Listening to a local radio station the other day, I heard the DJ asking for listeners to send support money for Hurricane Katrina relief. His reason as to why we should donate money was to "get good karma"; in other words, if we do something nice for another person, then something nice will happen to us.
While this particular usage of "karma" is very common and relatively harmless, I still do not find it very satisfying intellectually. At best it is a vague sort of sentimentilism. At worse, it is the ethical egoism (i.e. we should be nice to others because it ultimately benefits us) of Ayn Rand resurrected.
The Christian faith has another reason as to why we should help others in times of need: we help others out of love for God. Our helping of others is an offering of worship and praise to God. In addition, it is an act of obedience to our heavenly Father. And finally, we help others out of love for them - as people made in the image of God.
I am happy if anyone wants to send aid to people in need. As far as I am concerned they can do it in the name Dr. Spock and the Starship Enterprise. But in my judgment it is the Christian faith and tradition which offers the most fully satisfying and consistent rationale for acts of charity.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Monday, August 29, 2005
Continuing Film
Recently I received copies of Talking to Strangers and ARC - two feature length movies by acclaimed independent filmmaker and professor Rob Tregenza. They are part of a trilogy, the third being Inside/Out, which I hope to get sometime soon. Yesterday, my fiance and I viewed Talking to Strangers. It consists of 9 short vignettes on an a would-be artist who encounters all sorts of moral dilemas while passing through the city of Baltimore. It struck me as being similar in style to some of the "moral anxiety" films of Kieslowski. Overall it was extremely well done. The cinematography is especially interesting. This film, along with others he's done, appeared at Cannes, Toronto, Berlin, and all of the other big international film festivals. It also happens to be one of the all-time favorite films of the legendary French director Jean-Luc Godard.
So why do I mention this on a blog about continuing Anglicanism? Because Rob Tregenza is also Fr. Tregenza - a priest in the APA! He is the rector of Mt. Calvary Church in Lothian, MD. His parish is the only place I know of where the Sarum Rite, as it is presented by Percy Dearmer in the Parson's Handbook, is done. Most APA parishes are Latin Rite/Ritual Notes sorts of places. I have been fortunate enough to be able sit down and chat with him about art, culture, theology, and philosophy at length several times. I hope he does some more movies sometime in the near future.
It is nice to see traditional Anglicans contributing so much to the world - not only in the sphere of faith and religion, but also in the arts. This sort of ties into a thought I had in an earlier post: namely, that the Christian religion speaks to all areas of life and thought. When we think about postmodern life and culture in terms of faith in the Risen Christ, why not express that in some visual medium. There are plenty of great thinkers out there who writes books and essays dealing with such things, but what about artists? Tregenza is one of the people doing just that.
So why do I mention this on a blog about continuing Anglicanism? Because Rob Tregenza is also Fr. Tregenza - a priest in the APA! He is the rector of Mt. Calvary Church in Lothian, MD. His parish is the only place I know of where the Sarum Rite, as it is presented by Percy Dearmer in the Parson's Handbook, is done. Most APA parishes are Latin Rite/Ritual Notes sorts of places. I have been fortunate enough to be able sit down and chat with him about art, culture, theology, and philosophy at length several times. I hope he does some more movies sometime in the near future.
It is nice to see traditional Anglicans contributing so much to the world - not only in the sphere of faith and religion, but also in the arts. This sort of ties into a thought I had in an earlier post: namely, that the Christian religion speaks to all areas of life and thought. When we think about postmodern life and culture in terms of faith in the Risen Christ, why not express that in some visual medium. There are plenty of great thinkers out there who writes books and essays dealing with such things, but what about artists? Tregenza is one of the people doing just that.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Youth Group Woes
Do any of your parishes have a decent youth program? I mean a youth program that kids actually want to come to, and that can compete with the big "non-denominational church" youth programs?
We are trying to establish one at my parish. It is hard because our facilities are very limited, many of the parents do not bring their kids to church regularly, and the youth worker has a fulltime job already. But these are not insurmountable odds. Nothing is impossible with God. With much prayer and some good old fashioned TLC, I think we can get one off the ground and keep it going. We certainly have enough kids to do it, which is a blessing. We've been publicizing it, and have had a couple of small activities thus far. So far things appear to be on the right track. It takes TIME and DEDICATION to develop a good program.... that is the first lesson we are learning.
We have chosen a snazzy name and logo/motto. As for activities, we are trying to do a monthly "off-campus" activity and a weekly meeting that has study, prayer, and fellowship, and which coincides with the adult mid-week eucharist/bible study (that way families can come to church together mid-week). We also invite other area APA/REC parishes to join in the various activities so as to pool resources, work together, and build fellowship. Then, of course, we have a Sunday School class. So, keep the youth at my parish in your prayers. I will keep you all posted on how it goes. if you have any ideas please let me know!
We are trying to establish one at my parish. It is hard because our facilities are very limited, many of the parents do not bring their kids to church regularly, and the youth worker has a fulltime job already. But these are not insurmountable odds. Nothing is impossible with God. With much prayer and some good old fashioned TLC, I think we can get one off the ground and keep it going. We certainly have enough kids to do it, which is a blessing. We've been publicizing it, and have had a couple of small activities thus far. So far things appear to be on the right track. It takes TIME and DEDICATION to develop a good program.... that is the first lesson we are learning.
We have chosen a snazzy name and logo/motto. As for activities, we are trying to do a monthly "off-campus" activity and a weekly meeting that has study, prayer, and fellowship, and which coincides with the adult mid-week eucharist/bible study (that way families can come to church together mid-week). We also invite other area APA/REC parishes to join in the various activities so as to pool resources, work together, and build fellowship. Then, of course, we have a Sunday School class. So, keep the youth at my parish in your prayers. I will keep you all posted on how it goes. if you have any ideas please let me know!
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Oh Litany, Where Art Thou?
We have said the Litany at parish maybe twice in the last two years. At the previous continuing parish I attended (which was more "cathedral style" Anglicanism than anglo-catholic) it was said or sang maybe three times a year. At all of the ECUSA parishes I have attended I have only seen the Litany done once.
I think that this is a rather sad state of affairs because the Litany is a big part of our liturgical heritage. In fact, page vii of the 1928 BCP clearly states that the Litany is one of the official and regular services of the church. Other services in the BCP kind of come and go, such as the Penitential Office, but the Litany was there from the beginning. Thus it should not be too easily forgotten.
Since it is not said in most parish churches, many of us are left to say it on our own. Have any of you ever tried to incorporate it into your own daily devotions? Sometimes I will add it to my reading of the Daily Office, but I must confess that saying something that long by myself - responding to myself - does not seem very proper. It was obviously meant for corporate worship.
I think that if the continuing churches want to keep using the 1928 BCP, and if we extol its virtues and profundity in comparison to other liturgies, then we should use more of it than we do. It is possible to get quite a bit of variation out of it if you read the rubrics and use your imagination. One way to do that is to say the Litany in church more frequently.
I think that this is a rather sad state of affairs because the Litany is a big part of our liturgical heritage. In fact, page vii of the 1928 BCP clearly states that the Litany is one of the official and regular services of the church. Other services in the BCP kind of come and go, such as the Penitential Office, but the Litany was there from the beginning. Thus it should not be too easily forgotten.
Since it is not said in most parish churches, many of us are left to say it on our own. Have any of you ever tried to incorporate it into your own daily devotions? Sometimes I will add it to my reading of the Daily Office, but I must confess that saying something that long by myself - responding to myself - does not seem very proper. It was obviously meant for corporate worship.
I think that if the continuing churches want to keep using the 1928 BCP, and if we extol its virtues and profundity in comparison to other liturgies, then we should use more of it than we do. It is possible to get quite a bit of variation out of it if you read the rubrics and use your imagination. One way to do that is to say the Litany in church more frequently.
Monday, August 15, 2005
The Christian Religion
As I have many non-religious friends, I often find myself wondering just what it is about Christianity that I find so compelling. Why do I spend so much time and energy living the Christian life when other people do not? One of the main reasons is that Christianity - orthodox Christianity - offers a complete worldview that is both intellectually and existentially satisfying. It is a completely integrated system of thought and way of life. The faith of the Church profoundly influences every aspect of human existence for all people in all times and ages. Indeed friends and associates who do not share my faith might believe many of the samme things that I do about the moral life, or human existence. But the difference is that in the Christian religion those beliefs are parts of a greater whole, and are rooted in a transcendent norm. I find that very satisfying.
One of my typical friends or associates, may, for example, believe that the death penalty is generally wrong. And while I share that view, I feel like I have a complete, internally sound, system of thought that justifies my belief, whereas my friends often do not. They may have a certain belief in the dignity of humanity, but they have no transcendent norm that underlies that belief. They have no theological, or even philosophical, anthropology. And because they lack such a basic foundation, their views concerning other things of great importance, such as civil government and social work, are often completely at odds and philosophically out of whack with their other beliefs. In other words, they engage in all sorts of contradictory thought...
Take the the Rage Against the Machine concert I saw a few years ago where the guitar player had a Soviet "hammer and sickle" sticker on his guitar, and pictures of Che Guevara in the background.... yet all the songs they sang about had to do with personal "freedom" and "anarchy" (something the communist/Marxist worldview makes subservient to the state)! Everyone was cheering, and moshing, and dancing around celebrating anarchy and denouncing the United States (this was before 9/11 when the surge of patriotism wiped RATM off the map). Yet if they tried to do that in North Korea or China - whose symbols they were waving around - they would all be lined up and shot!
Biblical and traditional Christianity offers a completely integrated worldview that answers all of the questions that come up in life. But it even more than that: it is a personal encounter with the living God - with the creator of the universe. We can come to personally know this God who took on human flesh to save the world and bring us into greater knowledge and love of Himself. And most important, we can be united with Him for all eternity with all of His saints... and this unity begins now! Indeed, I can't see how someone could reject the Christian faith - reject Jesus Christ - and find life satisfying and fulfilling intellectually or otherwise.
One of my typical friends or associates, may, for example, believe that the death penalty is generally wrong. And while I share that view, I feel like I have a complete, internally sound, system of thought that justifies my belief, whereas my friends often do not. They may have a certain belief in the dignity of humanity, but they have no transcendent norm that underlies that belief. They have no theological, or even philosophical, anthropology. And because they lack such a basic foundation, their views concerning other things of great importance, such as civil government and social work, are often completely at odds and philosophically out of whack with their other beliefs. In other words, they engage in all sorts of contradictory thought...
Take the the Rage Against the Machine concert I saw a few years ago where the guitar player had a Soviet "hammer and sickle" sticker on his guitar, and pictures of Che Guevara in the background.... yet all the songs they sang about had to do with personal "freedom" and "anarchy" (something the communist/Marxist worldview makes subservient to the state)! Everyone was cheering, and moshing, and dancing around celebrating anarchy and denouncing the United States (this was before 9/11 when the surge of patriotism wiped RATM off the map). Yet if they tried to do that in North Korea or China - whose symbols they were waving around - they would all be lined up and shot!
Biblical and traditional Christianity offers a completely integrated worldview that answers all of the questions that come up in life. But it even more than that: it is a personal encounter with the living God - with the creator of the universe. We can come to personally know this God who took on human flesh to save the world and bring us into greater knowledge and love of Himself. And most important, we can be united with Him for all eternity with all of His saints... and this unity begins now! Indeed, I can't see how someone could reject the Christian faith - reject Jesus Christ - and find life satisfying and fulfilling intellectually or otherwise.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Continuing Organists - What to Do?
I must confess that one of the things that worries me about the future of traditional Anglicanism is the ability to find organists to play our services. There is a shortage of organists in general, and the few out there who are well-trained and have some gusto and vision would probably chose to play in a huge downtown parish with a massive pipe organ rather than a small continuing parish that has an electronic organ. That leaves us with the grannies, or perhaps a convert from evangelicalism who would not, on principle, work at a mainline parish.
But then, in all cases, there is the problem of the organist not knowing Anglican music or liturgy. In other words, they have no idea how to make a nice "Choral Evensong" service; they have never heard of Anglican Chant before; and they do not know any mass setting other than Willan's.
Are there any new "Healy Willans" out there among our ranks? Are there any men (or women) who are committed to preserving the tradition of Anglican music and passing it on to the next generation? I think that the parish is the birthplace of organist vocations (just as it is for priestly vocations). Do any of our organists - even if they are lame - take pupils and try to pass on their trade? It seems to me this is something that must be addressed!
But then, in all cases, there is the problem of the organist not knowing Anglican music or liturgy. In other words, they have no idea how to make a nice "Choral Evensong" service; they have never heard of Anglican Chant before; and they do not know any mass setting other than Willan's.
Are there any new "Healy Willans" out there among our ranks? Are there any men (or women) who are committed to preserving the tradition of Anglican music and passing it on to the next generation? I think that the parish is the birthplace of organist vocations (just as it is for priestly vocations). Do any of our organists - even if they are lame - take pupils and try to pass on their trade? It seems to me this is something that must be addressed!
Friday, August 05, 2005
Benedicite, omnia opera Domini
Those who read Morning Prayer with any regularity will recognize this canticle. (note: the BCP says Morning and Evening Prayer is to be daily; and because our liturgy is common prayer - meaning for laity and clergy, men and women, old and young alike - every Anglican should make an effort to read Morning and Evening Prayer every day)
It is the long canticle - the one we all probably say the least because of the big rush and hurry we Americans are always in. I must confess that I find myself saying this canticle (which comes from the Apocrypha) the least too. But I do make an effort to say it at least once a week, and everytime I do I am glad I said it! It speaks of all nature and creation praising God. It may be viewed, perhaps, as a primitive Natural Theology: all of creation testifies to God's Lordship, and through nature we can come to know God on a basic level. Nature is our "interface" with God - such as with the elements of Bread and Wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Last night the power went out, and I lay bed for 5 hours sweating... barely able to breathe because of the awful heat and humidity. Then this morning, when I said the Benedicite, I was reminded that the "...winter and summer..." is to bless the Lord, and praise and maginfy Him forever (BCP p.12). Even the oppresive, sweltering heat, which was crushing me and keeping me awake, must bend the knee to Almighty God.
So, if you do not read Morning and Evening Prayer regularly, start doing it. Then, when you do it, don't shy away from the longer canticles. They have much to teach us.
It is the long canticle - the one we all probably say the least because of the big rush and hurry we Americans are always in. I must confess that I find myself saying this canticle (which comes from the Apocrypha) the least too. But I do make an effort to say it at least once a week, and everytime I do I am glad I said it! It speaks of all nature and creation praising God. It may be viewed, perhaps, as a primitive Natural Theology: all of creation testifies to God's Lordship, and through nature we can come to know God on a basic level. Nature is our "interface" with God - such as with the elements of Bread and Wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Last night the power went out, and I lay bed for 5 hours sweating... barely able to breathe because of the awful heat and humidity. Then this morning, when I said the Benedicite, I was reminded that the "...winter and summer..." is to bless the Lord, and praise and maginfy Him forever (BCP p.12). Even the oppresive, sweltering heat, which was crushing me and keeping me awake, must bend the knee to Almighty God.
