Episcopal Non-Leadership

The Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a message to the General Synod of the CofE today where he addressed, among other things, keeping the Anglican Communion together, women bishops in the CofE, life issues, and homosexuals and the Church. From what I read of it it seemed like a lot of typical Anglican fudge. Someone on the inside who had access to the speech beforehand apparently described it as "brilliant". Personally I do not see what is brilliant about trying to reconcile two completely different views of Christianity, morality, anthropology, and more. I would say that it is "ballsy" for one to try to do this, but more compromise and "Rodney King theology" ("Why can't we all just get along?") hardly strikes me as brilliance.

As an outsider Rowan Williams strikes me as being a complete flop as an archbishop. He seems to be equally reviled by conservatives and liberals in the Church. Bishop Spong, of all people, publicly criticized Rowan Williams for putting unity before truth! I think the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church is a much better bishop and leader than Williams, even though I radically disagree with her. Why? Because she is very clear about where she stands on these important issues, and has the courage to stand up for what she believes to be true.

A bishop - especially a presiding bishop - besides being well-educated and having lots of ministry experience, must also have clear convictions on the nature and purpose of the Gospel and the Catholic Church. Nothing hurts a church more than when theological murkiness and ambiguity run amok.

Morning Prayer

It is the hardest thing in the world to get people to come out for Sunday Morning Prayer. The Sunday schedule at St. Francis is exactly the way it was when I got here: Morning Prayer (no sermon) at 9:15, Mass at 10:00. I think it is a great set-up because people can easily come to both and have a short break between. I have always loved Morning Prayer in part because the very first Anglican parish I ever attended had it as their 11:00 service (except once a month when it was Holy Communion). And when the parish got a very good organist and choir of men and boys it became an even better service. It was nothing to have a Vaughan Williams setting of Te Deum or one of the other morning canticles sung at a typical service. Hearing the Anglican chants sung with interesting new settings, and sung well by the type of choir that was supposed to sing them was great. So I have always loved Morning (and Evening) Prayer, especially when it is executed with beauty and dignity. And I am glad that we have it each Sunday at St. Francis.

Many Anglo-Catholics oppose Mass and the Offices and make it their effort to stamp the offices out of the Sunday schedule so people come to mass instead. But while Holy Communion is undoubtedly the more important service of the two, it is wrong to oppose them to each other. Almost every knows that Cranmer's original intention was for Offices, Litany, and (at least) the Ante-Communion to make up the Sunday service. Most the classic Anglo-Catholic parishes I have known always offer Matins on Sundays, even if it is early and simply "said".

While MP and Mass are two separate services, the Offices help prepare one for Holy Communion, and are an excellent prelude to Mass. How? For one, the Scripture readings help bring out the meaning of the Epistle and Gospel from the Mass even better (almost like that old Protestant adage... that Scripture is interpreted through Scripture). I always study the Scriptures appointed for the Sunday Offices when preparing a sermon because they bring greater insight into the Gospel reading for that Sunday!

Here I should mention that some think that the additional Scripture readings are the only redeeming value of the Offices, and so there is created a "mongrel" service consisting of the 1928 Prayer Book with additional readings thrown in. But that is contrary to spirit of the liturgies, and makes a liturgy that is too long. Plus it ignores the fact that the singing the great canticles of the Church and the Psalms, and reciting the prayers of the office - especially the beautiful General Thanksgiving - are also critical parts of the service.

But the problem clergy face is this idea that God can only have one hour or so on Sunday... or that one can only attend one service on Sunday. This despite the fact that statistics show that the average "Facebook" user spends one hour a day on FB! Attendance at our Sunday Morning Prayer is anywhere from 3-8, even though it is a short (20 minutes tops) service, and even though a good number of parishioners live very close by. I am hoping that by having the organist play the service, and by preaching and teaching on it that we can increase attendance, and the reason I want the attendance to go up for MP is because it is spiritually beneficial, and as the service grows and we can do more with it - with a choir, etc. - that will help the church grow and prosper since the Offices are a "signature" Anglican service.

St. Ignatius Reality Check

Many continuing Church leaders are fond of quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch's famous saying, "Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters," as a way to keep parishioners in line, and remind them of who is in charge (i.e. the bishop and/or rector). Some jurisdictions do this more than others... thankfully the APA is not one of them. It seems to be cited in most cases as a justification for micromanagement. That is fine as long as the bishop and/or presbyter know what he is doing and is a good and godly leader. But in the hands of an inept buffoon it can be a recipe for disaster. In the long run it can really hurt a parish and diocese, because it can create in peoples' minds this idea that they literally should do NOTHING without checking with the parish priest or bishop... even simple things like moving furniture, decorating, cleaning, etc. While some clergy may relish having such "power", others (like myself) find it bothersome to have to come up with plans for fellowship activities, renovations, long range planning, etc. All of that distracts a priest from the work of being a priest - ministry, preaching, exhorting, counseling, and celebrating the Sacraments.

