Ordination Charge

If you go to the Philorthodox blog you can read the charge I was given at my ordination by the Rev'd Fr. Chandler Holder Jones, SSC, who is sub-dean of our cathedral in Oviedo, Florida. I hope to have some pictures and thoughts posted soon!

Hip Hop Prayer Book

I found this Hip Hop prayer book while looking up 1940 Hymnals on the Church Publishing website. Looks pretty goofy to me. Here is how it translates Psalm 23:

Psalm 23 as adapted by Ryan Kearse
The Lord is all that, I need for nothing.
He allows me to chill.
He keeps me from being heated
and allows me to breathe easy.
He guides my life so that
I can represent and give
shouts out in his Name.
And even though I walk through
the Hood of death,
I don't back down
for you have my back.
The fact that you have me covered
allows me to chill.
He provides me with back-up
in front of my player-haters
and I know that I am a baller
and life will be phat.
I fall back in the Lord's crib
for the rest of my life.

God or the Girl?

There is a really interesting new mini-series on the A & E Network called God or the Girl about four men considering entering Roman Catholic seminary to become priests. As a graduate from a Roman Catholic seminary I find this series quite fascinating. They played two episodes last night, and have two more on tonight. Its just a two-day thing from what the website says, so try to catch it tonight if you can. It is very respectable, doesn't make a mockery of the Roman Church by any strech of the imagination, and is entertaining and educational. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops screened the episodes and have okayed it (of course, this is the same body whose film review arm said the movie Brokeback Mountain was a good film, but I digress). Anyway, I highly recommend this series.

There are so many things to say about the programs I saw last night. Here's a few general observations: Only one of the guys actually has a girlfriend. All but one are rather young.... too young and inexperienced to be making this kind of decision, in my judgment. They are all from pretty conservative dioceses/areas (Arlington, Scranton, etc.). Two, I think, went right out of high school to the minor seminary, so they already have some "seminary" experience.

If you have seen the show, here is my take on the guys. The two that I think should not be priests are Joe, who has major commitment issues and still hasn't found himself despite being 28 years old, and Steve, who seems to be exceedingly vain. The other two guys, I think, could be good priests. Dan is hyped about serving God and the church and already lives in a community of devoutly Roman Catholic religious men, and Mike (the one with the girlfriend) is very level-headed and sensitive... though his spiritual director seems to have some sort of Vulcan mind control over him. Of the four, Dan and Steve seem to have the worst case of "Messiah Complex" (i.e. I will be the savior of the Catholic Church and tell everyone what to believe and how to live). I suppose that is due to their age, though. Hearing it reminded me of an admonition given by one of my seminary professors (a very holy man): he said to make sure that we worked out our own salvation in fear and trembling, and thought about our vocation that way, before worrying about trying to save everyone else.

It is really sad that their denomination makes them have to choose between God and "the girl". Fr. Taylor Marshall asked a while back on his blog what good things Anglicanism has to offer the rest of christendom. One of those good things, though I don't know if it was mentioned, was the option for clergy to marry. The natural desire for men to be with women, both physically, emotionally, and spiritually, should not be denied, or set in opposition to serving in the ordained ministry. That opposition is neither biblical nor patristic. Anyway, this should be an interesting show to follow over the next few days, or for however long it stays on.

U2 Masses

Here is a link to an AP story on U2 masses that some ECUSA parishes are having. These are services where they use music by the rock group U2 for the liturgy. I think some churches have a cover band play the music, while others just spin the CD. U2 has granted there permission for churches to use their music in this way. Many of their songs have a Christian, or generalized religious, or other socially redeeming theme to them. There are even books out on using U2 songs to help write sermons. Now, I like U2, and I even have a few of their CDs on my I-Pod, but I don't think their music is suitable for the corporate worship of the church. The rock and roll medium is too simplistic, market-driven, and transitory to be used for the public worship of the eternal, Triune God of the universe. The banal words to most rock and roll songs draw attention mainly to themselves, and so the song and the group becomes the point of everything... not God. Further, rock and roll music is emotionally driven. The way many popular rock songs are composed (if one can use that word) causes people listening to them to be whipped into an emotional frenzy, clouding reason and intellect. Public Christian worship consists in large part of a perfect balance between reason and emotion. The ECUSA parishes that are doing this have reported that large numbers of young people have been drawn out to the services. But do they continue to come back? Do services that use this type of music have enough spiritual depth to sustain these apparant "conversions"? I doubt it. More important, do the churches holding these services really teach the Christian faith at all, with its great themes of creation, fall, and redemption? If not, then I don't care what kind of music you have playing, people will not come to the church. If there is no spiritual need for salvation, as many mainline churches seem to teach, then why go to church at all?