So, if you do not read Morning and Evening Prayer regularly, start doing it. Then, when you do it, don't shy away from the longer canticles. They have much to teach us.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Working for Peace
Last night I watched Hotel Rwanda. It is a very moving and disturbing film that documents the true life experience of a hotel manager in Kigali who used his influence and hotel to save over 1200 people from certain death. I recommend that everyone see this film at least once.
I remember when those massacres happened eleven years ago, and can recall how shocked I was that something like that could happen today. It shows the great evil that human beings are capable of - despite our education and technology. And once again, I was confronted with the indifference of the west. How could we let something like that happen? Over 1 million people died in just a few months during those massacres.
God created us with a free will, and endowed us with reason and intelligence. How do we use this? Because of the fall, and orginal sin, part of the human condition is to constantly struggle with abusing our freedom and reason - using it for supposed "self aggrandizement". But St. Paul tells us that in Christ we are "new creations". Indeed we need God's grace in Jesus Christ to purify us, and rescue and elevate our nature to what it was intended to be. This message needs to be brought to all the world so that such great evil will never happen again.
I remember when those massacres happened eleven years ago, and can recall how shocked I was that something like that could happen today. It shows the great evil that human beings are capable of - despite our education and technology. And once again, I was confronted with the indifference of the west. How could we let something like that happen? Over 1 million people died in just a few months during those massacres.
God created us with a free will, and endowed us with reason and intelligence. How do we use this? Because of the fall, and orginal sin, part of the human condition is to constantly struggle with abusing our freedom and reason - using it for supposed "self aggrandizement". But St. Paul tells us that in Christ we are "new creations". Indeed we need God's grace in Jesus Christ to purify us, and rescue and elevate our nature to what it was intended to be. This message needs to be brought to all the world so that such great evil will never happen again.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Continuing Wedding
I'm getting married in the fall. To be honest, I sometimes thought that I would never meet the woman of my dreams and get married. My faith is very important to me, and equally important is the classical Anglican expression of the catholic faith. And obviously, emotional and physical attraction are also very important when looking for love.
Well, traditional Anglican parishes - at least the ones I have attended - for the most part are not exactly crawling with gorgeous and intelligent young women, so it is hard to meet women at them. Once in a while there was a visitor, or someone who came at Christmas and Easter, but I wanted to meet someone who was in love with the Lord Jesus Christ, not just a "nominal" Christian. So eventually I just sort of "gave up" looking and resigned myself to living by my principles and accepting what God apparently had for me. Accepting God's will for my life was actually very freeing. I was able to get a lot of great work done, and grow much more comfortable with myself.
But lo an behold, I happened to go to a Christmas party last year, and there I met my future wife. We hit it off, started e-mailing, and then started dating. She began coming to mass with me, and has not missed a Sunday since. She comes from a somewhat liberal Mennonite background - liberal enough to dress normally and date outside the Amish/Mennonite fold, but still conservative enough to be against abortion, and pro-traditional marriage, and such. Now she has adopted Anglicanism wholeheartedly. She crosses herself, bows at the cross, genuflects, prays the rosary and talks about Mary a lot, goes to Stations and Benediction, and even says Evening Prayer with me once in a while.... it is wonderful! She'll be confirmed, Lord willing, this fall or spring. She fits right in at church, and likes the small, close-knit atmosphere of our parish and our diocese. She is real Anglican trooper - a top notch gal, and the love of my life! We're getting married this fall with the 1928 BCP and American Missal. The mass setting will be the "Mass for Three Voices" by William Byrd.
I thank the Lord that I have found someone out there to share this part of my life - the very core of my life - with. I have to admit, I had my doubts at times. The traditional Anglican world is not for everyone... it is too beautiful, too mysterious, too contemplative. But the Lord blessed me, and did not leave me hanging. He sent me someone who also found that world beautiful. The night we met, I told her, and all of the other women I met at the party, all about me, and about my Anglicanism, thinking that if she or they were not interested in me that would be fine, and that I wouldn't want to meet someone who didn't care about the Lord anyway. And I was right about 99% of them. But she was the one who e-mailed me, so I took notice. Then on our first date, after eating and hanging our for a while, I just started talking to her about the Blessed Mother, and how devotion to her has been spiritually refreshing and helpful to me. She did not run, but rather was so affirmative, and into what I was saying. Now we talk about how Mary played a role in our romance. And now we are getting married at St. Mary's Church!
Anyway, sorry to get all sentimental. I just wanted to offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, and also give hope to those who think one could never find his or her true love while attending a small, continuing Anglican parish with a (formerly) crappy organ. There is always hope with God.
Well, traditional Anglican parishes - at least the ones I have attended - for the most part are not exactly crawling with gorgeous and intelligent young women, so it is hard to meet women at them. Once in a while there was a visitor, or someone who came at Christmas and Easter, but I wanted to meet someone who was in love with the Lord Jesus Christ, not just a "nominal" Christian. So eventually I just sort of "gave up" looking and resigned myself to living by my principles and accepting what God apparently had for me. Accepting God's will for my life was actually very freeing. I was able to get a lot of great work done, and grow much more comfortable with myself.
But lo an behold, I happened to go to a Christmas party last year, and there I met my future wife. We hit it off, started e-mailing, and then started dating. She began coming to mass with me, and has not missed a Sunday since. She comes from a somewhat liberal Mennonite background - liberal enough to dress normally and date outside the Amish/Mennonite fold, but still conservative enough to be against abortion, and pro-traditional marriage, and such. Now she has adopted Anglicanism wholeheartedly. She crosses herself, bows at the cross, genuflects, prays the rosary and talks about Mary a lot, goes to Stations and Benediction, and even says Evening Prayer with me once in a while.... it is wonderful! She'll be confirmed, Lord willing, this fall or spring. She fits right in at church, and likes the small, close-knit atmosphere of our parish and our diocese. She is real Anglican trooper - a top notch gal, and the love of my life! We're getting married this fall with the 1928 BCP and American Missal. The mass setting will be the "Mass for Three Voices" by William Byrd.
I thank the Lord that I have found someone out there to share this part of my life - the very core of my life - with. I have to admit, I had my doubts at times. The traditional Anglican world is not for everyone... it is too beautiful, too mysterious, too contemplative. But the Lord blessed me, and did not leave me hanging. He sent me someone who also found that world beautiful. The night we met, I told her, and all of the other women I met at the party, all about me, and about my Anglicanism, thinking that if she or they were not interested in me that would be fine, and that I wouldn't want to meet someone who didn't care about the Lord anyway. And I was right about 99% of them. But she was the one who e-mailed me, so I took notice. Then on our first date, after eating and hanging our for a while, I just started talking to her about the Blessed Mother, and how devotion to her has been spiritually refreshing and helpful to me. She did not run, but rather was so affirmative, and into what I was saying. Now we talk about how Mary played a role in our romance. And now we are getting married at St. Mary's Church!
Anyway, sorry to get all sentimental. I just wanted to offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, and also give hope to those who think one could never find his or her true love while attending a small, continuing Anglican parish with a (formerly) crappy organ. There is always hope with God.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Get a Spiritual Director
I recommend that all Anglicans interested in growing in deeper knowledge and love of God, and in holiness, seek out a spiritual director. A spiritual director may or may not be the same person as your confessor, but often they are the same. The spiritual director acts as sort of a 'coach' in the Christian life. He is someone who can help you develop and maintain a Rule of Life (Thornton), and he is someone to bounce ideas, hopes, and frustrations off of. It is not meant to be counseling in the psychological or emotional sense, though there may be some overlap once in a while.
My spiritual director also serves as my confessor. He is an SSC priest who resides here in my fair city. We get together once a month for confession and direction. He has been very helpful to me, and has helped me view my spiritual life more holistically. For instance, he talked about regular exercise as being part of a balanced Rule of Life... something I had never thought of. A few years ago, I went to a legendary, really old Sulpician priest (Fr. Vincent DePaul McMurry) for spiritual direction. He was not my confessor - only my director. He was great too. He would talk about how beautiful the catholic faith is, and we would reflect on that in all sorts of interesting ways.
I have found that you have to really look around for a good spiritual director. It is like finding the perfect "hang out". You have to ask others, and pray that God would send you to the right person. It can be hard at times. And sometimes you strike out a lot before finding the right one. Even Roman Catholics have trouble finding good spiritual directors sometimes. Once you find a good spiritual director, though, go to him regularly with an open mind and heart - even if you consider yourself to be fairly "advanced" spiritually. There is always something new to learn, and greater levels of holiness to attain.
My spiritual director also serves as my confessor. He is an SSC priest who resides here in my fair city. We get together once a month for confession and direction. He has been very helpful to me, and has helped me view my spiritual life more holistically. For instance, he talked about regular exercise as being part of a balanced Rule of Life... something I had never thought of. A few years ago, I went to a legendary, really old Sulpician priest (Fr. Vincent DePaul McMurry) for spiritual direction. He was not my confessor - only my director. He was great too. He would talk about how beautiful the catholic faith is, and we would reflect on that in all sorts of interesting ways.
I have found that you have to really look around for a good spiritual director. It is like finding the perfect "hang out". You have to ask others, and pray that God would send you to the right person. It can be hard at times. And sometimes you strike out a lot before finding the right one. Even Roman Catholics have trouble finding good spiritual directors sometimes. Once you find a good spiritual director, though, go to him regularly with an open mind and heart - even if you consider yourself to be fairly "advanced" spiritually. There is always something new to learn, and greater levels of holiness to attain.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Wedding Madness
This is not a post about my own wedding, which is coming up (but I am sure I will have something up about it sooner or later), but rather about a wedding at the ECUSA 'Cathedral of the Incarnation' (or "The Cathedral of the Reincarnation" as we call here in my town) that I attended the other day. It was bizarre, and made me very happy to be a continuing Anglican.
The lady who did the wedding didn't even follow the '79 BCP Order for Marriage. They used some other crazy text. The couple did their own vows, which were rather sentimental and shallow I thought. There were no hymns or anything... so even though the ceremony was done in the context of the Eucharist, it really did not feel like a community experience. They really cut back on the responses, I suppose because they thought most people wouldn't know them, so maybe that was why we all felt like we were watching a piece of weird performance art. There were no chasubles, no procession of clergy, no altar rail, no nothing. The acolyte, after the Holy Communion, then reserved the reaminder of the Precious Blood in an aumbry!
The whole thing was just very watered down. Of course they admitted everyone to the Holy Eucharist, and there was, as to be expected with Rite II, very little talk of sin and redemption. My fiancee, who is not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, thought the whole experience was not very worshipful or holy.
At the reception, some "priestess" got up and prayed for the food. She began to quote Scripture in her prayer, but came up with her own, weird translation of the passage in question. She said, "Oh God, you said it was not good for people to be alone, so let us make for them partners to be with...." or something like that. She was quoting (I use that term loosely) from Tobit.
So the whole thing was very strange indeed. The organ music was nice, though. Hard to mess up the "Wedding March".
The lady who did the wedding didn't even follow the '79 BCP Order for Marriage. They used some other crazy text. The couple did their own vows, which were rather sentimental and shallow I thought. There were no hymns or anything... so even though the ceremony was done in the context of the Eucharist, it really did not feel like a community experience. They really cut back on the responses, I suppose because they thought most people wouldn't know them, so maybe that was why we all felt like we were watching a piece of weird performance art. There were no chasubles, no procession of clergy, no altar rail, no nothing. The acolyte, after the Holy Communion, then reserved the reaminder of the Precious Blood in an aumbry!
The whole thing was just very watered down. Of course they admitted everyone to the Holy Eucharist, and there was, as to be expected with Rite II, very little talk of sin and redemption. My fiancee, who is not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, thought the whole experience was not very worshipful or holy.
At the reception, some "priestess" got up and prayed for the food. She began to quote Scripture in her prayer, but came up with her own, weird translation of the passage in question. She said, "Oh God, you said it was not good for people to be alone, so let us make for them partners to be with...." or something like that. She was quoting (I use that term loosely) from Tobit.
So the whole thing was very strange indeed. The organ music was nice, though. Hard to mess up the "Wedding March".
Thursday, July 07, 2005
New Organ!
Praise the Lord! Today our parish is getting a nice new Rogers electronic organ delivered! It will replace our 1949 creep show organ. The Lord enabled us to raise all of the money for the organ in about 5 months... that is 5 months ahead of schedule! Our old organ sounded so BAD. I am convinced that it has driven many potential new members away. Now we just need to get a new organist.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
My Emerging Church Experience
This past Sunday I was out of town visiting an old college friend. We visited her current church home, which is an "emerging church" in a large city in Tennessee. I thought I would comment on some of the things I noticed about the service. Warning: this is a long post. (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)
First, there was no church building. Rather, they met in a large warehouse (owned by a contemporary christian musician). In fact, it looked like this goth/punk club I used to go to in Baltimore called the "Ottobar". The lighting was poor, despite a huge lighting rig that covered the ceiling. They use the room for christian rock concerts on other days, hence the rig, but apparently they do not use the rig for morning worship. There were no pews, only plastic folding chairs. As you came in, you grabbed a chair and sat down - usually with your coffee.... that's right, they serve coffee and bottled water that you are allowed to bring into the main space. There was no art on the walls, and up front, on the platform where the speaker stood, was one of those computer projectors with a million wires coming out from it. They used it to project the music lyrics up on a screen. There was no information bulletin... just a bi-fold piece of paper with a space for sermon notes on one side, and a couple of announcements on the other side. The crowd (about 200 people?) was mostly 20-30 somethings. The oldest people I saw looked to be in their sixties (they were just one couple, mind you). Out of all the people there, I'd say that 10 were 45 or older. Everyone was white.
As for the "liturgy", there was a confession of sin; a "declaration of absolution" (read by young woman in a short miniskirt); and several rock songs led by the house band - one of which was "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation". Then there was a long, rambling sermon lead by the youth pastor, followed by some announcements (that he kept messing up), and then some more rock songs. There was one, maybe two, brief prayers during the service.
There was no sacrament, no offering, no substantial prayer or prayer time, no responses, no kneeling, very little talk of sin and redemption, and no blessing (though the service ended with a wave and a hearty, "Ya'll have a great day... see ya next week.". The guy who was preaching spent so much time talking about a U2 concert he attended in Ireland that it was hard to focus on the spiritual truthes he was trying to draw out from that experience. On top of that, the people were nnot very friendly. I wouldn't say they were unfriendly, but they certainly did not come up and say hello, or even look at you, much less smile at you. My fiancee said that she thought the place was downright cold.
This experience confirmed my earlier suspicians that there is something seriously wrong with the "emerging church" model. One struggles to even call an experience like this "worship", for virtually nothing was being offered to God. It was wholly and entirely man-centered. The only thing that was being offered to God that I could see - the rock music and singing - was hardly the best that could be offered. And further, the people really didn't seem to take part in the singing at all. About half of them chatted and drank their coffee during the singing, despite the fact that they were very easy songs to sing (I picked up the tunes immediately, though I had only heard the hymn before).
True worship involves offering something to God which is pure and spotless. This is not our own "sincere hearts", or "warm fuzzy feelings", but something else - the Holy Eucharist. True worship is offering to God the spotless, most Holy Pascal Lamb - Jesus Christ. This highest and one true act of worship sanctifies our other acts of worship (singing, prayer, offering, etc.).