The Murky State of Anglican Ecclesiology

I was recently informed that the Anglican Church in North America has a new website, so I checked it out and it looks really good! No surprise there. While perusing the site I came across the page that has the dioceses on it, and I must say that as an outsider I find it very confusing. It lists each separate member diocese/jurisdiction as a separate diocese along with links to that diocese/jurisdiction's website... which, if you follow, tells you how to become a member of the AMiA, CANA, REC, etc. But wait a minute... I thought they were part of ACNA? And some are part of the Anglican communion, which are in communion with the Episcopal Church, which they left, and/or with the Church of England, that they are out of communion with, but now want to be in communion with them and be recognized as a new province of the Anglican communion... huh?

Their ecclesiology is almost as confusing as continuing Anglican ecclesiology. Remember FACA? This federation includes the REC and the AMiA, which are ACNA members, and also the ACA, which as part of the Traditional Anglican Communion is seeking corporate unity with Rome... huh? And while I can't speak for the other jurisdictions of FACA, my own jurisdiction is or was in communion with the Church of Nigeria (in communion with those who accept WO), the AMiA (does accept WO), and FiFNa, which was not even a church and didn't even have a bishop! I do not understand how a Church effects communion with a para-church organization.

I have to be honest - none of this makes any sense to me. It seems like almost every Anglican group out there is "kissing cousins" to some other group that they virulently disagree with on important theological issues! Now I think that I understand the sentiment behind all of this inconsistent goodwill... i.e. that we all want to be in communion, and we all love the Lord Jesus Christ, and that it takes a few years to iron out details (didn't the Arian controversy lasted from around 325 - 381). All that is a given, and to some degree there is nothing wrong with it. But by the same token a "Rodney King" theology that is built entirely on the premise of "why can't we all just get along" (which is what some of this smacks of) is not satisfying at all to those of us who wish to think about our faith! It is certainly not Catholic. Although I consider myself a pragmatist, maybe I am not pragmatic enough to think this normal or acceptable! But what is the alternative?

Affirming Youth in Traditional Anglican Churches

Everywhere I go folk are interested in how many "young people" we have at our parish. Having lots of youth and family is rightfully viewed as a major sign of the health of a church. Indeed both Anglicans and non-Anglicans are always surprised when I tell them that we here at St. Francis have a fair amount of young college age students, because there is a false idea that young people are not interested in beauty, solemnity, and tradition in worship. That stuff, so the conventional wisdom goes, appeals only "old" people.

One of the major criticisms leveled against continuing Anglicanism by its critics is that it appeals only to elderly people, and that our "dying" parishes are full of "gray heads". Well that is not 100% true. Some parishes, depending in part on their location, are indeed full of mostly older folk - this was the case when I was a curate in Florida. But let us remember that "old" does not mean stagnant or spiritually dead. Other continuing Anglican parishes are certainly not full of older people, as is the case here at St. Francis, and in other parishes that I have attended. Now I suppose if the median age of all of the parishes in a diocese or province were averaged out then one could get a truly accurate idea of how old or young a church is. But until that happens it is wrong, based on the rolls of individual parishes, to say that our continuing Anglican parishes have no young people in them. Yet still these rumors and innuendo persist.

To dispel these falsities, and to continue to try to attract more and more young people and families to our parishes, the different Anglican jurisdictions should strive to take concrete steps that will show that they have and value having young people in the Church. While this can be done in a number of ways, one of the best ways to do this is to, as much as possible, promote young people to positions of leadership on the parish, diocesan, and provincial levels. Not only would this contribute to the life and vitality of the larger church by including people of different generations in the decision making and leadership process, it would send the message that we are young and forward looking jurisdictions, and a form of "succession planning".

Many priests want youth in their churches just so they can say they have youth, or so they can have someone serve at the altar, but - perhaps because of pride (the sin that according to some the elderly struggle with the most) - they refuse to take any thoughts or suggestions that young people have seriously, and absolutely balk at the idea of having them in positions of leadership or authority. In other words, they want young people and youth, but only on their terms. This attitude can sometimes be found not only in parishes, but also entire dioceses and provinces, and it is this attitude which does drive young people from the church. Young people know when they are not being listened to or taken seriously.

Without a doubt our churches need more youthful leadership at all levels. This is not to say that we do not need older men and women involved in leading the church, because we do. What we need is leadership that represents the fullness of church - people of all ages. Our churches no doubt consist of people of all ages, so our leadership should reflect that diversity. Wouldn't it be great to have more young people on different committees in parishes and in the diocese? Wouldn't it be a great thing to have more young men serving as deacons, priests, and bishops? Definitely.

The Death of a Church

Whenever I am on vacation I jump at the chance to attend other churches so I can see what they are up, how they worship and promote themselves, etc. These are always valuable experiences, even if they are not Anglican churches. Recently while visiting my in-laws I was able to attend a church called "Our Savior Anglican Church". This is one of two 1928 BCP parishes in their hometown. Neither have buildings... the one meets in a Lutheran church at 8:30 a.m., and this parish that I attended meets at a Ramada Inn at 10:00. I chose this church because of the service time. It seems to me that if you are trying to grow a church that 8:30 a.m. is not a good time for your one and only service. Both churches have newspaper ads, which is how I found them. The one has a very bad website that does not come up on a google search, so they basically might as well not even have one... this place I attended does not have an internet presence.