Baptisms Down

A news link on New Oxford Review reports that baptisms are declining in many churches... from the Southern Baptists to the Roman Catholics. One of the main reasons this is happening, acccording to the article, is because of interfaith marriage: people marry outside of their Christian tradition - or even outside of the Church - and decide to let their kids get baptized when they feel the time is right. They let it be their childrens' choice. Hmmm, I wonder if they would take one of their sons and say, "Well, let's not raise him as a boy or a girl. When he is old enough he can make his own decision as to which sex he wants to be." Or, "Let's not raise little Johnny to be financially secure and responsible, but instead we'll let him decide if he wants to be poor or middle class." That's what these parents are doing with the grace of God in baptism. They are robbing their children of it. If there is friction about whether or not the child should be baptized, then the couple should not be getting married in the first place. Christians should not marry unbelievers (or even "nominal" Christians) anyway - even as the children of Israel were forbidden to intermarry with the Canaanites. Too many churches do not teach what the scriptures teach in this area, and the world and the Church is worse off for it. In the evangelical/baptist world, I suspect one of the reasons for the downward trend in baptism has something to do with the whole "getting saved" theology. Why get baptized when you don't need it to get "saved". Since their faith is not incarnational, or even anti-incarnational, they see no need for sacraments. The Christian faith is mere assent to certain intellectual propositions, and living a morally upstanding life.

N.T. Wright and Jackson Pollock

Lately I have been reading The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright. The beginning section of the book deals with hermeneutics. One of the problems people face in reading texts these days is whether or not a text actually refers to anything real. In reading a story about some event, can it actually convey anything truthful about the event, or does it only tell us only what the author is thinking about? Indeed, some are of the opinion that a story/text really tells us about the mind of author, and nothing more, and so they look for clues in the book to find out about the author's personal life. Wright basically says that this idea is a bunch of bunk.
There is an interesting connection here to art history and art interpretation. Some people think that in looking at an artist's work they can somehow find out about his or her personal belief system, or discover what philosophy he or she followed. Theories like that make for interesting reading at times, but it must be remembered that they are always, in the end, merely speculation and theories. With that in mind, Jackson Pollock is a favorite whipping boy of people like Francis Schaffer. They say that his art shows how meaningless he thought life and the world was. But I don't think his work can be written off that easily. His drip paintings are extremely beautiful (you really have to go see one in person), and are wonderful studies in formless painting. They ought to be apprciated for what they are, and not used as a jumping-off point for mindless speculation about his personal life. The same thing is true with reading the NT. It is meant to be read for what it is.

NOR Subscription

Special thanks to St. George the Orthodox, who comments on the blog, for getting me a subscription to the New Oxford Review! Thinking of leaving Anglicanism for the wonderful majesty, uniformity in faith and liturgy, and orthodoxy and traditionalism of Rome? Better subscribe to this magazine first. Rome "ain't all its cracked up to be." I think I might buy myself the Book "Papal Sins" as a little companion piece to this fine magazine.

Passion de Jeanne d'Arc

Tonight we have a post-confirmation age youth activity. This is my kind of activity: we are going to watch the classic silent film "Passion de Jeanne d'Arc", by Carl Dreyer. This movie has quite a history. Dreyer was urged to make all sorts of changes to the film so the public would like it better. He did so, but they lost their edge, and the film flopped. Meanwhile, the few original prints remaining were lost to various fires. But in 1982, an orginal print was found in the closet of an Oslo insane asylum. It was restored, and a fantastic soundtrack was composed by Einhorn (Voices of Light). The restored orginial with the new soundtrack is absolutely amazing.

The acting is great. It is amazing how you know exactly what is going on, and what the people are saying and thinking even if there are no subtitles. They do it all through their expert facial expressions and gestures. The close-ups and camara angles are astounding and dramatic. It shows how silly most modern movies are, and how studios prefer to use technology, cgi, and special effects instead of the skills of the actor or actress (and the director of photography too, for that matter). If you have never watched a silent film, I recommend this one, as it is a good introduction to the genre.