There was no chance to worship God with giving of tithes and offerings, despite the fact that that God commands us to give to His work. In an age when people are so irresponsible with their money, and so blatantly materialistic, to deny them the opportunity to give to the work of the Church during its corporate worship is an outrage and a slap in the face to God - who owns everything in the world. (BCP p. 9; and Psalm 24: BCP p. 368)
The worship was gnostic. That is to say, it was entirely cerebral. It was not incarnational and sacramental. The "message" - an imparting of "secret knowledge" of sorts - was the focus of the meeting. Besides there being no art, and no sacrament, and no august movements and/or ritual, the whole experience was just plain ugly. Thus, as an artist, I found the worship highly irrelevant to my life (to use one of that movement's favorite buzzwords).
One of the most troubling aspects was the fact that everyone was young. What about older folks? Is a place like this truly "for all people" when old people are nowhere to be seen? The absensce of the aged, and extremely aged seems to detract from the dogma that the Church is catholic - i.e. for all people in all times and places. (BCP p.291)
So why do people go to churches like this? I think they go to them because there is no commitment involved. There is no work to do on Sunday. You just passively sit there and sip on your coffee like you are watching TV. This type of service appeals to our basest desires. It is "worship of God" (I use that phrase lightly) on our terms as opposed to God's terms. In that sense, it is very similar to liberal Christianity. No doctrine, and God on my terms... Jesus "reconstituted" to fit my interests interests". I think people go because they can slip in and blend in with everyone else - who look, talk, and act just like me - and then they can just leave. It is "no pressure" religion.
Well, it may qualify as 'religion' in some broad sense of the word (even though there is no ritual), but it certainly does not qualify as authentic Christianity. A Christian is a follower of Christ, and followers of Christ suffer as their Lord does (indeed we participate in His suffering through the sacramental life). Followers of Christ worship God in spirit and truth, and accept inconveniences in order to be made more christlike. Most important, Christians offer to God true worship - the Sacrifice of the Mass. God in His grace raises us up to His level, and makes us holy - He makes us divine (theosis). We should not seek to drag God down to our level for the sake of convenience and the latest trends.
First, there was no church building. Rather, they met in a large warehouse (owned by a contemporary christian musician). In fact, it looked like this goth/punk club I used to go to in Baltimore called the "Ottobar". The lighting was poor, despite a huge lighting rig that covered the ceiling. They use the room for christian rock concerts on other days, hence the rig, but apparently they do not use the rig for morning worship. There were no pews, only plastic folding chairs. As you came in, you grabbed a chair and sat down - usually with your coffee.... that's right, they serve coffee and bottled water that you are allowed to bring into the main space. There was no art on the walls, and up front, on the platform where the speaker stood, was one of those computer projectors with a million wires coming out from it. They used it to project the music lyrics up on a screen. There was no information bulletin... just a bi-fold piece of paper with a space for sermon notes on one side, and a couple of announcements on the other side. The crowd (about 200 people?) was mostly 20-30 somethings. The oldest people I saw looked to be in their sixties (they were just one couple, mind you). Out of all the people there, I'd say that 10 were 45 or older. Everyone was white.
As for the "liturgy", there was a confession of sin; a "declaration of absolution" (read by young woman in a short miniskirt); and several rock songs led by the house band - one of which was "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation". Then there was a long, rambling sermon lead by the youth pastor, followed by some announcements (that he kept messing up), and then some more rock songs. There was one, maybe two, brief prayers during the service.
There was no sacrament, no offering, no substantial prayer or prayer time, no responses, no kneeling, very little talk of sin and redemption, and no blessing (though the service ended with a wave and a hearty, "Ya'll have a great day... see ya next week.". The guy who was preaching spent so much time talking about a U2 concert he attended in Ireland that it was hard to focus on the spiritual truthes he was trying to draw out from that experience. On top of that, the people were nnot very friendly. I wouldn't say they were unfriendly, but they certainly did not come up and say hello, or even look at you, much less smile at you. My fiancee said that she thought the place was downright cold.
This experience confirmed my earlier suspicians that there is something seriously wrong with the "emerging church" model. One struggles to even call an experience like this "worship", for virtually nothing was being offered to God. It was wholly and entirely man-centered. The only thing that was being offered to God that I could see - the rock music and singing - was hardly the best that could be offered. And further, the people really didn't seem to take part in the singing at all. About half of them chatted and drank their coffee during the singing, despite the fact that they were very easy songs to sing (I picked up the tunes immediately, though I had only heard the hymn before).
True worship involves offering something to God which is pure and spotless. This is not our own "sincere hearts", or "warm fuzzy feelings", but something else - the Holy Eucharist. True worship is offering to God the spotless, most Holy Pascal Lamb - Jesus Christ. This highest and one true act of worship sanctifies our other acts of worship (singing, prayer, offering, etc.).
There was no chance to worship God with giving of tithes and offerings, despite the fact that that God commands us to give to His work. In an age when people are so irresponsible with their money, and so blatantly materialistic, to deny them the opportunity to give to the work of the Church during its corporate worship is an outrage and a slap in the face to God - who owns everything in the world. (BCP p. 9; and Psalm 24: BCP p. 368)
The worship was gnostic. That is to say, it was entirely cerebral. It was not incarnational and sacramental. The "message" - an imparting of "secret knowledge" of sorts - was the focus of the meeting. Besides there being no art, and no sacrament, and no august movements and/or ritual, the whole experience was just plain ugly. Thus, as an artist, I found the worship highly irrelevant to my life (to use one of that movement's favorite buzzwords).
One of the most troubling aspects was the fact that everyone was young. What about older folks? Is a place like this truly "for all people" when old people are nowhere to be seen? The absensce of the aged, and extremely aged seems to detract from the dogma that the Church is catholic - i.e. for all people in all times and places. (BCP p.291)
So why do people go to churches like this? I think they go to them because there is no commitment involved. There is no work to do on Sunday. You just passively sit there and sip on your coffee like you are watching TV. This type of service appeals to our basest desires. It is "worship of God" (I use that phrase lightly) on our terms as opposed to God's terms. In that sense, it is very similar to liberal Christianity. No doctrine, and God on my terms... Jesus "reconstituted" to fit my interests interests". I think people go because they can slip in and blend in with everyone else - who look, talk, and act just like me - and then they can just leave. It is "no pressure" religion.
Well, it may qualify as 'religion' in some broad sense of the word (even though there is no ritual), but it certainly does not qualify as authentic Christianity. A Christian is a follower of Christ, and followers of Christ suffer as their Lord does (indeed we participate in His suffering through the sacramental life). Followers of Christ worship God in spirit and truth, and accept inconveniences in order to be made more christlike. Most important, Christians offer to God true worship - the Sacrifice of the Mass. God in His grace raises us up to His level, and makes us holy - He makes us divine (theosis). We should not seek to drag God down to our level for the sake of convenience and the latest trends.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Looking for a 1928 Altar Service Book?
These can be really hard to find these days. What I recommend is contacting your local FiFNa parish, or other more traditional ECUSA parish and seeing if they have one they want to give away or sell. In my church restoration business travels I find mountains of those things on the shelves of church libraries. Just today I was in a parish that had about six of them in varying states that were just sitting on a shelf.
Guests at Synod
At the APA/REC synod there were several guests, such as Bp. Hewitt (Diocese of the Holy Cross). He heads up this group called the Anglican Fellowship of the Delaware Valley, which is a cooperative group of orthodox Anglican parishes from various jurisdictions up in Pennsylvannia. Apparently they work together on various initiatoves and ministries. There was Abp. Venebles (Primate of the Southern Cone), and also Bp. Lyons (Bishop of Bolivia) too. Canon Bill Atwood (head of Ekklesia) was there as well.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Seminary Revisited
(This is in response to a comment I made before. I said I was going to e-mail Mr. Cameron about seminary, but thought I would just write it out for all to see as others might find it helpful.)
At synod I met APA and REC clergy who went to every sort of seminary one could imagine. There were people who went to RTS, Nashotah House, General Seminary, Trinity Seminary, Dallas Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Cranmer House, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Philadelphia Seminary, St. Mary's, Dominican House of Studies, and more. It was staggering. Obviously they all did additional reading and liturgical studies to get where they are today.
I think that no matter where you go today, though, you still have to do supplemental reading and train under a competant priest if you want to go into the traditional Anglican ministry. There is no seminary, for example, that can teach the manual acts that are to be done by the priest during the consecration. And very few - even moderate Roman Catholic seminaries - talk about the traditional Theological and Cardinal Virtues in their moral theology classes. Albeit, one might have to do more supplemental reading and study if he went to Bob Jones University seminary rather than Theological College (Washington), but this where having a good priest mentor comes in handy. He will be able to tell the postulant what additional books to read (e.g. Moss, Hall, Thornton, Moorman, etc.), as well as explain traditional Anglican theology as it relates to the liturgy and pastoral care (and more). Seminaries that do excel in one area (say, liturgics as they relate to us) may be lacking in other areas (say philosophy). So any way you slice it, there will need to be supplemental reading done if you want to be a traditional Anglican priest. This is not so big a deal, though, since the priestly life is a scholarly life. It is a life of constant study and learning, so seminary - even if you could go back in time and study at St. Stephen's House, Oxford during the 20's - is always just the beginning. Most places give the same basic foundation in Church History, Biblical Studies (e.g. higher critical method), and practical theology.
I will say that I think it is better to go to seminary - any seminary (maybe especially an accredited one) - and do supplemental reading and study rather than simply reading for orders. Seminary provides a unique environment to test and challenge your beliefs. Oftentimes we gain a clearer understanding of what we believe when we contrast it with something different. This is not to insult those who have read for orders, but simply to say that if you have the choice go to seminary and work with a good local priest. And if I had a choice (like if I lived in San Francisco, where there are is a cluster of schools) I would choose to go to a place that is incarnational and patristic in its emphasis, such as an Anglican, Roman, or Orthodox seminary. I'd probably go to one of these and make sure I hhad a good solid parish and rector before going to conservative evangelical seminary. But again, sometimes there is little choice... and either way, the golden rule is that there will have to be private study done on the side. Oh, and have a spiritual director too... the spiritual warfare that goes on in seminary is tremendous and potentially deadly.
At synod I met APA and REC clergy who went to every sort of seminary one could imagine. There were people who went to RTS, Nashotah House, General Seminary, Trinity Seminary, Dallas Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Cranmer House, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Philadelphia Seminary, St. Mary's, Dominican House of Studies, and more. It was staggering. Obviously they all did additional reading and liturgical studies to get where they are today.
I think that no matter where you go today, though, you still have to do supplemental reading and train under a competant priest if you want to go into the traditional Anglican ministry. There is no seminary, for example, that can teach the manual acts that are to be done by the priest during the consecration. And very few - even moderate Roman Catholic seminaries - talk about the traditional Theological and Cardinal Virtues in their moral theology classes. Albeit, one might have to do more supplemental reading and study if he went to Bob Jones University seminary rather than Theological College (Washington), but this where having a good priest mentor comes in handy. He will be able to tell the postulant what additional books to read (e.g. Moss, Hall, Thornton, Moorman, etc.), as well as explain traditional Anglican theology as it relates to the liturgy and pastoral care (and more). Seminaries that do excel in one area (say, liturgics as they relate to us) may be lacking in other areas (say philosophy). So any way you slice it, there will need to be supplemental reading done if you want to be a traditional Anglican priest. This is not so big a deal, though, since the priestly life is a scholarly life. It is a life of constant study and learning, so seminary - even if you could go back in time and study at St. Stephen's House, Oxford during the 20's - is always just the beginning. Most places give the same basic foundation in Church History, Biblical Studies (e.g. higher critical method), and practical theology.
I will say that I think it is better to go to seminary - any seminary (maybe especially an accredited one) - and do supplemental reading and study rather than simply reading for orders. Seminary provides a unique environment to test and challenge your beliefs. Oftentimes we gain a clearer understanding of what we believe when we contrast it with something different. This is not to insult those who have read for orders, but simply to say that if you have the choice go to seminary and work with a good local priest. And if I had a choice (like if I lived in San Francisco, where there are is a cluster of schools) I would choose to go to a place that is incarnational and patristic in its emphasis, such as an Anglican, Roman, or Orthodox seminary. I'd probably go to one of these and make sure I hhad a good solid parish and rector before going to conservative evangelical seminary. But again, sometimes there is little choice... and either way, the golden rule is that there will have to be private study done on the side. Oh, and have a spiritual director too... the spiritual warfare that goes on in seminary is tremendous and potentially deadly.
Unity Synod in Florida
Well, I am back from the synod. Over the next few days I will write several reflections on it since there was so much that happened. First the name: the REC and APA did not sit in any business meetings together. Rather, we had our meetings in the same location. The "unity" part happened at the various liturgies, at the evangelism seminar, at the meals, and during recreational time. It was an opportunity to mix and mingle. The bishops all know each other already, so this was more of an opportunity for the other clergy and laity to interact. And this is how true unity will develop. Only so much can be done from the "top down". There has to be a sense of fellowship and brotherhood coming from the grassroots, and it is simple things like this that make it happen.
The unity mass was concelebrated by Bp. Riches and Bp. Grundorf at St. Alban's Cathedral in Oviedo. The liturgy was very solemn and beautiful. It was a "straight '28" for all of you liturgy buffs out there (the cathedral normally uses the American Missal). The readers were Bp. Brewer (APA) and Bp. Sutton (REC). The preacher was Abp. Venebles, who is a very exciting speaker. He spoke on unity and orthodoxy. There was a massive processsion that 90% of the clergy took part in. There were APA priests in stoles, hoods, and berettas; and there were REC priests in (in some cases) Genevan gowns with stoles on over them! Overall, there was a great deal of diversity in unity. But it was a true, Christian diversity. It was a diversity that was centered on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the ancient apostolic faith "once delivered to the saints", and to be found in the Creeds and liturgy.
I will write more on this joyous event over the next few days and weeks. Thank you all for your prayers: they were felt.
The unity mass was concelebrated by Bp. Riches and Bp. Grundorf at St. Alban's Cathedral in Oviedo. The liturgy was very solemn and beautiful. It was a "straight '28" for all of you liturgy buffs out there (the cathedral normally uses the American Missal). The readers were Bp. Brewer (APA) and Bp. Sutton (REC). The preacher was Abp. Venebles, who is a very exciting speaker. He spoke on unity and orthodoxy. There was a massive processsion that 90% of the clergy took part in. There were APA priests in stoles, hoods, and berettas; and there were REC priests in (in some cases) Genevan gowns with stoles on over them! Overall, there was a great deal of diversity in unity. But it was a true, Christian diversity. It was a diversity that was centered on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the ancient apostolic faith "once delivered to the saints", and to be found in the Creeds and liturgy.
I will write more on this joyous event over the next few days and weeks. Thank you all for your prayers: they were felt.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
APA and REC Synod Next Week
Next week the APA and the REC are having their first unity synod down in Orlando. It should be very exciting. If the merger between the APA and REC can be pulled off smoothly that will be a great sign for the rest of traditional Anglicanism. The union is not without difficulty, however, since the two denominations have historically had very different takes on Anglicanism. But great strides have been made, and agreement has been reached on very important, formerly divisive, issues. It would be truly ironic if this merger were to work and last, and produce great fruit, when other mergers, and attempts at discussion, between continuing denominations having very similar theological beliefs, have failed.
