At synod I met with my former rector, who, like my current rector, is a superb Catholic and excellent priest. He told me of a book he's reading by a priest named Branscombe written, oh I don't know - years ago - that deals with youth and confirmation. (NB: Unfortunately I deleted the e-mail father sent me with the full name of the book. Though when I did have the title I looked for it online and called Anglican Bibliopole, but could not find a copy for sale anywhere.)
The author (I am told) makes the argument that many kids leave the church after confirmation because they never developed a spiritual life. They have been taught a bunch of important facts and doctrine, their spiritual development has not been given enough attention. So he says that kids need to be taught how to develop a rule of life as part of their confirmation preparation. Sounds like a great concept to me. What good is a bunch of facts and religious knowledge if it is not practiced?
So I decided to give my Church school class a summer project: to develop and implement a rule of life. When we went over it, and when I explained the rationale behind it, they seemed very interested and excited. The kids are already great little catholics (e.g. when, as a class, we did the "Beating of the Bounds" on Rogation Sunday they spontaneously began chanting the Litany.), but this will help them lay the groundwork for years of spiritual growth. And hopefully when they get to be older, they will have such a strong spiritual foundation that they will not get into too much trouble. We'll see what sorts of things they come up with.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Emotions and Anglicanism
One of the things I have noticed about being a continuing Anglican for so long is that our tradition seems to be lacking in the affective side of religion - the side related to our emotions. Our worship is for the most part straight-28 BCP, and in my experience priests rarely stray from the text of BCP or missal. While there are important reasons for not straying from our minimalistic liturgical text, the downside is that we can come across as being cold and emotionless. And I think this lack of emotion, and seeming coldness, is one of the reasons why many continuing parishes are so small, and maybe why the Episcopal Church was always historically a lot smaller than other churches. Emotions are a real side of us and something that we need to have an outlet for.
Churches of other traditions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have an outlet for emotions in the many devotions and sacramental acts of the Church, which are ingrained in the life of the Church (e.g. novenas, rosary, confession, mysticism, etc.). Since Vatican II other aspects have been added as well, such as "evangelical-style" folk/hand-clapping music, lay apostolates, charismatic gifts, and more. On the other end of the spectrum, in the Evangelical Protestant culture, there is all of the hand-clapping, charismatic stuff, and lay ministries that is found in Rome, and there is also a strong sense (derived from Puritanism) of "the family as the house of God", the culture of doing "daily devotions" and having a prayer list, going to prayer meetings, of your daily work being a means of growth in holiness, etc. In short, examples of emotional outlets in both the Roman and Evangelical traditions abound. And while one can find examples of these types of emotional outlets here and there in Anglicanism - from the evangelical Anglicanism of a Truro Church to a catholic Anglicanism of a Mt. Calvary Church - most of the churches that I have experienced are somewhere in the gray, murky, emotionless middle in terms of their spirituality.
Most continuing Anglican parishes that I have had anything to do with have not had the type of spirituality where someone would come up and ask how they can pray for you. They do not use the phrase "The Lord" or even "Our Lord" when speaking of Jesus. They do not ask how you are doing spiritually, or have much evangelistic zeal. Now granted there are always exceptions in each parish (and thank God for them!), but by and large that type of emotional/affective spirituality is not a big part of many continuing parishes. Conversely, these same parishes do not seem to have much of a catholic spirituality either... there is no rosary group, no daily mass, no Angelus, no processions, no adoration, etc. Again, there are exceptions, as some parishes do have those things; and there may be people within a parish who get together on the side to pray the rosary or have some other form of catholic devotion. There is little to no emotion, but is that a good thing when they form such a large part of who we are?
The point is not to argue whether or not these types of affective spirituality are or are not truly "Anglican", but to say that for the most part, in our tradition, I have not seen much in the way of an emotional outlet, and I think we are weaker off as a result. And that is maybe one of the reasons why our parishes are so dinky. The only possible exception that I could think of is if you go to a parish with a fantastic music program and choir. The music of our tradition is quite spellbinding, and music, by its very nature, is emotional. But such choirs and organists are exceedingly rare in our tradition. The hymnody has an emotional element in it too, but I think it gets lost rather easily. So what we get is basically straight BCP Anglicanism, with very few changes or imagination, and it comes across as being very cold, clinical, and detached (and maybe outmoded).
It seems to me that Anglican parishes should be definitely either "catholic" or "evangelical" in their spirituality, and not wallow in a murky, broad middle. Pick one, or the other, but don't stay in the middle! There is no emotion in the lukewarm middle, and yet our affective side needs a spiritual outlet. Does this resonate with anyone else or is it just me?
Churches of other traditions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have an outlet for emotions in the many devotions and sacramental acts of the Church, which are ingrained in the life of the Church (e.g. novenas, rosary, confession, mysticism, etc.). Since Vatican II other aspects have been added as well, such as "evangelical-style" folk/hand-clapping music, lay apostolates, charismatic gifts, and more. On the other end of the spectrum, in the Evangelical Protestant culture, there is all of the hand-clapping, charismatic stuff, and lay ministries that is found in Rome, and there is also a strong sense (derived from Puritanism) of "the family as the house of God", the culture of doing "daily devotions" and having a prayer list, going to prayer meetings, of your daily work being a means of growth in holiness, etc. In short, examples of emotional outlets in both the Roman and Evangelical traditions abound. And while one can find examples of these types of emotional outlets here and there in Anglicanism - from the evangelical Anglicanism of a Truro Church to a catholic Anglicanism of a Mt. Calvary Church - most of the churches that I have experienced are somewhere in the gray, murky, emotionless middle in terms of their spirituality.