I hope they like it. There are a few who I think will definitely enjoy it. Not sure about the others. Either way, it will be a great film to see, and a good teaching tool. When I was a kid I hated youth group... with all of the goofy games, the guitar-strumming "kumba ya" music, and all the rest of it. I loved church, and I loved hymns, but I disliked the silliness associated with the youth group. Something like this would have been right up my alley.

My First Mass

It turns out that my first Holy Eucharist will be celebrated the day after my ordination. As that day is a Sunday, and the bishop will be present for confirmations, my first mass will be celebrated in his presence at the main parish mass. Nothing like a little pressure on a guy! At least it won't be a solemn high. Also, my wife will be among those being confirmed that day, so that will add to the pressure as well. Once that is done, I will have to do more masses. For the rector tells me that it is customary that a new priest celebrate three votive masses on the first three ferial days after his ordination: one for the Holy Spirit, one in honor of Our Lady, and one Requiem (for departed family members). So I guess I need to plan those sometime soon.

Private Interpretation and Authority

I am working on my sermon for Palm Sunday. The rector lets me preach several times a month, which is great practice, and I am honored to be allowed to preach on such an important day. Sometimes sermon prep can be very difficult, especially when the passage of scripture appointed for the day is cryptic. Interpreting these passages properly is tricky and requires lots of thought, study, and reflection. I use a variety of commentaries to help me in interpreting these passages, as well as to get ideas on how to approach them.

All of this got me thinking about corporate vs. private interpretation of the scriptures. Over on the fundamentalist Roman Catholic blog, Pontifications, they often talk about private interpretation the scriptures, and how that is one of "problems" associated with Protestantism. In the Roman Church, it is the Magesterium that interprets the scriptures in a way that is normative for the life of the Church, whereas individual Protestants (supposedly) just blindly read the Bible and make it say whatever they want. Often those who harp on this issue believe that the various moral and social challenges facing the Church and other "ecclesial entities" today have come about directly because of the sin of "private interpretation". Honestly, though, I think that is over simplifying the situation. And the more I think about it, the less difference I see between the two camps. The Roman Catholic Church interprets scripture in the same way that other churches do. They use the same tools and techniques, and read the same commentaries, and look at the same documents from the Tradition, as everyone else does. They do not have a secret "stash" of biblical commentaries known only to them.

The main difference would appear to be the magesterium. The magesterium of the Church really acts as the "referee" in the game. And while it is the bishops that form the magesterium of the Church, they clearly depend on the work of biblical scholars, theologians, and other experts to help them make their official decisions and pronouncements. So, in actual fact, the Roman Catholic magesterium is not as authoritarian in these areas as people think. Put another way, they do not just sit around and spout off opinions and interpretations, but very carefully listen the experts, pray, read, and study, just like everyone else. In the end they simply rubber stamp what has been a long, rational, and reflective process. And while I believe that the pontiff could theorectically just announce a particular interpretation of a passage as being "the one true interpretation for all time and space", it would obviously be highly unusual for that to occur. The magesterium also has the responsibility to make sure Roman Catholic clergy adhere to these teachings and decisions. This difference (the role of the magesterium in scriputre interpretation) is very enticing to certain people, and causes many to convert to Roman Catholicism. But is there even this difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants?

All churches have a magesterium - that is to say, a body that decides what is or is not normative for the life of the Church in terms of scriptural interpretation and doctrine. Is there no authority in Protestantism? Or in Anglicanism? Don't tell Bp. Bennison, or Bp. Shaw, or Bp. Ilhoff that. They will laugh right in your face. Of course they have authority, and as we all know, they exercise it very well! Do ECUSA bishops not interpret the scriptures in a way that is normative for their church? Of course they do! Those (ECUSA) bishops and there colleagues have and do interpret the scriptures in a way that is normative for the life of their church. In both ways, protestant denominations are the same as Rome. Even extremely Protestant traditions/denominations, such as Presbyterians, do not allow a minister to get up and say and teach whatever he wants to say and teach. He must conform to the received tradition of his church. There is authority, and authoritative scripture interpretation, in every church. Ultimately one must choose which church's authority and teaching to submit himself to.