We have wasted too much time bickering and being divided. We need to work towards organic unity, not as an end in itself, but that we may more effectively reach people for Jesus Christ. We have spent so much time infighting that we have by and large neglected the work God has given us to do. One thing I have noticed about many continuing Anglicans (clergy and laypeople) is that there does not seem to be any great urgency about evangelism. The best catholics (and the best evangelicals too) were all evangelists at heart, though. They were concerned for peoples' souls, and they went out to reach lost for Jesus Christ. They took the Great Commission seriously. That concern, quite frankly, doesn't seem to be too prevelant among many conservative (or even liberal) Anglicans today. We'd much rather fight, or prance around in fancy costumes, and give each other grand titles. We used to be great evangelists and preachers, but somewhere along the line we let that fade, and we became concerned with things that were quite silly. Can we revive it that evangelical-catholic spirit? With God's help, yes. Can we pool our resources and unite to do this more effectively? With God's help, yes.
We have wasted too much time bickering and being divided. We need to work towards organic unity, not as an end in itself, but that we may more effectively reach people for Jesus Christ. We have spent so much time infighting that we have by and large neglected the work God has given us to do. One thing I have noticed about many continuing Anglicans (clergy and laypeople) is that there does not seem to be any great urgency about evangelism. The best catholics (and the best evangelicals too) were all evangelists at heart, though. They were concerned for peoples' souls, and they went out to reach lost for Jesus Christ. They took the Great Commission seriously. That concern, quite frankly, doesn't seem to be too prevelant among many conservative (or even liberal) Anglicans today. We'd much rather fight, or prance around in fancy costumes, and give each other grand titles. We used to be great evangelists and preachers, but somewhere along the line we let that fade, and we became concerned with things that were quite silly. Can we revive it that evangelical-catholic spirit? With God's help, yes. Can we pool our resources and unite to do this more effectively? With God's help, yes.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Spiritual OCD
There was an interesting series on Focus on the Family this week dealing with addictions and obsessive compulsive disorders. Today, the guest, Dr. Archibald something-or-other, was talking about how OCD can manifest itself in an unrelenting quest for new spiritual highs. OCD, he said, differs from addictions in that the former are rooted in some sort of insecurity or fear, whereas the latter are often rooted in biology and/or sinful desires. He spoke about how he has known some people who feel that if they do not have an ecstatic religious experience each week, they feel as though God has left them. These people, therefore, tend to bounce around from church to church, always looking for a greater high. Eventually, many of them leave the Church altogether.
I see elements of this religious OCDism more in Protestant lay people, though, than in catholic (small "c") lay people. Many of these huge mega churches have to constantly morph and adopt new tactics (such as use of special effects in worship) to keep people "interested" and "satiated". But to me, an older liturgy, like the Anglican liturgy, is more conducive to helping people grow spiritually in a measured, sober way. Sure, it is not always "exciting", but that is not what worship is supposed to be about. I think the repetative nature of it, done over years and years, helps people develop more of a deep, sober, "interior" life and spirituality. And the simplicity of it, especially the 1928 BCP, helps this happen without the people becoming obsessive compulsive or too weird in other ways.
I see elements of this religious OCDism more in Protestant lay people, though, than in catholic (small "c") lay people. Many of these huge mega churches have to constantly morph and adopt new tactics (such as use of special effects in worship) to keep people "interested" and "satiated". But to me, an older liturgy, like the Anglican liturgy, is more conducive to helping people grow spiritually in a measured, sober way. Sure, it is not always "exciting", but that is not what worship is supposed to be about. I think the repetative nature of it, done over years and years, helps people develop more of a deep, sober, "interior" life and spirituality. And the simplicity of it, especially the 1928 BCP, helps this happen without the people becoming obsessive compulsive or too weird in other ways.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Building Continuing Community
One of the things we do in my area of the country to build community between the APA and REC parishes (as well as other continuing groups) is have joint Choral Evensongs once a quarter. We alternate parishes and preachers, and always have a reception afterwards so there is plenty of time to meet and greet, and have fellowship. It has been very successful thus far. We've been doing it for about a year.
And one of the neat things is that there is always some "new" priest or bishop coming from a weird jurisdiction you've never heard of.... some bishop with no flock, no building, no nothing. One time they'll be there, and then they just never show up again! It's sort of like sighting the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot....
The only thing I would complain about is that sometimes lay participation is a bit lower than what it should be. But I guess that's because people do not always feel like driving very far for a special service. Usually, however, it is pretty good. There's always more people to talk to than time available.
Anyway, I highly recommend this as a way to build unity and grassroots cooperation among continuing churches in your own area. It is a simple way to work towards a more organic unity.
And one of the neat things is that there is always some "new" priest or bishop coming from a weird jurisdiction you've never heard of.... some bishop with no flock, no building, no nothing. One time they'll be there, and then they just never show up again! It's sort of like sighting the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot....
The only thing I would complain about is that sometimes lay participation is a bit lower than what it should be. But I guess that's because people do not always feel like driving very far for a special service. Usually, however, it is pretty good. There's always more people to talk to than time available.
Anyway, I highly recommend this as a way to build unity and grassroots cooperation among continuing churches in your own area. It is a simple way to work towards a more organic unity.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Liturgical Reform
I have been rereading for fun "What is Anglicanism" by Urban T. Holmes III, which is one of the books I read years ago when first exploring Anglicanism. It is actually a very good little book in many ways, but this morning I came across a passage in the section on "Liturgy" (pp. 45-46) that disturbed me.
He was talking about an Anglican historian named Ladd who was influential in developing the 1979 BCP. Ladd had a strong distaste for the American Missal, and did not want 17th century Roman liturgical forms to become normative for the Church during the Anglican liturgical reforms of the 20th century. Ladd (and Holmes) believed that the Church should have one authoritative liturgy. In other words, we should just use the BCP and not anything else, like the missal.
Well, I would say that the 1928 BCP and the American and Anglican Missals really do form one conhesive authoritative liturgy. Besides the simple fact that the BCP mass is contained in the missals, they are unified in their strict adhearance to catholic orthodoxy.
And do the liturgical reformers have just "one authoritative liturgy" anyway? I would say that the 1979 BCP, with its many Eucharistic Anaphoras, and Prayers of the People Forms, as well as the introduction of the Alternative Service Book, shows that the liturgical revisionists of the Episcopal Church really did not (and do not) care about having multiple prayers, rites, and ceremonies available for use. They didn't care... it didn't really bother them! What bothered them was something else: orthodoxy. They simply wanted to rework those orthodox liturgies that were in use for their own questionable purposes. In other words, they wanted to undermine the catholic unity of the traditional BCP and missals, and replace it with something that was close, but not quite the same thing.
I believe that the missals and BCP (1928) form a complete whole and contain no substantial disagreements about anything of great importance (remember, the Articles of Religion are not part of the BCP). And I believe that their emphasis on penitence is something that is good for us to hear, and that it is a vital part of the true gospel.
He was talking about an Anglican historian named Ladd who was influential in developing the 1979 BCP. Ladd had a strong distaste for the American Missal, and did not want 17th century Roman liturgical forms to become normative for the Church during the Anglican liturgical reforms of the 20th century. Ladd (and Holmes) believed that the Church should have one authoritative liturgy. In other words, we should just use the BCP and not anything else, like the missal.
Well, I would say that the 1928 BCP and the American and Anglican Missals really do form one conhesive authoritative liturgy. Besides the simple fact that the BCP mass is contained in the missals, they are unified in their strict adhearance to catholic orthodoxy.
And do the liturgical reformers have just "one authoritative liturgy" anyway? I would say that the 1979 BCP, with its many Eucharistic Anaphoras, and Prayers of the People Forms, as well as the introduction of the Alternative Service Book, shows that the liturgical revisionists of the Episcopal Church really did not (and do not) care about having multiple prayers, rites, and ceremonies available for use. They didn't care... it didn't really bother them! What bothered them was something else: orthodoxy. They simply wanted to rework those orthodox liturgies that were in use for their own questionable purposes. In other words, they wanted to undermine the catholic unity of the traditional BCP and missals, and replace it with something that was close, but not quite the same thing.
I believe that the missals and BCP (1928) form a complete whole and contain no substantial disagreements about anything of great importance (remember, the Articles of Religion are not part of the BCP). And I believe that their emphasis on penitence is something that is good for us to hear, and that it is a vital part of the true gospel.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Growing Anglican Parishes for Jesus' Glory
How do we as Anglicans evangelize? Is liturgy anti-evangelical? How do we grow our parishes and bring to people the reconciling love of Jesus in the Word and Sacraments? One of the best ways is to invite people to Church. Hopefully, our friends know that we are believers through our words and actions. And hopefully they see that we have something in our lives that they do not.... something that they want. I think that after we have reached a certain level of comfort with our friend and colleagues it is very natural to simply invite them to Church, and then let the Holy Ghost do the rest. We build relationships with people, and in doing so we share parts of our lives with them - particularly our faith.
I know of so many people who became Christians, or began the Christian journey, simply by being invited to Church. And this can happen even with continuing Anglican parishes. I went to graduate school with a friend who was raised as a non-observant Jew. He had no exposure to any religion and was basically a secularist. Well, one day he befriended a continuing Anglican friend of mine. They would talk about the faith and other things. They became close friends, and eventually the conversations about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith pierced his heart. Eventually, he converted and was baptized and confirmed. And he became a very active member in his parish. This was all in a small "continuing" parish with an overworked priest who had a secular job, and the parish had awful music. It is possible for us to reach peoples' lives, even though at times we may think that we are hopelessly out of touch with the way people live and think today. It starts by building relationships.
I know of so many people who became Christians, or began the Christian journey, simply by being invited to Church. And this can happen even with continuing Anglican parishes. I went to graduate school with a friend who was raised as a non-observant Jew. He had no exposure to any religion and was basically a secularist. Well, one day he befriended a continuing Anglican friend of mine. They would talk about the faith and other things. They became close friends, and eventually the conversations about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith pierced his heart. Eventually, he converted and was baptized and confirmed. And he became a very active member in his parish. This was all in a small "continuing" parish with an overworked priest who had a secular job, and the parish had awful music. It is possible for us to reach peoples' lives, even though at times we may think that we are hopelessly out of touch with the way people live and think today. It starts by building relationships.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Coarse Talk
I was at a party last night, and met a friend's new girlfriend. He was raised Missouri-Synod Lutheran, but now worships in the ELCA; she is a cradle Roman Catholic. Both are somewhat liberal in their outlook. They asked me help with a theological question: should he receive communion at her RC parish? I said, "According to the Code of Canon Law, no... unless there are very specific circumstances (which I later explained)." She agreed with me, but he balked at that, and said that he had the right to do whatever he wanted since he's a Christian as much as a Catholic is. So we went on to talk about what communion implies about doctrinal agreement, unity, and so on. But underneath all of this I was thinking about something more interesting: the whole time during our conversation, this "Catholic" woman kept using coarse - perhaps even blasphemous phrases - to describe the Blessed Sacrament and things of the Church. She used phrases like, "Jesus Cookie", and other awful words. I thought later on, "No wonder her boyfriend doesn't take the sacrament seriously." Who would when it is joked about and referred to in such silly ways?
When I was younger I, regretfully, used such language at times. Now I see how spiritually damaging it is. It is very wrong to make light of the sacred things of the Church. The sacraments, clergy, doctrines, liturgy - all of it - should be taken and discussed with the utmost seriousness at all times. This is what the Church at Corinth did, and why so many were sick and weak among them. The Church is the living Body of Jesus Christ, and is the Sacrament of Salvation (to use Vatican II language), so everything about it should be taken very seriously. And seriousness does not imply "stiffness" or "somberness". We can be reverent in our speech and actions, but still experience warmth, openness, and joy.
When I was younger I, regretfully, used such language at times. Now I see how spiritually damaging it is. It is very wrong to make light of the sacred things of the Church. The sacraments, clergy, doctrines, liturgy - all of it - should be taken and discussed with the utmost seriousness at all times. This is what the Church at Corinth did, and why so many were sick and weak among them. The Church is the living Body of Jesus Christ, and is the Sacrament of Salvation (to use Vatican II language), so everything about it should be taken very seriously. And seriousness does not imply "stiffness" or "somberness". We can be reverent in our speech and actions, but still experience warmth, openness, and joy.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
The Emerging Gimmick
There is this new phenomenon that is sweeping through the evangelical world - it is called the "Emerging Church". It is some amorphous sort of movement headed by megachurch pastors and other gurus, such as Brian McLaren. It opposes grand meta-narratives in the name of postmodernism, and is characterized by taking snippets of this, and a dash of that, and rolling it all together into a customized "church" experience." It is very anti-dogmatic, and tolerates multiple, even contradictory, views of Scripture and Tradition. The worship at these churches may include the use of icons and rock bands, eucharist and dance. They are lead by "teams", and the head guru usually has no degree in theology.
It sounds like a bunch of bunk to me. Another marketing ploy by some writer, such as the guy listed above, who makes money selling his books on the subject to everyone gets caught up in it. It is the ultimate form of Protestantism, where each person is his own pope. I think these evangelical groups have to come up with stuff like this every couple of years because their religion is so vapid and anti-incarnational to begin with. So they need to find new ways to keep people interested and coming, as it were. They have no apostolic orders, and could care less about such things. But because of that there is no grace in their sacraments (except baptism, I guess - if they use the right form). So, again, they have to keep coming up with new slogans like this to keep peoples' attention. All of these "churches" are trying to be "relevant" to people today. They even use the phrase in their literature. But me, and many of my associates, find them hopelessly irrelevant. Their goofy music, and aping of everything that the world does is shallow and empty. If that is "relevant", then I am glad to be hopelessly "irrelevant" as an continuing anglo-catholic.
I oppose this movement. I oppose anti-dogma. I oppose hyper-protestantism. I oppose personality cults. What sort of spiritual wreckage will these people leave behind them in a few years? I know of folk whose lives were torn up by the megachurch culture, so what is this movement going to do to people?
It sounds like a bunch of bunk to me. Another marketing ploy by some writer, such as the guy listed above, who makes money selling his books on the subject to everyone gets caught up in it. It is the ultimate form of Protestantism, where each person is his own pope. I think these evangelical groups have to come up with stuff like this every couple of years because their religion is so vapid and anti-incarnational to begin with. So they need to find new ways to keep people interested and coming, as it were. They have no apostolic orders, and could care less about such things. But because of that there is no grace in their sacraments (except baptism, I guess - if they use the right form). So, again, they have to keep coming up with new slogans like this to keep peoples' attention. All of these "churches" are trying to be "relevant" to people today. They even use the phrase in their literature. But me, and many of my associates, find them hopelessly irrelevant. Their goofy music, and aping of everything that the world does is shallow and empty. If that is "relevant", then I am glad to be hopelessly "irrelevant" as an continuing anglo-catholic.
I oppose this movement. I oppose anti-dogma. I oppose hyper-protestantism. I oppose personality cults. What sort of spiritual wreckage will these people leave behind them in a few years? I know of folk whose lives were torn up by the megachurch culture, so what is this movement going to do to people?
Monday, May 16, 2005
Two things I love....