Most continuing Anglican parishes that I have had anything to do with have not had the type of spirituality where someone would come up and ask how they can pray for you. They do not use the phrase "The Lord" or even "Our Lord" when speaking of Jesus. They do not ask how you are doing spiritually, or have much evangelistic zeal. Now granted there are always exceptions in each parish (and thank God for them!), but by and large that type of emotional/affective spirituality is not a big part of many continuing parishes. Conversely, these same parishes do not seem to have much of a catholic spirituality either... there is no rosary group, no daily mass, no Angelus, no processions, no adoration, etc. Again, there are exceptions, as some parishes do have those things; and there may be people within a parish who get together on the side to pray the rosary or have some other form of catholic devotion. There is little to no emotion, but is that a good thing when they form such a large part of who we are?
The point is not to argue whether or not these types of affective spirituality are or are not truly "Anglican", but to say that for the most part, in our tradition, I have not seen much in the way of an emotional outlet, and I think we are weaker off as a result. And that is maybe one of the reasons why our parishes are so dinky. The only possible exception that I could think of is if you go to a parish with a fantastic music program and choir. The music of our tradition is quite spellbinding, and music, by its very nature, is emotional. But such choirs and organists are exceedingly rare in our tradition. The hymnody has an emotional element in it too, but I think it gets lost rather easily. So what we get is basically straight BCP Anglicanism, with very few changes or imagination, and it comes across as being very cold, clinical, and detached (and maybe outmoded).
It seems to me that Anglican parishes should be definitely either "catholic" or "evangelical" in their spirituality, and not wallow in a murky, broad middle. Pick one, or the other, but don't stay in the middle! There is no emotion in the lukewarm middle, and yet our affective side needs a spiritual outlet. Does this resonate with anyone else or is it just me?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Worship and Theology in England
I finally started reading Horton Davies' classic multi-volume set Worship and Theology in England. Unfortunately it is out of print, but I managed to score a set in mint condition a few years ago. If you can find a set, get it: it's really good. Davies was a professor of history at Princeton, and he spent many years working on this. It stands out from other "theological histories", such as The Panther and the Hind, because it studies English worship and theology in all of the many different denominations/churches (e.g. Anglican, Roman, Puritan, independant, Anabaptist, Quaker, etc.), and compares and contrasts cultic practices, preaching, spirituality, architecture, and music in each. It is not in the least bit polemical, and is beautifully written. I recommend this set for all postulants, and clergy, as well as for anyone interested in English religious history.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Following Up
One of the things that the clergy always harp on is the idea of putting words into action. It is not enough to simply profess faith in Christ. We must live our faith in Jesus. "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:20) Everyone seems to agree with this on a personal, moral level, but what about on an institutional level?
There are many institutions that fail to follow up words with action. One such institution is the Church. There are all sorts of ways that we as the mystical Body of Christ fail to follow up words with action. A big example of this is in the area of ecumenical talks and agreements. While I can't speak for other jurisdictions, it often seems to be the case the that we in the APA enter into concordats of inter-communion, covenant unions, and such, but then, as a brother priest put it, we "stick the piece of paper in a drawer and forget about it." While my branch of Christ's Church is to be lauded for its open-mindedness, and peace-making outlook, we don't tend to do too much after the agreement has been signed. I imagine it is much the same in other jurisdictions. There are no doubt many probably "innocent" reasons for this lack of follow-up (e.g. no larger vision, general busyness, not enough manpower, etc.).
I think that we in the APA, as well as all of the other continuing Anglican jurisdictions, would do well to remember that signing an ecumenical agreement of any sort is just the beginning. We need to take those concordats, and enact and build on them. If we are not going to use them as a starting point to accomplish bigger and greater things for the Kingdom of God, then what is the point?
There are many institutions that fail to follow up words with action. One such institution is the Church. There are all sorts of ways that we as the mystical Body of Christ fail to follow up words with action. A big example of this is in the area of ecumenical talks and agreements. While I can't speak for other jurisdictions, it often seems to be the case the that we in the APA enter into concordats of inter-communion, covenant unions, and such, but then, as a brother priest put it, we "stick the piece of paper in a drawer and forget about it." While my branch of Christ's Church is to be lauded for its open-mindedness, and peace-making outlook, we don't tend to do too much after the agreement has been signed. I imagine it is much the same in other jurisdictions. There are no doubt many probably "innocent" reasons for this lack of follow-up (e.g. no larger vision, general busyness, not enough manpower, etc.).
I think that we in the APA, as well as all of the other continuing Anglican jurisdictions, would do well to remember that signing an ecumenical agreement of any sort is just the beginning. We need to take those concordats, and enact and build on them. If we are not going to use them as a starting point to accomplish bigger and greater things for the Kingdom of God, then what is the point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)