaliel, that Wesley was not averse to establishing structures, as part of institutional renewal- the routinisation of charisma.
  • Not averse to establishing structures?
    Establishing Structures were his middle names.

    The 'people called Methodists' weren't called Methodists for nothing. They were nothing if not methodical.

    I remember reading a 19th century biography which began, 'My father was a man of Method.'

    The name was coined when Wesley was still at Oxford and what was to become Methodism was nought but a twinkle in his and others' eyes. There were more varieties than the Wesleyan one of course.

    Wesley wasn't nicknamed 'Pope John' for nothing either.

    It was his way or the highway.

    As well as the Weberian contrast between the institutional and the charismatic I think there's something else going on here. The Orthodox claim that both their liturgies and structures are pneumatic. I imagine Rome takes a similar line.

    I think we see a similar assumption at the micro-level within what might be called 'sectarian' (in the Weberian sense) and congregational or gathered-church models. I've heard Baptist ministers joke that the 'church meeting' is the closest thing to a Baptist sacrament.

    We've all got structures. A Quaker meeting in its own way is just as structured as anything that happens in the RC parish down the road.

    Whatever structures we adopt I think we would all see them as a help at times, a hindrance at others.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Alan29: I think the bigger question is how that calling and therefore the message authenticated? Is it enough for me to go down to the bus station and start shouting "I have a message from God?"

    Charismatic leadership is not simply about the leader but the relationship between the leader and the led. Charismatic leaders somehow articulate the often inchoate feelings of those who feel the prevailing structures can no longer handle their needs and are looking for significant change. The message an individual proclaims at a bus station will only resonate if those there have ears to hear. It's not really a question of authenticity or integrity. As Trump demonstrates, charismatic leaders can be snake oil salesmen and utter charlatans.

    So does the authenticity or integrity of the message depend upon its reception? Does this mean that charismatic leadership is a form that is only relevant in its own time and place?
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited March 4
    I've heard Baptist ministers joke that the 'church meeting' is the closest thing to a Baptist sacrament.
    What? Some people say that it isn't one? Is Outrage!

    In some Nonconformist churches, it would appear that the most sacramental act is Taking Up The Offering ...

  • I've heard Baptist ministers joke that the 'church meeting' is the closest thing to a Baptist sacrament.
    What? Some people say that it isn't one? Is Outrage!

    In some Nonconformist churches, it would appear that the most sacramental act is Taking Up The Offering ...

    I wouldn't joke about it at all. The gathered body of Christ opening the scriptures, praying for the world and the community, sharing wisdom and insight. What's not to like - at least we're all doing with" one another in such an environment rather than being "done to" by self appointed (or imposed) leaders, such that we might be done for.
  • I think Baptist Trainfan's jest was aimed at Taking Up The Offering rather than the 'church meeting' which he clearly considers sacrosanct.

    I can understand that. Back in my 'restorationist' days they were always disparaging the 'church meeting' approach and contrasting it with what was seen as 'God's anointed' and all that malarkey - effectively a bunch of self-appointed 'apostles' and their acolytes.

    When I actually encountered the 'church meeting' model I found it a breath of fresh air. I'd attended Baptist churches before but not their 'church meetings'.

    I can't speak to how things are done in traditional or historic episcopal churches but from what I've seen of the Anglican practice of appointing ministers/clergy it seems pretty mixed but there appears to be consultation beyond the PCC to some extent.

    I've heard Catholic priests say that their bishops can send them hither or yon at a moment's notice and that's one of the reasons they are expected to be celibate.

    Whatever the ins and outs, the model both Baptist Trainfan and ExclamationMark espouse does raise an interesting angle on an issue I alluded to earlier. Namely, the extent to which our models and structures can be 'pneumatic' or act as 'means of grace' as the old Reformers would have it, or conduits in some way for divine blessing or 'afflatus'.

    I suppose what I'm angling at is how do we know or how can we tell? An ardent sacramentalist might be convinced that the mojo happens at the Eucharist because the priest, for all their flaws, is duly appointed through apostolic succession - and that ultimately it is Christ who presides.

    A Baptist or Congregationalist would discern the movement of the Spirit in a collegial way among the gathered believers.

    A Quaker in a similar way only according to the Friends' particular and distinctive take on these things.

    Does it all come down to context? This, that or the other is sacred or efficacious because the norms of that particular community 'sanctify' it as such?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Siimon Toad So does the authenticity or integrity of the message depend upon its reception? Does this mean that charismatic leadership is a form that is only relevant in its own time and place?

    I don't think 'authenticity' or 'integrity' are the operative words in this context- though one would hope they were! I think 'resonance' would be closer. The success of a charismatic leader, because it depends on the relationship between leader and led, does mean that the context, in which time and place are important components, is critical. So, if I might so being a sentence, the brief answer is "yes'.
  • I think Baptist Trainfan's jest was aimed at Taking Up The Offering rather than the 'church meeting'.
    It was.

  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Ha! First time I ever took a service was at a conservative Baptist church in upstate New York. (Yes, they did let me preach: they didn’t think of me as primarily female but primarily Scottish, possibly a third gender.) It was an evening service. When it came to the offering it was apparent that no one had been primed to take it up, maybe I was supposed to organise this, I never discovered. Anyway, when I announced the offering and no one moved, I said, “We won’t take an offering this evening but just give thanks for God’s gifts.” Instantly several deacons leapt to their feet, grabbed the offering bags and got going!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I've heard Catholic priests say that their bishops can send them hither or yon at a moment's notice and that's one of the reasons they are expected to be celibate.