...about the Anglican Rite in the old BCPs that we continuing churchpeople use is the Decalogue and the Gloria "post communion". At my parish, we say the decalogue once a month to fulfill the rubric. I like saying them because they form the basis of western law and the Judeo-Christian ethic, so connecting with them, and forming those words with my lips, makes me feel like I am connecting with a very primitive tradition. Plus, so many people do not know the Ten Commandments - even devout Christians! Thus, inserting them in the liturgy once in a while is a good way to teach them and absrob them into our hearts.
The post-communion Gloria was an innovation by Cranmer. Traditionally, it is supposed to be at the beginning of the liturgy. I think it fits well in either place, as R. Mammanna observed once in a paper he wrote on the subject. Personally, I have never gotten used to the Gloria being in its original place. I like it, and am used to it, at the end of mass. I see it as that last great act of thanksgiving after communicating. It is a refreshing way to end the liturgy. I always thought that masses without the Gloria put on the end were so anti-climactic. But that's just my opinion.
The post-communion Gloria was an innovation by Cranmer. Traditionally, it is supposed to be at the beginning of the liturgy. I think it fits well in either place, as R. Mammanna observed once in a paper he wrote on the subject. Personally, I have never gotten used to the Gloria being in its original place. I like it, and am used to it, at the end of mass. I see it as that last great act of thanksgiving after communicating. It is a refreshing way to end the liturgy. I always thought that masses without the Gloria put on the end were so anti-climactic. But that's just my opinion.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS?
Something hit me when I wrote the pervious post. I was eating with a friend the other day - a really liberal ELCA Lutheran - and he was telling me about his sister and her hubby up in Philadelphia. He said, "They are Presbyterian. They go to this really conservative church. Did you know that there are two Presbyterian Churches? There's like the main one, and then there's this really conservative one called the PCA?" Of course I knew since I love studying American Christianity.
I thought that was so great. The PCA has made such an impact for orthodox Christianity in the "Reformed" world that even this friend who does not study religion took notice of it and their message. I pray that we can do that too one day. I pray that one day our jurisdictions will unite with the orthodox portions of the Anglican Communion so that we can "Lift High the Cross" of Jesus Christ so people take notice. And I pray that we can establish new institutions that will glorify God by serving others. If we are faithful to the orthodox faith and living out our baptismal covenants, this will happen.
Again, are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS? May God help us be Angli-CANS!
I thought that was so great. The PCA has made such an impact for orthodox Christianity in the "Reformed" world that even this friend who does not study religion took notice of it and their message. I pray that we can do that too one day. I pray that one day our jurisdictions will unite with the orthodox portions of the Anglican Communion so that we can "Lift High the Cross" of Jesus Christ so people take notice. And I pray that we can establish new institutions that will glorify God by serving others. If we are faithful to the orthodox faith and living out our baptismal covenants, this will happen.
Again, are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS? May God help us be Angli-CANS!
Anglican/Episcopal
One of the more frustrating parts of being a continuing Anglican can be deciding how to describe our tradition to Christians of other traditions. First there is the problem of "Episcopal" vs. "Anglican". Why can't people understand that the terms are interchangeable, but do not mean the same thing? It is like saying "Kleenex" and "Tissue". They mean different things, but they refer to the same phenomenon. Our tradition is ""Episcopal" because we are governed by bishops, and we are "Anglican" because we derive from "England". For some reason this confuses people. Usually I tell people that we refer to ourselves as "Anglicans" to differentiate ourselves from the mainline Episcopal Church, and that we wish to do so because of strong differences in certain beliefs. I then explain that it is technically okay for a member of ECUSA to refer to himself as Anglican, as well as for a member of the ACA to refer to himself as an Episcopalian. Again, am I explaining this in a confusing way? Are we Anglicans just so used to understanding all of this that we cannot fathom an outsider not understanding?
That's usually the biggest hurdle. Once that is cleared, I just go on and talk about being an Anglican. If they make some comment because they think I am in ECUSA I say, "Oh, I am not in the mainline Episcopal Church. I'm in a smaller, more traditional Anglican denomination called the APA. We are a completely different Church with our own heirarchy and structures." And if they ask I will explain some of the differences of belief, such as in the areas of ordination, BCP, sexual ethics, and so on. If I am talking with a conservative Presbyterian I say, "APA is to ECUSA as PCA is to PCUSA". Or, "APA is to ECUSA as LCMS is to ELCA." That usually lets people know that I am in a different Church than ECUSA. And then, of course, I tell them that there are numerous small, conservative Anglican denominations... just like there are numerous small conservative Presbyterian denominations. I don't like to have to resort to all of the denominationalism - I do not even like the word - but it does help simplify things a bit.
I think that it is important to differentiate ourselves from ECUSA when necessary. It is also important to remember that we can use the term "Episcopalian" and not be afraid. ECUSA does not own the rights to that word anymore than Ford owns the rights to the term "sedan". Americans know what "Episcopalian" is, so we should reclaim that term if we want to. But we are also free to use the term "Anglican".
That's usually the biggest hurdle. Once that is cleared, I just go on and talk about being an Anglican. If they make some comment because they think I am in ECUSA I say, "Oh, I am not in the mainline Episcopal Church. I'm in a smaller, more traditional Anglican denomination called the APA. We are a completely different Church with our own heirarchy and structures." And if they ask I will explain some of the differences of belief, such as in the areas of ordination, BCP, sexual ethics, and so on. If I am talking with a conservative Presbyterian I say, "APA is to ECUSA as PCA is to PCUSA". Or, "APA is to ECUSA as LCMS is to ELCA." That usually lets people know that I am in a different Church than ECUSA. And then, of course, I tell them that there are numerous small, conservative Anglican denominations... just like there are numerous small conservative Presbyterian denominations. I don't like to have to resort to all of the denominationalism - I do not even like the word - but it does help simplify things a bit.
I think that it is important to differentiate ourselves from ECUSA when necessary. It is also important to remember that we can use the term "Episcopalian" and not be afraid. ECUSA does not own the rights to that word anymore than Ford owns the rights to the term "sedan". Americans know what "Episcopalian" is, so we should reclaim that term if we want to. But we are also free to use the term "Anglican".
Monday, May 02, 2005
Continuing Celibacy
Anglicanism is one of the only traditions outside of Roman Catholicism and maybe Orthodoxy (don't know enough about it) that, in my opinion, seriously values celibacy. I have never seen a big stink develop in Anglican circles when people find out that Fr. so-and-so is "single". And I have heard of married folk talk about Anglican religious communities with the deepest of reverence and respect. All of the celibate continuing clergy I have known have been very pious and godly men. I suppose we have mostly the Oxford Movement and Ritualism to thank for this.
Celibacy is a good thing. It is just as good an option for a person as the married life. It allows one to devote his or her life entirely to the Lord and to others. It is biblical: Christ was celibate, and the St. Paul was too. In the ancient Church it was very highly regarded. But celibacy can be bad too, of course. Remaining celibate for purely self-centered reasons is certainly not conducive to growing in holiness, just as getting married for selfish reasons is not good. It really annoys me when people cannot see the spiritual value in remaining celibate.
I think that a good appreciation for the celibate life is something that we continuing Anglicans can bring to the proverbial table. I know of several celibate continuing priests and lay people who are very holy and devout. Contrary to what others may think, they seem to lead very fulfilling lives and seem to be very happy, well-adjusted people. I think that we can help other Christians see that celibacy is a good option, and that married clergy can co-exist with celibate clergy, just as married and celibate lay people can co-exist. The various religious communities that we have - though they be small - can be a witness to this. We can help our evangelical brethren see that celibacy is not only for Roman Catholics - it is a real option for everyone.
Celibacy is a good thing. It is just as good an option for a person as the married life. It allows one to devote his or her life entirely to the Lord and to others. It is biblical: Christ was celibate, and the St. Paul was too. In the ancient Church it was very highly regarded. But celibacy can be bad too, of course. Remaining celibate for purely self-centered reasons is certainly not conducive to growing in holiness, just as getting married for selfish reasons is not good. It really annoys me when people cannot see the spiritual value in remaining celibate.
I think that a good appreciation for the celibate life is something that we continuing Anglicans can bring to the proverbial table. I know of several celibate continuing priests and lay people who are very holy and devout. Contrary to what others may think, they seem to lead very fulfilling lives and seem to be very happy, well-adjusted people. I think that we can help other Christians see that celibacy is a good option, and that married clergy can co-exist with celibate clergy, just as married and celibate lay people can co-exist. The various religious communities that we have - though they be small - can be a witness to this. We can help our evangelical brethren see that celibacy is not only for Roman Catholics - it is a real option for everyone.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Jazzing Up the Blog
Just a quick "FYI"... I am going to try to soup up this blog a bit over the next few weeks and months by adding some links and pictures. I was looking at some others and have to confess that I had "blog envy" since the others looked so nice and mine was so plain. I thought that it would be nice to add some links to various continuing parishes and institutions, and things of that nature.
Continuing Monasticism
In the latest "Bishop's Epistle" for my diocese (DEUS, APA) there was a notice about how a group of sisters joined us recently. You'll have to forgive me, though, because since I do not like trash to pile up up I read the letter and then threw it away. Only later did I realize that it might be nice to share. Anyway, these sisters are few in number - less than 10, I believe, and they operate some sort of homeless shelter in Florida. They had previously been affiliated with one of the ECUSA dioceses down there. This is the APA's first "religious order". At this time I have no information about what the name of the order is, or what liturgy they use.
Are there other continuing religious orders? I know that the ACC has a few small orders - there were some Dominicans out west, some Benedictines down south, and some Franciscans peppered about here and there.... but what about the other churches? Does APCK have any? I am quite sure that the REC does not. What about the ACA?
I think that the maintenance and establishment of religious orders is a good sign for the Church. It shows that there is a serious attitude of prayer and devotion alive in the Church, and that people want to spend their days on an organized spiritual regiman. And it shows that some people are being lead to an even more intense worship annd devotion to God, i.e., that the regular life and liturgy of the Church is bringing forth real fruit.
Let us pray for the establishment of more Anglican religious communities, and for strength and growth for the ones already out there.
Are there other continuing religious orders? I know that the ACC has a few small orders - there were some Dominicans out west, some Benedictines down south, and some Franciscans peppered about here and there.... but what about the other churches? Does APCK have any? I am quite sure that the REC does not. What about the ACA?
I think that the maintenance and establishment of religious orders is a good sign for the Church. It shows that there is a serious attitude of prayer and devotion alive in the Church, and that people want to spend their days on an organized spiritual regiman. And it shows that some people are being lead to an even more intense worship annd devotion to God, i.e., that the regular life and liturgy of the Church is bringing forth real fruit.
Let us pray for the establishment of more Anglican religious communities, and for strength and growth for the ones already out there.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Cassocks as Everyday Wear
Despite the fact that continuing Anglicanism is extremely old school in just about every way, one thing I have noticed that we are not too old school about is wearing cassocks out and about. I speak of clergy, obviously. In the old days, at least in the RC tradition, clergy wore cassocks out a lot of the time. I don't know if Anglicans in general ever did that very much, but it wouldn't surprise me if at least old time anglo-catholic priests did it. Now it seems to have fallen by the wayside in both traditions. And many RC clergy do not even wear collars a lot of the time! The only time I have ever seen Anglican clergy wear cassocks just like they were wearing a suit was at a Prayer Book Society conference a few years ago. These two priests from the ACA wore cassocks everywhere. They even drove around in them and went to the store in them. I suppose it may not be very practical to wear them all the time, or maybe they get too hot or something, but it would be nice to see it come back. The world shoves its values and styles in our faces all the time. Maybe it is time that we did the same. Maybe it is time for clergy to say, "I am a cleric, and proud of it. I am serving the Lord, and proud of it."
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Variety in the 1928 BCP Offices
One of the major limitations of the 1928 BCP is that it does not offer much in the way of variation in the various liturgies it contains. This is one of the reasons why, I think, people began borrowing elements from the Roman Catholic liturgy, such as use of the missal and breviary. The 1979 American BCP was a big step in the right direction in terms of variety, but what are those of us who use the 1928 supposed to do? Clergy encourage us to read Morning and Evening Prayer, but it can become dry very easily. Is there some way to "soup up" the Offices, for instance, without using the 1979 BCP or the Anglican Breviary?
I am trying to teach myself to pray the Anglican Breviary, but in the meantime I add variety to the 1928 BCP Offices in the following ways:
1) Say the opening sentences on certain days only
2) Pray the Prayer of Confession on certain days only (omitting the absolution since I am not in Holy Orders)
3) Read the Antiphon before the "Venite" if one is appointed
4) Occassionally change the Psalm, or read the Psalter on the "One Month" plan
5) Alternate the canticles every day for each Office
6) Recite the Nicene Creed instead of the Apostles' Creed sometimes, which is permitted by the rubrics
7) Say the Collect and first two prayers, but then add one of the prayers rom the rest of liturgy for each day and Office. So for Morning Prayer yesterday I said the one for the Bishops and Clergy.
8) Add other Collects from the BCP depending on the circumstances. Like when JPII died I said some prayers for the dead for him from the Burial Office.
11) Add additional Scripture readings
10) Include various other elements at will from the BCP, such as the Litany or the Penitential Office
12) Chant or sing parts of the Office
It is worthwhile mentioning that I also have a full time job, so I am trying to get all of this done and still get to work on time. This may be the thing that prevents me from switching to the Breviary, but I digress. So anway, all that to say that in about 15 minutes one can get a good deal of variety out of the 1928 BCP. You just have to be creative and know the rubrics.
How do those of you who read the Offices read them?
I am trying to teach myself to pray the Anglican Breviary, but in the meantime I add variety to the 1928 BCP Offices in the following ways:
1) Say the opening sentences on certain days only
2) Pray the Prayer of Confession on certain days only (omitting the absolution since I am not in Holy Orders)
3) Read the Antiphon before the "Venite" if one is appointed
4) Occassionally change the Psalm, or read the Psalter on the "One Month" plan
5) Alternate the canticles every day for each Office
6) Recite the Nicene Creed instead of the Apostles' Creed sometimes, which is permitted by the rubrics
7) Say the Collect and first two prayers, but then add one of the prayers rom the rest of liturgy for each day and Office. So for Morning Prayer yesterday I said the one for the Bishops and Clergy.
8) Add other Collects from the BCP depending on the circumstances. Like when JPII died I said some prayers for the dead for him from the Burial Office.
11) Add additional Scripture readings
10) Include various other elements at will from the BCP, such as the Litany or the Penitential Office
12) Chant or sing parts of the Office
It is worthwhile mentioning that I also have a full time job, so I am trying to get all of this done and still get to work on time. This may be the thing that prevents me from switching to the Breviary, but I digress. So anway, all that to say that in about 15 minutes one can get a good deal of variety out of the 1928 BCP. You just have to be creative and know the rubrics.
How do those of you who read the Offices read them?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Altar Girls
Do any of your parishes have altar girls?
I have never been to a continuing church parish that permits altar girls, though I understand that they do exist. I think that it is a bad thing. First, though, let me say that altar girls should not be forbidden simply to preserve a "classic look and feel". I have been to parishes where they were forbidden, but there was not spiritual justification for it. There is a spiritual reason for it. Secondly, let me say that it is not a question of whether or not females have the physical and mental ability to do things up at the altar. Women are just as intelligent and able-bodied as men.
