It takes more than theology...

The longer I am ordained and in ministry the more I realize how much a parish priest in the continuing Anglican tradition has to do that is not related strictly to theology. Many folk think they will have successful ministries simply if they can master St. Thomas, teach a class once a week, and lead a pretty mass. But it takes so much more than that, and people who think that having an academic interest in theology automatically translates into a vocation to Holy Orders (at least in our tradition) are sadly mistaken.

Today's parish priest is not only the spiritual father of his parish but also the CEO of a small business. As leader of the parish he has to think up activities that need to be done, and inspire others to do the same. He has to be attune to the needs of the physical plant. He has to advertise and go out and "beat the bushes" to spread the word about the church. He has to be computer literate. He has to be an outgoing "people person", or at least be able to fake it. He has to help generate an overall vision for the church and steer it in that direction. He has to be available to do parish ministry 24/7. In short, he cannot just sit back and wax eloquent on philosophy and theology and dress up in pretty clothes on Sundays - at least not in a continuing Anglican parish.... maybe in a TEC or Roman parish with some massive endowment clergy can afford to do that. But by and large, those days have long since passed. In continuing Anglican parishes clergy have to get their hands dirty and do real work, otherwise the parish will die. Being a parish priest is an all-consuming vocation.

Those who are interested in ordination should first and foremost be interested in parish ministry, and not academic theology. A thorough knowledge of philosophy and theology is indeed important and vital to the ordained ministry, but that is only part of it. If you can't communicate it well, or put it into action, or inspire others with it, or even worse if you are not that interested in ministry or dealing with "common people", then you probably have a different vocation... to be a theologian perhaps, but not necessarily a deacon or priest.

Interesting News

I was alerted recently that a parish formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) has joined the Anglican Church in America (ACA). Christ the King has a gorgeous building on a nice piece of land in suburban Baltimore, and they are very near to another ACA parish, St. Stephen's. This is interesting because according to their site they still are into the "convergence" thing which the CEC was all about, and that would make them to my knowledge the first "openly charismatic" continuing Anglican parish.

In other news, the AMiA has decided to consecrate three new bishops. Now they just consecrated a couple last year I believe. Do they need three more? I didn't know they were that big. The thing that is strange to me is that one of the men elected, Rev'd. Todd Hunter, was just ordained to the priesthood in March of 2009! I personally don't think this is a wise decision. It takes ten years to become an Anglican, and even longer if you are in jurisdiction that makes use of the Prayer Book optional, or uses Roman forms for everything.

St. Paul tells us that the Church should "... lay hands on no man suddenly." (1 Tim. 5:22) I really could not agree with him more, especially in this case.

Roving Recluse 2

I am finding Peter Anson's spiritual biography (see my other entry about this book here) to be very interesting and eye-opening. My initial fascination with the book is slowly turning into revulsion. Why? Because his spiritual journey seemed to consist mainly in experiencing strange new liturgies, and experiencing other esoteric services that various Churches (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox) have to offer, and flitting about from one religious community to another. I don't think he has mentioned the Holy Name once in the entire book so far! In contrast to other spiritual biographies (e.g. Augustine, Merton, Lewis, etc.) he talks nothing of prayer, or of his inner spiritual life. So far his spiritual journey appears to be one big massive ego trip, the only religious part about it his strange fetish with unusual liturgies and church buildings.

He reminds me of people who drift through the Christian world and transfer from denomination to denomination, and church to church, with lightening fast speed... ever looking for that ultimate spiritual high... that "ultimate" solemn high mass. I have met a few people like that in my day, as they often pass through continuing Anglicanism for a time. Many such folk end up scaling the heights of esoteric religious experience so much that they eventually leave the Christian religion altogether. This is so depressing because they leave much spiritual wreckage in their lives and the lives of others.

The reason these esoteric liturgy junkies usually end up failing at their original task of finding deeper communion and fellowship with God the Holy Trinity is that somewhere along the line a subtle shift took place in their thinking. Their quest for the divine and truth - their quest for Jesus - becomes something that is all about "them", and are more interested in the gold on the Temple than in the Temple itself. Beauty, mystery, and solemnity in worship is a good thing, and it honors God, but it can very easily be made into an idol, and distract us from the very thing that would give us everlasting life.

The Devil is in the Interpretation

Related to the previous post, it is reported that the All Saints' Sisters of the Poor in Catonsville, an old Anglican Benedictine religious order, are converting to Rome (all but two of the sisters, anyway). I wonder how they will resolve property issues, and such with the two remaining sisters? I took several retreats there in my day since I grew up in Maryland. It is a wonderful place.

As someone who went from Anglicanism to Romanism, and then came back, I have great reservations and concerns about these sorts of things. Changing churches is not like changing shirts. There is a different ethos in the Roman Church that takes a lot of getting used to and can be quite spiritually disconcerting for some. The authority of Rome, which is usually touted as the reason for converting, is not understood or thought through very well by many converts.

The reason Anglicanism is found wanting is because there is no central authority to call the shots, as it were, hence all of the doctrinal confusion in the area of morality and (to a lesser extent) doctrine. Affirming the authority of the Scripture and Tradition in the classic Anglican and Orthodox sense isn't good enough for these folk, because the question remains as to how the Scriptures and Tradition are to be interpreted, and who is supposed to do it in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. So related to the question of authority is the question of interpretation, or hermeneutics: who does it, and how is it to be done?

What many converts to Rome fail to realize is that papal pronouncements, encyclicals, etc. all have to be interpreted as well. Nowhere was this clearer than with the recent "motu proprio" which freed Roman ministers to say the old Tridentine mass. The pope released what appeared to be a very clear statement regarding the use of that liturgy, but almost immediately he had to issue a follow up statement explaining how it was to be interpreted and understood! And no doubt he will have to keep on doing it, and will have to issue explanations of the explanation, and so on. And when he dies, it will be even harder to understand what he originally intended and meant. One can only begin to imagine the incredible complexity and difficulty of interpreting Medieval and Modern encyclicals, etc. Indeed, as we discussed in seminary, many encyclicals and pronouncements have simply been quietly consigned to the ecclesiastical basement because it is easier to do that than to try to reconcile them with later advances in human knowledge.

So there is a very basic hermeneutical problem that cannot be resolved simply by "swimming the Tiber". The excellent book by Fr. Francis Sulliven, Creative Fidelity (required reading in Roman seminaries), is about this very subject - how are the primary sources of theology to be weighed and interpreted. It is a very difficult and confusing subject, and once one actually gets into it he realizes how it is not quite so easy to say, "The pope says..., the pope says..., the pope says...". (He also raises an interesting question concerning WO. Quoting JPII, he says that the Roman Church "has no authority" to ordain women. (!) In an age when the apparent "authority" of Rome is touted as the answer to everything it is very intriguing to think of something that she does not have the "authority" to decide.)

Now I am not suggesting for one minute that Anglicans, the Orthodox, or other Christians do not have hermeneutical and epistemological issues in knowing and doing God's will because we do. But the Roman Church has the same problem, only pushed back another level.

Blessings and congratulations

... to my friend Fr. Jeff Steel and his family as they prepare to enter the Roman Church. I am proud to say that I went to college with Jeff and knew him when he was a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

As he said in his blog, it is simply impossible to be a Catholic in the Church of England as it now is. Continuing Anglicans have been saying that for years. Unfortunately in England there are few options for those who wish to be Catholic Anglicans, as there is only a very small continuing Church presence. So what is a mainline CofEer to do to be Catholic in that land? Go to Rome. Luckily in the States we have other options.

Many prayers and blessings to the Steels in there new ecclesiastical home!