    I suspect that the final clause of your post is imagined

    The Catholic priests here have just had their 10-yearly (decadal? decadent?) moves. All done by the bishop, who may very well do it by drawing the name of a priest from one hat and a parish from another.
    None of the Anglican problems of nominators searching for someone they like, who is prepared to move and whose nomination will meet with arch-episcopal approval.
  • questioningquestioning Shipmate
    Cathscats wrote: »
    Ha! First time I ever took a service was at a conservative Baptist church in upstate New York. (Yes, they did let me preach: they didn’t think of me as primarily female but primarily Scottish, possibly a third gender.) It was an evening service. When it came to the offering it was apparent that no one had been primed to take it up, maybe I was supposed to organise this, I never discovered. Anyway, when I announced the offering and no one moved, I said, “We won’t take an offering this evening but just give thanks for God’s gifts.” Instantly several deacons leapt to their feet, grabbed the offering bags and got going!

    In one of my isolated, rural congregations, it was not uncommon for the roads to be impassable and for me not to be able to preside at worship. The three or four people who could get there would pray the Lord's Prayer, read the names that were on the intercession list, collect the offering and know that they had done all that was meet and right.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Ha! First time I ever took a service was at a conservative Baptist church in upstate New York. (Yes, they did let me preach: they didn’t think of me as primarily female but primarily Scottish, possibly a third gender.) It was an evening service. When it came to the offering it was apparent that no one had been primed to take it up, maybe I was supposed to organise this, I never discovered. Anyway, when I announced the offering and no one moved, I said, “We won’t take an offering this evening but just give thanks for God’s gifts.” Instantly several deacons leapt to their feet, grabbed the offering bags and got going!

    You are evil.

    I like you.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    I've heard Catholic priests say that their bishops can send them hither or yon at a moment's notice and that's one of the reasons they are expected to be celibate.

    I suspect that the final clause of your post is imagined

    The Catholic priests here have just had their 10-yearly (decadal? decadent?) moves. All done by the bishop, who may very well do it by drawing the name of a priest from one hat and a parish from another.
    None of the Anglican problems of nominators searching for someone they like, who is prepared to move and whose nomination will meet with arch-episcopal approval.

    Well, I didn't imagine what the priest told me. I heard it with my own ears.

    I'm just going on what I was told. I'm not holding up the Anglican - or any other - system as 'better than the RC one, although I do find blanket clerical celibacy - other than for converted and already married Anglican clergy to be rather problematic.

    That's another issue though.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Some Priests are cynical creatures amongst friends.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    <snip>None of the Anglican problems of nominators searching for someone they like, who is prepared to move and whose nomination will meet with arch-episcopal approval.

    This illustrates how different Anglican provinces are from each other. I don’t think an English Anglican would describe the English process in that way.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Well, I didn't imagine what the priest told me. I heard it with my own ears.

    I thought priestly celibacy had rather better arguments in support than ability to move quickly from parish to parish.

    BroJames wrote: »
    This illustrates how different Anglican provinces are from each other. I don’t think an English Anglican would describe the English process in that way.

    Thanks - you're right about differences between provinces and churches and I ought to have thought of that.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Well, I didn't imagine what the priest told me. I heard it with my own ears.

    I thought priestly celibacy had rather better arguments in support than ability to move quickly from parish to parish.

    It's a special case of a major one - that celibate priests avoid being the servant of two masters and are able to offer themselves fully to God's service. Others include avoiding heritability of church offices, minimising clergy stipends and related costs and, historically, giving wealthy families something to do with spare sons that avoided needing to provide them an income and greatly reduced the likelihood of inheritance disputes.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I thought the standard argument in favour of celibacy was your "able to offer themselves fully to God's service".
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    It is argued about a great deal in the West, but priestly celibacy and all that goes with it is as much church as the rosary in most places.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I thought the standard argument in favour of celibacy was your "able to offer themselves fully to God's service".
    Which, it seems to me, encompasses being able to move from parish to parish as needed at a moments notice.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It is argued about a great deal in the West, but priestly celibacy and all that goes with it is as much church as the rosary in most places.

    So was the Mass in Latin right up until the point when it wasn't. As the shortage of priests becomes more acute Rome will inevitably expand allowing married priests beyond the current Eastern Rite and former-Anglican enclaves.
  • Gee D, the priest did say it was 'one' of the reasons and not THE only reason.

    Nick Tamen and Arethosemyfeet have understood the point he was making.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    It is argued about a great deal in the West, but priestly celibacy and all that goes with it is as much church as the rosary in most places.

    So was the Mass in Latin right up until the point when it wasn't. As the shortage of priests becomes more acute Rome will inevitably expand allowing married priests beyond the current Eastern Rite and former-Anglican enclaves.

    maybe, but the tendency in Australia, where local priests have always been in short supply, is to import priests. Most came from Ireland in my youth, but these days they are often from Africa and East Asia.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I thought priestly celibacy had rather better arguments in support than ability to move quickly from parish to parish. ...
    There may be arguments why some clergy might choose not to marry for the sake of their ministry, but I've never encountered any persuasive argument at all in favour of either compelling all clergy to be celibate or restricting priestly ministry only to those who don't want to marry or are either able or prepared to put up with not doing so.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I think compulsory celibacy is a case of "this is how we have always done it." There was a Synod of the Amazon where the idea of ordaining mature married men was discussed. Rxpectations were high but the bishops lost their nerve.
Sign In or Register to comment.