The main reason I am opposed to altar girls is that serving at the altar is always on some level preparation for the priesthood, and the priesthood is reserved for males. The priest is the sacramental representation of Jesus Christ. This is a physical representation. The priest is "in persona christi" and "alter christus". The priest is male, because Jesus was male, and Jesus was male because the Messiah had to be a male. The "new Adam" had to be a male, because Adam was a male. Priests serve "in the person" of the new Adam, Jesus Christ.
Now, there are also physical differences between males and females which, while not preventing them from doing similar tasks, are nonetheless indicative of an essential difference, or "way of being", in the world. Males are typically more "outward" oriented - think of the "male symbol" (circle with an arrow coming out from it). Females are typically more "inward" oriented. The male symbol, then, is more suitable for use when referring to God, as God acts in a "male" fashion throughout Scripture (though who, as an immaterial, abstract entity is technically sexless).
I say all of that to say this: next time you are invited or go to a church with altar girls, compare how they move and function with the tasks as opposed to boys. There is a real difference that is hard to put into words. Everytime I have seen them, they appear confused, awkard in the large sanctuary space, and they do not handle the tapers, candles, insence, and other liturgical objects well. They actually appear, at least to me, more inwardwardly focused and uncomfortable doing the tasks of the altar boy. One church I went to once (an RC church) had a pair of altar girls that almost lit the plants on fire when they were trying to light the candles on the altar. So besides the spiritual and theological arguments against altar girls, there are also simple biological details to be taken into consideration.
I hope that the various continuing churches will be resolute in their opposition to altar girls. A good book for further study of this issue and the issue of priesthood is: "Women in the Priesthood?" by Manfred Hauke (Ignatius).
I have never been to a continuing church parish that permits altar girls, though I understand that they do exist. I think that it is a bad thing. First, though, let me say that altar girls should not be forbidden simply to preserve a "classic look and feel". I have been to parishes where they were forbidden, but there was not spiritual justification for it. There is a spiritual reason for it. Secondly, let me say that it is not a question of whether or not females have the physical and mental ability to do things up at the altar. Women are just as intelligent and able-bodied as men.
The main reason I am opposed to altar girls is that serving at the altar is always on some level preparation for the priesthood, and the priesthood is reserved for males. The priest is the sacramental representation of Jesus Christ. This is a physical representation. The priest is "in persona christi" and "alter christus". The priest is male, because Jesus was male, and Jesus was male because the Messiah had to be a male. The "new Adam" had to be a male, because Adam was a male. Priests serve "in the person" of the new Adam, Jesus Christ.
Now, there are also physical differences between males and females which, while not preventing them from doing similar tasks, are nonetheless indicative of an essential difference, or "way of being", in the world. Males are typically more "outward" oriented - think of the "male symbol" (circle with an arrow coming out from it). Females are typically more "inward" oriented. The male symbol, then, is more suitable for use when referring to God, as God acts in a "male" fashion throughout Scripture (though who, as an immaterial, abstract entity is technically sexless).
I say all of that to say this: next time you are invited or go to a church with altar girls, compare how they move and function with the tasks as opposed to boys. There is a real difference that is hard to put into words. Everytime I have seen them, they appear confused, awkard in the large sanctuary space, and they do not handle the tapers, candles, insence, and other liturgical objects well. They actually appear, at least to me, more inwardwardly focused and uncomfortable doing the tasks of the altar boy. One church I went to once (an RC church) had a pair of altar girls that almost lit the plants on fire when they were trying to light the candles on the altar. So besides the spiritual and theological arguments against altar girls, there are also simple biological details to be taken into consideration.
I hope that the various continuing churches will be resolute in their opposition to altar girls. A good book for further study of this issue and the issue of priesthood is: "Women in the Priesthood?" by Manfred Hauke (Ignatius).
Monday, April 04, 2005
The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary
This book, by Massey Hamilton Shepherd, is perhaps the ultimate book for the continuing Anglican churchman to own. It is a commentary on the 1928 BCP, and has insightful remarks about every part of the BCP. It is a fantastic historical and liturgical resource, and in that regard is useful for Anglicans and non-Anglicans alike. It has long been out of print, and, according to legend, Shepherd had the plates destroyed so it could not be reprinted. That was a dumb move. If it could be reprinted, whoever owned the rights would probably make lots of money off of it. I gave away my copy a few years ago, so recently I looked online for one. I found one for $100. Too much for a po' boy like myself. But thanks be to God, someone gave me a copy a few months back! If you do not have one of these, and you use the 1928 BCP, I highly recommend that you track one down. You will not be disappointed.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Anglican Popes?
A comment posted below brought up an interesting point. Are continuing Anglican churches ecclesiaistical dictatorships, with each province being headed up by a egomaniac (my words)? Not really, and here's why.
Every reputable continuing church that I know of has canons that state that the parish owns its property. So the bishop cannot lord it over a parish like, say, an episcopal or catholic bishop can. He can say what he wants to say, and pronounce anathemas out the yin-yang, but at the end of the day he can't do too much to a parish. This creates a different problem, though. The rector of a parish can then strong arm the bishop, which is contrary to our tradition and beliefs about who is in charge. The rector is the one who can become a pope. I have seen this happen - the rector becomes a feudal lord of sorts. When he is pissed off at his bishop, he can pull the parish out and switch jurisdictions. It is very sad, and many people get hurt along the way.
To counter this, bishops need to carefully investigate such "transfers" instead of blindly accepting them. And the clergy need to take seriously their vows of obedience and strive to work with their bishop, even when it hurts. Only when everyone plays by the rules will the "game" work. If a bishop, upon careful and prayerful investigation of the circumstances, accepts a parish and clergy, then they need to make somme kind of gentlemen's agreement that they are going to work together for the ministry, and for the well being of the Church for the glory of Jesus Christ. The bishop has to be there to pastor the flock and help the clergy as much as he can, and the parish and its priests and vestry need to agree to be involved in the life of the larger church. They need to have the diocesan newsletters out, a picture of the bishop up, and etc. They need to participate in summer camps, gatherings, retreats, and more.
Only when everyone plays by the rules will we be able to get on with spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank the Lord that many jurisdictions are coming together and doing just that... slowly but surely!
Every reputable continuing church that I know of has canons that state that the parish owns its property. So the bishop cannot lord it over a parish like, say, an episcopal or catholic bishop can. He can say what he wants to say, and pronounce anathemas out the yin-yang, but at the end of the day he can't do too much to a parish. This creates a different problem, though. The rector of a parish can then strong arm the bishop, which is contrary to our tradition and beliefs about who is in charge. The rector is the one who can become a pope. I have seen this happen - the rector becomes a feudal lord of sorts. When he is pissed off at his bishop, he can pull the parish out and switch jurisdictions. It is very sad, and many people get hurt along the way.
To counter this, bishops need to carefully investigate such "transfers" instead of blindly accepting them. And the clergy need to take seriously their vows of obedience and strive to work with their bishop, even when it hurts. Only when everyone plays by the rules will the "game" work. If a bishop, upon careful and prayerful investigation of the circumstances, accepts a parish and clergy, then they need to make somme kind of gentlemen's agreement that they are going to work together for the ministry, and for the well being of the Church for the glory of Jesus Christ. The bishop has to be there to pastor the flock and help the clergy as much as he can, and the parish and its priests and vestry need to agree to be involved in the life of the larger church. They need to have the diocesan newsletters out, a picture of the bishop up, and etc. They need to participate in summer camps, gatherings, retreats, and more.
Only when everyone plays by the rules will we be able to get on with spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank the Lord that many jurisdictions are coming together and doing just that... slowly but surely!
Holy Week and Easter - Continuing Style
Well, another Holy Week and Easter has passed. The Lord is risen; the Lord is risen indeed! We had the usual BCP and Missal services for Holy Week. Simple "said" masses for Monday - Wednesday. For Maundy Thursday we did a solemn high mass, along with the stripping of altar and the vigil at the altar of repose. On Good Friday we had the Solemn Collects and Veneration of the Cross. There was nothing for Saturday. The rector had such a low turnout last year that he didn't do anything this year. On Sunday morning, though, at the early service, he blessed the new fire and Pascal Candle and everything. The Exsultet was chanted, but no prophecies were read. Then we had two masses - one solemn high, and one sung. On Easter Day we had about 150 people. It was a good week.
We did a lot liturgically speaking, but not too much. We certainly didn't do everything that the missal appoints. Why? Because it is just too much. Like many continuing parishes, we are a small group, and our building, though elegant, is small and way out in the boonies. People simply cannot get out for all of that stuff with all of the work and family commitments of today. So why work the clergy to death?
I think we could do everything that the missal appoints if we were in a more urban location. The fact that many continuing church parishes are way out in the boonies usually works against having multiple, elborate liturgies (such as a candlemass).
What did your churches do for Holy Week and Easter?
We did a lot liturgically speaking, but not too much. We certainly didn't do everything that the missal appoints. Why? Because it is just too much. Like many continuing parishes, we are a small group, and our building, though elegant, is small and way out in the boonies. People simply cannot get out for all of that stuff with all of the work and family commitments of today. So why work the clergy to death?
I think we could do everything that the missal appoints if we were in a more urban location. The fact that many continuing church parishes are way out in the boonies usually works against having multiple, elborate liturgies (such as a candlemass).
What did your churches do for Holy Week and Easter?
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Who Cares About the Anglican Communion?
I read Virtuosity, the website run by David Virtue. I encourage everyone interested in contemporary events and Anglicanism to read it and support it. Many of his articles lately have to do with the future of the Anglican Communion and whether or not it will hold together. One listed today reads something like, "AMiA Bishop Says Communion Can Survive." My feeling, though, is who cares if it survives? Do we value a corporate "brand" more than orthodoxy? Do conservatives anglo-catholics, such as in FiFNa or some of the continuing bodies, really want to be in communion with provinces that ordain women, and are otherwise pervaded with liberalism and apathy - such as the CofE? I don't really care, to be honest. It would be different if the ABC was a "pope" of sorts, but he is not. I don't see any value in being in communion with him, or with anyone else in communion with him. What I value is the Jesus Christ - and orthodoxy, mission, sacraments, and maintaining the apostolic tradition. These things just are not important to many people in the "official" Anglican Communion, so why try to be in communion with them, when it would just be a false "communio" anyway?
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Authority in the Anglican Tradition
Related to my last post is the question of authority. Roman Catholics attack Protestantism and Orthodoxy because they do not have a central authority figure - namely, the pope. They are especially critical of Anglicanism because it is so close to Romanism in terms of its liturgy and theology. They want us all to convert, and "go the whole way", if you will. Of course, there is no need to convert. Anglicans are Catholics - the only diffference being we have not checked our brains at the door.
Romanists assume that their infallible pope, who has greater authority than an ecumenical council, is somehow a safeguard against heresy. They fail to realize, however, that even popes can err, and that sometimes greatly. Just look at the history of the church. The Roman Pontiffs have committed great sins in the past. Why? Because they are human beings, and have a sinful nature like the rest of us. The errors of the past make the recent sex abuse scandals look like nothing, in fact. On the eve of the Reformation the Roman Church and curia were hopelessly corrupt. They cleaned up their act, to be sure, and JPII has been a wonderful witness of the gospel. But who is supposed to have that much power? That much power in the hands of some who would abuse could destroy the church more than anything else before it. And why papists don't realize that... and why it doesn't scare their pants off... is utterly beyond me. Authority in the Church is vested in Scripture and Tradition, and it is up to the Bishops of the Church to interpret them in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. And this is done in a collegial manner.
It is worth noting that even though Rome has these strange and heretical doctrines such as papal infallibility and supreme authority that they decide on matters of faith in the same way as other churches, and the pope in most cases simply "rubber stamps" things. The pope, in other words, has mountains of advisors and theologians who look at Scripture and Tradition, in light of human reason and natural law, when deciding about matters of the faith that may arise later on (such as bioethical issues). The pope rubber stamps this. He doesn't just pull new doctrines out of thin air, in other words.
Well, that is what other churches do too. That is what the Orthodox do, and the we do, and other Protestants do. At the end of the day, we have to the honesty to confess that it is a collegial process, whereas the papists give the pope all of the credit. But the crucial difference is the authority of the pope. The fact that, at the end of the day, the pope can come down and say and do whatever he wants is exceedingly frightening and unchristian, and I want no part in it. Christ ordained 12 apostles, not 1 and 11 assistants.
Romanists assume that their infallible pope, who has greater authority than an ecumenical council, is somehow a safeguard against heresy. They fail to realize, however, that even popes can err, and that sometimes greatly. Just look at the history of the church. The Roman Pontiffs have committed great sins in the past. Why? Because they are human beings, and have a sinful nature like the rest of us. The errors of the past make the recent sex abuse scandals look like nothing, in fact. On the eve of the Reformation the Roman Church and curia were hopelessly corrupt. They cleaned up their act, to be sure, and JPII has been a wonderful witness of the gospel. But who is supposed to have that much power? That much power in the hands of some who would abuse could destroy the church more than anything else before it. And why papists don't realize that... and why it doesn't scare their pants off... is utterly beyond me. Authority in the Church is vested in Scripture and Tradition, and it is up to the Bishops of the Church to interpret them in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. And this is done in a collegial manner.
It is worth noting that even though Rome has these strange and heretical doctrines such as papal infallibility and supreme authority that they decide on matters of faith in the same way as other churches, and the pope in most cases simply "rubber stamps" things. The pope, in other words, has mountains of advisors and theologians who look at Scripture and Tradition, in light of human reason and natural law, when deciding about matters of the faith that may arise later on (such as bioethical issues). The pope rubber stamps this. He doesn't just pull new doctrines out of thin air, in other words.
Well, that is what other churches do too. That is what the Orthodox do, and the we do, and other Protestants do. At the end of the day, we have to the honesty to confess that it is a collegial process, whereas the papists give the pope all of the credit. But the crucial difference is the authority of the pope. The fact that, at the end of the day, the pope can come down and say and do whatever he wants is exceedingly frightening and unchristian, and I want no part in it. Christ ordained 12 apostles, not 1 and 11 assistants.
Monday, March 21, 2005
A Living Tradition and the Catholic Wars
A friend recently left me a mocking voice mail asking if the services of benediction I attended recently were different from what the Articles of Religion forbid (i.e. carrying the host about, lifting it up, etc.). This friend is an ex-Anglican who became a triumphalist Roman Catholic. He is suggesting that I am somehow not being Anglican if I go to benediction, or that benediction is not congruent with the Anglican tradition.
I will admit that benediction is contrary to the Articles of Religion unless you take in some serious hermeneutical liberties while reading them. But what people need to understand is that Anglicanism is not a dead faith - it is, rather, a living tradition. Our bishops are living successors to the apostles. The Articles - especially ones like end of Article XXV - need to be looked at in their historical context, namely, the controversies of the Reformation. Those controversies are long over, so there is nothing wrong with the Church going back at its own discretion and reintroducing various devotions that were once banned in some parts of the world in order to serve a greater need today, such as a devotional need. The Articles are neither Creed nor Scripture. They are not infallible, and over time various parts of them need to be reevaluated. This is a tricky process that requires guidence by the Holy Ghost, and some teachings are not as open to discussion as others (e.g. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). But they are not "carved in stone", as it were.