Approaching the location there was no sign outside of the hotel indicating that a church meets there on Sundays. When I entered the lobby there was no sign in sight, so I had to ask a rather grumpy clerk where the Anglican church met. I walked into the conference room - one of those stuffy, windowless rooms that you can't wait to get out of - and saw an elderly priest and an elderly couple. The couple greeted me and told me where to get a BCP and a kneeler. There were no bulletins, no hymns, no literature, or anything. The service was one hour. I'd say it was typical continuing Anglican - 1928 BCP along with a healthy smattering of American Missal prayers and propers. There was no music, though the priest did spontaneously break into "Kyrie Eleison" sung to Merbecke for some reason. The sermon was a dry lecture, read from a piece of paper, replete with references to "what most commentators say" (a telltale sign that he probably read for orders). He made a joke at the beginning - something about "where two or three are gathered together...", and then mentioned that they were missing a number of people, as if to reassure me, the visitor, that they usually have more people. Though later he told me the ASA is around 5, and said that when people come to visit they see the small number of elderly folk they never come back. There was no coffee hour, so I stayed to talk to the people some and get more information about the church.

After the mass I learned more about the parish. They are a parish of the HCC-AR, at least 11 years old. The other parish in town is ACC, and this man was once their rector, but when the "Allentown schism" happened in the ACC this group came into being. The rector still seemed to carry a lot of bitterness toward the late Bishop John Cahoon of the ACC, whom he alleged secretly met with his vestry and fomented a schism in his parish. "Bishop Cahoon studied political science at Yale," he growled. Obviously this man was still scarred by the whole incident. The older couple - which live in a retirement community - remarked how destructive these types of schisms have been not only for their parish but for the continuing Church in general. They were happy to hear how well things are going at St. Francis, and that young people are coming to the church and learning the old Prayer Book, and so on, but at the same time I could tell they were despondent about the state of their own parish... and rightfully so. It is sad to say, but this church is dead in the water. Though the older couple and the priest are very dedicated, and their tenacity was quite inspiring, they do not have skills or energy to make this parish work. Like the old Townes Van Zandt song, they are just "Waitin' around to die."

I'd be willing to bet that the other parish in town - the rector's former parish - is not doing so well either. It's too bad that a struggling parish that never really got off the ground got wrapped up in a schism and ended up splitting into two weaker parishes. As a result there is no traditional Anglican witness in that city, though it is a large city and region, and so, one would think, there would be at least one viable congregation somewhere.

Contentment

I continue to get questions and inquiries from friends and acquaintances about the Vatican's recent offer to Anglicans and whether or not I am "interested" in it. My answer is, "No thank you, not at this time." And that is not meant in a spirit of bitterness and spite, but rather because my vocation is to serve as a priest in the continuing church in the Anglican Province of America. Until I get a very clear sign from God that I am supposed to be somewhere else, or doing something different this is where I plan to stay. This may sound silly to some, as the APA and indeed all of the continuing churches are small and lacking in resources and institutions. Past comments on this blog bear witness that being a "continuing Anglican churchman" (in the lay or ordained state) is not an easy vocation by any stretch of the imagination. I have been, and continue to be, frustrated by the state of our churches and our legacy or lack thereof. But by the same token I refuse to go on some never-ending search for greener "ecclesiastical pastures" or the perfect church. Having been down that road before I can tell you that it is a fool's errand if there ever was one.

Ultimately it is my commitment to the Anglican way - and the liturgy and theology of the Book of Common Prayer, the writings of the Anglican Reformers, etc. - that keep me where I am. In almost every case the people I know who have left the Anglican Church for Rome never really had much to do with our tradition to begin with. That is to say, theologically they were content to be part of a church full of priestesses and lady bishops that had long ago ceased to be Catholic. And liturgically they attended mass almost exclusively when celebrated according to the modern Roman rite, to one of the old missals, to a modernistic Anglican liturgy ("Common Worship"), or to the 1979 Episcopal Prayer Book... but they had hardly any exposure to a classical Prayer Book! And if they did, it was only to the rite of Holy Communion - not the Daily Offices (prayed daily), Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, etc. The Prayer Book, which contains the liturgy and theology of the Church, is a lot more than simply the rite of Holy Communion. Other services that such folk attend that may be beautiful and authorized by the Church (such as Benediction) are nice, devotional services, but are not Prayer Book services. So when you never use the Prayer Book (or you use a pale imitation) it is easy to criticize it and its theology, and it is easy to jump ship to some other church and some new liturgy. It's even easier when you don't read the history of the English church, or any Anglican theologians. But when you live and breathe the Prayer Book, and use it daily, and use all of it regularly for 10+ years, it is not so easy to casually toss aside and pronounce it wanting or anathema.