What annoyed me about my "friend", however, was that he, and other RCs, seem to think that only the Roman Church can change various doctrines over time. And believe me, they have changed many doctrines over the years. Before Vatican II, if you were not Catholic you were going to Hell. Now, just 40 years later, we can go to Heaven. How is that for a change in belief? Why don't they see how ridiculous that is? How about instituting "four offices" in the Church - deacon, priest, bishop, and pope (yes, the pope is not "just another bishop" - they have four offices)? Of course, they don't call it "changing doctrines". They say that they have come to a deeper understanding of their earlier belief. Well, no one engages in linguistic gymnastics as much or as well as RC theologians. But my question is - why do thhey not grant that dispensation to any other church?
More on this later.
I will admit that benediction is contrary to the Articles of Religion unless you take in some serious hermeneutical liberties while reading them. But what people need to understand is that Anglicanism is not a dead faith - it is, rather, a living tradition. Our bishops are living successors to the apostles. The Articles - especially ones like end of Article XXV - need to be looked at in their historical context, namely, the controversies of the Reformation. Those controversies are long over, so there is nothing wrong with the Church going back at its own discretion and reintroducing various devotions that were once banned in some parts of the world in order to serve a greater need today, such as a devotional need. The Articles are neither Creed nor Scripture. They are not infallible, and over time various parts of them need to be reevaluated. This is a tricky process that requires guidence by the Holy Ghost, and some teachings are not as open to discussion as others (e.g. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). But they are not "carved in stone", as it were.
What annoyed me about my "friend", however, was that he, and other RCs, seem to think that only the Roman Church can change various doctrines over time. And believe me, they have changed many doctrines over the years. Before Vatican II, if you were not Catholic you were going to Hell. Now, just 40 years later, we can go to Heaven. How is that for a change in belief? Why don't they see how ridiculous that is? How about instituting "four offices" in the Church - deacon, priest, bishop, and pope (yes, the pope is not "just another bishop" - they have four offices)? Of course, they don't call it "changing doctrines". They say that they have come to a deeper understanding of their earlier belief. Well, no one engages in linguistic gymnastics as much or as well as RC theologians. But my question is - why do thhey not grant that dispensation to any other church?
Friday, March 18, 2005
Knock, knock?
My job involves working with churches and selling them supplies that they need for their buildings. I have done this for about two and a half years. One of the things I have noticed about a lot of churches - more than half of the ones I visit each week - is that many times no one is there during the week. The buildings are locked, and the parking lot is always empty. The office windows are always dark. When I get a number to call the pastor, many of these places do not even have answering machines for their phones! This is especially the case with city churches in marginal neighborhoods. It got me to thinking, "How can a congregation minister to people if no is ever there except on 'money day'?"
I suspect that many of these places are spiritually dead in part because no one is there during the week. And I think that many of the neighborhoods around these churches are bad because no one is there working day in and day out for good. The first step in helping people and ministering to them is being "present" to them. It is "being there" (dasein - to borrow a term from Heidegger and use it in a different way).
Most clergy are very busy - I realize that. But someone has to be at the church daily, especially in a more populated, urban area. Even if some crotchety old hag is there, at least she is there. At least there is a human presence. Again, to help people we must be present to them.
I suspect that many of these places are spiritually dead in part because no one is there during the week. And I think that many of the neighborhoods around these churches are bad because no one is there working day in and day out for good. The first step in helping people and ministering to them is being "present" to them. It is "being there" (dasein - to borrow a term from Heidegger and use it in a different way).
Most clergy are very busy - I realize that. But someone has to be at the church daily, especially in a more populated, urban area. Even if some crotchety old hag is there, at least she is there. At least there is a human presence. Again, to help people we must be present to them.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Chanting with the English Gradual and Chanting in General
The English Gradual has Gregorian chant tones for the propers from the Anglican Missal. It can be imposing for clergy (and choirs) who do not know how to read music, but would still like to chant the propers from the missal for high mass. But fear not! It is not as hard as it may appear. Here's the trick:
The English Gradual, in just about every case, uses the same tones for the various parts of the mass. Tone VII is used for the introit; Tone V for the Gradual; Tone VIII for the Tract (if there is one); Tone VI for the Alleluia; Tone II for the Offertory; and Tone I for the Communion. So, the priest or cantor simply has to memorize the tune (get someone to pluck it out on the piano for him), and then make various adjustments for the words and phrasing for each liturgy. Albeit, the constant use of the same tones would get old, but at least it is a start.
Many continuing parishes cannot afford nice organs or full time, skilled organists. But it is still possible to have nice, sung liturgies under those circumstances. Chant can be used instead. And if the priest and a few other members of a parish get together and practice chanting (form a "gregorian schola"), some real aesthetic beauty and mystery in worship can occur.
A lot of priests can't chant well because it is not taught in seminaries much anymore. What they need to do if they want to learn is go buy chant cds (by groups like Chanticleer, or the Tallis Scholars) and carefully listen to way trained singers chant and try to imitate them. The key is: knowing the tune; proper pronunciation; proper phrasing (chanting is NOT like regular singing).
The English Gradual, in just about every case, uses the same tones for the various parts of the mass. Tone VII is used for the introit; Tone V for the Gradual; Tone VIII for the Tract (if there is one); Tone VI for the Alleluia; Tone II for the Offertory; and Tone I for the Communion. So, the priest or cantor simply has to memorize the tune (get someone to pluck it out on the piano for him), and then make various adjustments for the words and phrasing for each liturgy. Albeit, the constant use of the same tones would get old, but at least it is a start.
Many continuing parishes cannot afford nice organs or full time, skilled organists. But it is still possible to have nice, sung liturgies under those circumstances. Chant can be used instead. And if the priest and a few other members of a parish get together and practice chanting (form a "gregorian schola"), some real aesthetic beauty and mystery in worship can occur.
A lot of priests can't chant well because it is not taught in seminaries much anymore. What they need to do if they want to learn is go buy chant cds (by groups like Chanticleer, or the Tallis Scholars) and carefully listen to way trained singers chant and try to imitate them. The key is: knowing the tune; proper pronunciation; proper phrasing (chanting is NOT like regular singing).
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Old Order Anglicans
I thought up a new name for our movement/churches. Rather than saying "traditional", or "continuing" we could say "old order". The name came to mind when I saw a book about the Amish and Mennonites, and how they have "Old Order" Mennonites and then some more modern/liberal ones. The old order groups preserve all of the old traditions and beliefs, as well as dress and devotion. That is what continuing Anglicans do. The difference would be that we hope to reach out to the world and not be, or remain, an "exclusive" community.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Stations of the Cross and Benediction
Last night I went to the local FiFNa parish for stations and benediction - two of my favorite things to do during Lent. Their building is huge, so it makes "walking the stations" more dramatic. And benediction from their high altar is quite impressive. This Friday we have the same devotions at my home parish (continuing). Our building is elegant, but very small, so the walking effect won't quite be the same. And in fact, we do not even have a monstrance, so we will be doing benediction with the ciborium.
But it is the heart that counts. It will still be a profound experience walking the path of Christ and being blessed by His precious Body. Maybe one day we will be fortunate enough to have a larger building, but the key now is to be faithful with what God has already given us.
But it is the heart that counts. It will still be a profound experience walking the path of Christ and being blessed by His precious Body. Maybe one day we will be fortunate enough to have a larger building, but the key now is to be faithful with what God has already given us.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Confirmation
Confirmation day is fast approaching for the 8 or so students in my parish's confirmation class. Father wants the class to to be turned into a church school/youth class when he's done with them after confirmation. Unfortunately for a few of them confirmation will probably be "catholic graduation day". Their parents will no longer bring them to church and they will remain babes in the faith (at best) or be little better than pagans (at worse). For all of its good intentions, continuing Anglicanism has not been able to "fix" this problem. I think the parents are ultimately to blame. Teenage kids are usually lazy, and if the parents leave it up to them whether or not they will go to church, then of course the kids won't go. Parents have to drag them out of bed and go to church with the kids. So if the parents hate going to church, the kids won't go.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Moving
I have moved recently and have not been able to post much. My dsl service should be up in about a week and a half, so I will be posting more in a few weeks. This weekend I went to NYC with my girlfriend. We worshipped at Church of the Transfiguration, an historically anglo-catholic parish in lower Manhattan. The priests' ceremonial was way off. I was quite shocked. They chanted the litany, which was nice, but it was all downhill from there. It did not follow ritual notes at all. The deacon ad subdeacon didn't hold up the priest's chasuble while he censed the altar; the priest didn't wear a cope during the first part of the mmass; thhey didn't wear maniples; they didn't do the introit, gradual, etc. It was quite out of the ordinary. They were basically '79 BCP anglo-catholics. We in the various anglo-catholic continuing churches do it the old way - a full missal mass straight out of ritual notes. Are there any episcopal parishes that still do it that way? I think Ascension and St. Agnes in Washington DC does. Does anyone else know of any?
Sunday, February 06, 2005
No Crazy Church Politics
Several times on this blog I have mentioned some of the difficult things about being a continuing Anglican. But, as we all know, there are many good things about being a continuer. One of these is in the area of church politics. I take great comfort in the fact that in my jurisdiction I do not have to worry about issues like women's ordination, pansexualist agendas, liberation theology, universalism, and more. They are non-issues and are not even up for discussion. We have our views on those subjects, and can defend our views, but we are all of one accord on subjects like that. We hold to catholic teaching as enshrined in scripture and tradition. We do not have to worry about one of our bishops ordaining women to serve as "priests".
We have issues to be sure, but they are not gargantuan in proportion, or related to redefining morality. Our issues are things like "when should we get a new organ", "what service should we have and when", and so on. But nothing like "should we recognize mormon baptisms?" We do not even go there. Now, it is true that there are politics in the continuing churches, and they can be annoying - especially for clergy. But they never really directly affect the day-by-day ministry in the parish church or the lives of the laity. This is in stark contrast to many dioceses and parishes in ECUSA.
All of this is very refreshing because it means we can be busy proclaiming the catholic faith and ministering to people. I feel sorry for those conservative parishes in ECUSA that have to spend their time and energy fighting their bishop and their denomination. If that energy could be used for spreading the gospel, and for healing, imagine what could be done on this earth! So whenever I read something on Virtuosity about Anglicanism that is disconcerting, I can be comforted sommewhat in that it usually is not happening in my denomination or in others, such as APCK, and more. I have more time, then, to pray for my brethern who not in such a good denominational situation. And may all continuers pray that God would give us grace to use our situation for his honor and glory... that we would be "strengthened for service"!
We have issues to be sure, but they are not gargantuan in proportion, or related to redefining morality. Our issues are things like "when should we get a new organ", "what service should we have and when", and so on. But nothing like "should we recognize mormon baptisms?" We do not even go there. Now, it is true that there are politics in the continuing churches, and they can be annoying - especially for clergy. But they never really directly affect the day-by-day ministry in the parish church or the lives of the laity. This is in stark contrast to many dioceses and parishes in ECUSA.
All of this is very refreshing because it means we can be busy proclaiming the catholic faith and ministering to people. I feel sorry for those conservative parishes in ECUSA that have to spend their time and energy fighting their bishop and their denomination. If that energy could be used for spreading the gospel, and for healing, imagine what could be done on this earth! So whenever I read something on Virtuosity about Anglicanism that is disconcerting, I can be comforted sommewhat in that it usually is not happening in my denomination or in others, such as APCK, and more. I have more time, then, to pray for my brethern who not in such a good denominational situation. And may all continuers pray that God would give us grace to use our situation for his honor and glory... that we would be "strengthened for service"!
Friday, February 04, 2005
High Church REC
I visited a friend's REC parish in PA this past weekend, and it had a rack of votive candles at the rear of the nave, along with a statue of their patronal saint in the sanctuary near to the altar. And they have icons all over the parish, including in the nave! It just goes to show that you cannot put any particular continuing Anglican denomination into a box. I have been to some ACC parishes that are extremely low in their churchmanship and would never have anything like that in their church. It is a good sign for the APA-REC merger since the APA tends to be a lot more anglo-catholic.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Old School Phraseology
In continuing Anglicanism one encounters all sorts of old school phrases that are quite fun to say aloud in an English accent. The 1940 Hymnal has notes indicating how a hymn should be sung. Some of these are:
- Unison, with Stately Movement
- Without Dragging
- With Serenity
- In Unison, with Vigor
Ritual Notes, the classic manual of anglo-catholic ceremonial, uses phrases such as:
" .... this is strictly forbidden..."
"... an unedifying amount of movement..."
"...as is sometimes improperly done..."
The 1928 BCP has its share of interesting phrases too, such as "it is meet and right so to do", and "fie on thee" (in the Psalter). Too me, these phrases are beautiful. They show how seriously every aspect of worship is to be taken, and/or are memorable and unique ways of expressing things. To those who want to change the language of the liturgy I say, "Fie on thee! So to do is strictly forbidden!"
- Unison, with Stately Movement
- Without Dragging
- With Serenity
- In Unison, with Vigor
Ritual Notes, the classic manual of anglo-catholic ceremonial, uses phrases such as:
" .... this is strictly forbidden..."
"... an unedifying amount of movement..."
"...as is sometimes improperly done..."
The 1928 BCP has its share of interesting phrases too, such as "it is meet and right so to do", and "fie on thee" (in the Psalter). Too me, these phrases are beautiful. They show how seriously every aspect of worship is to be taken, and/or are memorable and unique ways of expressing things. To those who want to change the language of the liturgy I say, "Fie on thee! So to do is strictly forbidden!"
Friday, January 28, 2005
Anniversary of the Denver Consecrations
Today is the 27th (I believe) anniversary of the Denver Consecrations, when Morse, Doren, Mote, and Watterson were consecrated the first bishops for the Anglican Church in North America. This was one of the beginnings of the continuing Church - the APA actually began a couple of years earlier. And the REC began almost 100 years earlier. Well, so obviously the bishops and the Church they founded back in Denver did not stay together. They could not work out differences with regard to divorced and remarried clergy, churchmanship, canon law, etc. And I think there were personality issues as well. I won't rehash all of the details... they hardly matter anymore. A lot of those people involved are either old, retired, or dead. They point is that the Church (and by this I mean the traditional Anglican continuing "churches") needs to move on into the 21st century with timeless truth of Jesus Christ. We are basically one Church that is morally and doctrinally, but not corporately, unified - thanks mainly to the bishops, who are supposed to be a sign and symbol of unity. It is a sad but true fact that a few bishops have really hindered the growth and ministry of the Church.
This is beginning to change. As we discussed before, there are good talks going on. The old guard is passing away, or passing into retirement. New people are taking over, and people - especially bishops - are beginning to realize that a "house divided cannot stand". That we have stood for so long is a testimony to God's grace, but we need to take this tremendous gift He has given us, and one that we must now consiously use for His glory. Egos must be put aside, and "he who would be greatest among you must be least." And I want to clarify that there have been many godly continuing bishops over the years. They have served the Lord with gladness, and Jesus will say to them one day, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
We should take this day to remember our clergy in our prayers, and especially our bishops. I am sure that Satan wants to "sift them like wheat", so we need to pray to Jesus that He would minister to them and protect them. And we need to continue to pray for unity, and ask our leaders about it, and promote it at diocesan and provincial meetings, and so on. Innumberable benefits come from unity! May we be one as God and Christ are one!
This is beginning to change. As we discussed before, there are good talks going on. The old guard is passing away, or passing into retirement. New people are taking over, and people - especially bishops - are beginning to realize that a "house divided cannot stand". That we have stood for so long is a testimony to God's grace, but we need to take this tremendous gift He has given us, and one that we must now consiously use for His glory. Egos must be put aside, and "he who would be greatest among you must be least." And I want to clarify that there have been many godly continuing bishops over the years. They have served the Lord with gladness, and Jesus will say to them one day, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
We should take this day to remember our clergy in our prayers, and especially our bishops. I am sure that Satan wants to "sift them like wheat", so we need to pray to Jesus that He would minister to them and protect them. And we need to continue to pray for unity, and ask our leaders about it, and promote it at diocesan and provincial meetings, and so on. Innumberable benefits come from unity! May we be one as God and Christ are one!
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Lectionary for Mass
In almost all cases, the parishes in my jursidiction use the 1928 BCP and/or the American or Anglican Missal (the 1928 BCP mass and propers are included in the missal). There are some parishes which have joined us recently from ECUSA that have been given a dispensation to use Rite II in the short term. One of the advantage of the 1979 BCP is that it uses the 3-year lectionary. The 1928 has a one year lectionary, so you do not cover as much scripture during mass. Now, if a person reads morning and evening prayer in the 1928, and goes to mass regularly, he will cover most of the Bible. But many parishioners do not read morning and evening prayer on their own. They just pray, maybe do some spiritual reading on the side, and come to mass on Sundays. They may not be disciplined, or not be very "proficient", but that is what they do. That is a problem. And the Church has to respond to that. So I think a 3-year mass lectionary is a good thing to have. It gets people to hear more of the scriptures.
My jurisdiction allows the use of the 3-year lectionary with the 1928 BCP. And while I think this is a step in the right direction, I do not think it is a perfect solution just yet. The reason I think that is because the Collects in the 1928 BCP, and the mass readings and readings for the daily office are all supposed to "go together" in theme and sentiment. The 1979 BCP changes the order of the collects around, and so has some slightly different readings. Put another way, the 79 readings and collects all "match", and the 28 readings and collects all "match", but when you mix them up a slight disconnect occurs. It may be relatively minor, but it is still important. The lectionary readings were chosen for a reason, so randomly combining and switching them is not very wise in my judgement.
What I think my province - and others - should consider doing is authorizing some of the 1928 daily office readings to be read as alternatives for mass. So a priest would have three epistles, three gospels, and some OT readings to choose from.... though we continuers do not really have "OT" readings in our liturgies. That way we would still be using the 1928 lectionary. (Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to say the 79 BCP is "revisionist", but we will still use its lectionary, or other parts if it suits us?) Either that, or several of the continuing provinces need to create a new lectionary to serve our pastoral needs. But again, mixing and matching is not very wise in my judgement.
My jurisdiction allows the use of the 3-year lectionary with the 1928 BCP. And while I think this is a step in the right direction, I do not think it is a perfect solution just yet. The reason I think that is because the Collects in the 1928 BCP, and the mass readings and readings for the daily office are all supposed to "go together" in theme and sentiment. The 1979 BCP changes the order of the collects around, and so has some slightly different readings. Put another way, the 79 readings and collects all "match", and the 28 readings and collects all "match", but when you mix them up a slight disconnect occurs. It may be relatively minor, but it is still important. The lectionary readings were chosen for a reason, so randomly combining and switching them is not very wise in my judgement.
What I think my province - and others - should consider doing is authorizing some of the 1928 daily office readings to be read as alternatives for mass. So a priest would have three epistles, three gospels, and some OT readings to choose from.... though we continuers do not really have "OT" readings in our liturgies. That way we would still be using the 1928 lectionary. (Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to say the 79 BCP is "revisionist", but we will still use its lectionary, or other parts if it suits us?) Either that, or several of the continuing provinces need to create a new lectionary to serve our pastoral needs. But again, mixing and matching is not very wise in my judgement.
Monday, January 24, 2005
People Still Love Traditional Anglicanism
This past weekend my girlfriend came to mass with me for the first time. She was raised in a very devout Mennonite family, and had never experienced the Anglican rite before. More important, she hasn't been to church in a while. Anyway, she loved it. She loved all of the symbolism, the formality, the dignity, and the language. The sermon - a strongly prolife sermon - was a bit short, she thought (about 10 minutes), but she had no negative comments about the subject matter. She said that the people were extremely friendly and nice. And more important, she wants to come back and maybe take the rector's study on the church year that he'll soon be offering.
This affirms more and more to me just how "relevant" (I hate that word) traditional Christianity - the true gospel of Jesus Christ - and the sacred liturgy of the church is to people today. They just need to be exposed to it. They need to be invited to mass, and we need to boldy proclaim who we are and why we are here. "We are Anglicans, and we are here to worship and glorify the Triune God, and to proclaim the faith 'once dleivbered to the saints'." When we focus on that mission - the Great Commission - people will come. Our Lord said, "I, when I am lifted up, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32)
This affirms more and more to me just how "relevant" (I hate that word) traditional Christianity - the true gospel of Jesus Christ - and the sacred liturgy of the church is to people today. They just need to be exposed to it. They need to be invited to mass, and we need to boldy proclaim who we are and why we are here. "We are Anglicans, and we are here to worship and glorify the Triune God, and to proclaim the faith 'once dleivbered to the saints'." When we focus on that mission - the Great Commission - people will come. Our Lord said, "I, when I am lifted up, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32)
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Reading for Orders 2
If a postulant must read for orders, the appropriate diocesen or provincal authorities should designate an official reading program. Areas that should be covered include philosophy; fundamental theology; philosophical anthropology; theological anthropology; christology; Old Testament (Pentateuch); Prophets; Poetical Books; Synpotic Gospels; Pauline literature; Catholic Epistles; ecclesiology; moral theology; philosophical ethics; social ethics; Greek; Latin; maybe Hebrew; Liturgy; Sacraments of Initiation; Eucharist; Orders; Penance and Annointing; Church History; and more.... There are too many to list.
They need to designate specific, in-print books. Sadly, many important Anglican books are out of print... such as Shepherd's Prayer Book Commmentary. So new books must either be used or written. Raymond Brown's "Introduction to the New Testament" is a great book to use, for example. I think reading Copleston's "History of Philosophy", or even Bertrand Russell's would be good - clergy need to be philosophically informed. All areas of systematics should be studied with reference to both the Church Fathers and modern scholarship. Wacko writers, such as feminist scholars, should be read as well.
The person reading for orders needs to have strong leadership throughout the process. His mentor must meet with him regularly and discuss the readings, ask various questions, assign papers, and so forth. And a regular schedule must be followed. The person reading for orders should do so within a timeframe, so that, like the person in a traditional seminary, he knows when he'll be finished his studies. People who read for orders are often very sincere, and pursue Holy Orders at great expense fo time and energy, so they should not be jerked around.
Indeed, reading for orders can be as complex for the candidate's mentor as it can be for the candidate himself! But it can be exciting too! A lot can be learned through theological discussions - sitting at a pub and discussing theology with someone who is very learned, for example.
They need to designate specific, in-print books. Sadly, many important Anglican books are out of print... such as Shepherd's Prayer Book Commmentary. So new books must either be used or written. Raymond Brown's "Introduction to the New Testament" is a great book to use, for example. I think reading Copleston's "History of Philosophy", or even Bertrand Russell's would be good - clergy need to be philosophically informed. All areas of systematics should be studied with reference to both the Church Fathers and modern scholarship. Wacko writers, such as feminist scholars, should be read as well.
The person reading for orders needs to have strong leadership throughout the process. His mentor must meet with him regularly and discuss the readings, ask various questions, assign papers, and so forth. And a regular schedule must be followed. The person reading for orders should do so within a timeframe, so that, like the person in a traditional seminary, he knows when he'll be finished his studies. People who read for orders are often very sincere, and pursue Holy Orders at great expense fo time and energy, so they should not be jerked around.
Indeed, reading for orders can be as complex for the candidate's mentor as it can be for the candidate himself! But it can be exciting too! A lot can be learned through theological discussions - sitting at a pub and discussing theology with someone who is very learned, for example.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Reading for Orders 1
This can be a hairy topic to get into, but I am going to give it a try. I have known several priests - both good and bad - who have read for orders. "Reading for orders" means that instead of completing a formal seminary training/educational program, the candidate for Holy Orders reads all of the books (or types of books) that one would read in seminary under the direction of a priest appointed by the bishop or some other authority. He is still responsible for passing all of the canonical exams, and basically has to do everything a seminarian does for te rest of his formation.... i.e. volunteer at his parish, sit in on various meetings, learn the basics of liturgics, and more. Reading for orders is ideal for men who have not completed college, or for some good reason were not able to go to college. It is also good for men who cannot, because of family and work commitements, attend a seminary. Further, it can be a godsend for those who wish to become priests but do not live near any theologate.
To briefly compare and contrast this approach with seminary from a traditional Anglican perspective, I find at three things worth mentioning. 1) Good and bad priests go to seminary and read for orders alike. Going to seminary doesn't necessarily mean a priest will have orthodox, pastoral theology, and reading for orders doesn't mean a priest will be a dunce or theological buffoon. 2) The contemporary continuing Anglican priest needs to learn all of the traditional liturgical ceremonial, and this is not taught in any seminaries anymore. The manual acts of the priest, and how to say mass, has to be taught by another priest who knows how to do it from way back when. So going to seminary will be little help in terms of learning to lead various liturgies (there are some small exceptions, such as learning how to do benediction, which may still be learned at a Roman seminary because they still do it pretty much in the old school way). It is learned in the parish. 3) Success in seminary or in reading for orders, as well as in ministry and in all other areas of life, depends on how seriously the individual takes it.
To briefly compare and contrast this approach with seminary from a traditional Anglican perspective, I find at three things worth mentioning. 1) Good and bad priests go to seminary and read for orders alike. Going to seminary doesn't necessarily mean a priest will have orthodox, pastoral theology, and reading for orders doesn't mean a priest will be a dunce or theological buffoon. 2) The contemporary continuing Anglican priest needs to learn all of the traditional liturgical ceremonial, and this is not taught in any seminaries anymore. The manual acts of the priest, and how to say mass, has to be taught by another priest who knows how to do it from way back when. So going to seminary will be little help in terms of learning to lead various liturgies (there are some small exceptions, such as learning how to do benediction, which may still be learned at a Roman seminary because they still do it pretty much in the old school way). It is learned in the parish. 3) Success in seminary or in reading for orders, as well as in ministry and in all other areas of life, depends on how seriously the individual takes it.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Seminary Ideas
Here are some basic ideas I want to throw out for a viable traditional Anglican seminary. For the basic foundations of a seminary you need an OT professor, a NT professor, a philosophy professor, a church history professor, and maybe 2-3 systematics professors (liturgics, general/fundamental theology, moral theology). They should all be in orders, and have pastoral experience. Pastoral theology can be taught by them through practicums, retreats, etc., as well as through their courses (i.e. how philosophical principles trickle down into everyday pastoral experience). They should all have earned Ph.Ds, or something very close, in their field. They do not necessarily have to be published writers, or "famous" scholars - pastor/scholars or pastor/teachers is closer to the mark. They should be in the traditional Anglican world (e.g. continuum, AMiA, FiFNa, etc.). A town needs to be located where a suitable facility may be purchased for use, such as Boston or Newark. One of the Catholic/Episcopal churches that are being closed in those areas could be bought (rectory and all) and used for classes, housing, and liturgy. An urban location that is also relatively affordable is essential. Students could live on or off campus at first, and then eventually (perhaps) they would be required tolive on campus. There obviously needs to be an endowment of sorts, and the tutors would need a way to make an income until the seminary was self-sustaining... perhaps by assisting at a local parish or doing chaplaincy work. The seminary should be open to all students of the continuum and other traditions (unlike the APCK one). Anyone who pays, and wishes to abide by the house rules should be invited to take classes. Though, it should be noted for those folk that the purpose of the seminary is to train pastors in the Anglican tradition - it's purpose is to serve the Church. It should eventually seek accredidation. It should not be a place for huge egos, or the fiefdom of some megalomaniac priest. And obviously it needs a small administration to oversee fundraising, classes, scheduling, etc. There would be daily mass and offices.
Organ-ization
We have probably the worst organ in the entire universe at my parish. It sounds like something you'd hear in an episode of "Tales from the Darkside". It is some relic from the 50's, I think, with vacuum tubes that are no longer made. Well, we finally approved the process to buy a new organ! Thanks be to God! In a continuing Anglican parish there simply must be a good music program/organ. We have too much music in our liturgy for there to be a bad instrument. Lord willing, our new organ will be installed in no more than a year. We want to raise 80% of the funds before buying. God will not bless reckless spending!
Now if we could just plan to get a nnew organist in a few years. We have a very sweet old lady that plays, but she always plays the Willan service... and I get so tired of hearing it. So does the rector, but he wants to tread carefully here, as organists are hard to find. We are lucky to have one at all. Anyway, she is a pianist by training, which also has its own problems, and she never uses the pedals. She often shows up five minutes before the service begins, and freqeuntly messes up the "Gloria Tibi", "Laus Tibi", and other standard old school Anglican pieces - which she plays every single Sunday! I just don't know how one could mess up pieces that are played so frequently! So, we have to see about replacing her later down the road.
But for now I a jjust thrilled that we are getting rid of our Dracula organ! Thank you blessed Jesus!
Now if we could just plan to get a nnew organist in a few years. We have a very sweet old lady that plays, but she always plays the Willan service... and I get so tired of hearing it. So does the rector, but he wants to tread carefully here, as organists are hard to find. We are lucky to have one at all. Anyway, she is a pianist by training, which also has its own problems, and she never uses the pedals. She often shows up five minutes before the service begins, and freqeuntly messes up the "Gloria Tibi", "Laus Tibi", and other standard old school Anglican pieces - which she plays every single Sunday! I just don't know how one could mess up pieces that are played so frequently! So, we have to see about replacing her later down the road.
But for now I a jjust thrilled that we are getting rid of our Dracula organ! Thank you blessed Jesus!
Thursday, January 06, 2005
The Incredible Shrinking Church
I have been to a "prominent" continuing church's website recently - won't mention any names - and see that they have the same people serving as clergy in their diocese as when I was in that denomination three years ago. Even the old geezers who were supposed to have retired are out working in parishes. It is sad, not because these men are old (on the contrary, it is great that they are willing to continue serving the Lord), but because it shows that the church hasn't grown much at all in three years. They have no vocations that result in ordination, no new parishes, etc. The postulants who were there when I was a member of that denomination are nowhere to be found. If a church, diocese, or parish is not growing - at least slowly, and if people's lives are not being changed for the good... i.e. people are not drawing closer to God through the redemptive love of Jesus Christ, then something is seriously wrong. In such a case they need to search their souls and spend a great deal of time in prayer asking God what to do, and asking God to bless their ministry for His glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)