Chocolate Jesus

I have been meaning to comment on this for sometime. Cosimo Caravello, an artist who works with food as his medium, created a sculpture of Jesus in the "crucfix" form out of chocolate that was to be part of a show called "My Sweet Lord" in NYC. But Bill Donahue, Cardinal Egan, and others managed to strong arm the gallery director into shutting the show down. They apparently objected to Jesus being portrayed in chocolate and in the nude. Chocolate must be evil. And I guess Jesus was not anatomically the same as other men... he must have only appeared to be a man. In real ife, he was probably more like a Ken doll. (St. James the Average rolls his eyes)

This is just another example of how out of touch most Christians are with postmodern art and the art world, and how they subtly affirm long condemned christological heresies (i.e. Docetism). There is nothing wrong with using chocolate as an artistic medium, which is precisely what this artist does as his trademark. What makes using chocolate as a medium bad? Has anyone ever stopped to wonder if wood or stone are acceptable mediums in which to portary Jesus Christ? I mean, we use stone to pave roads, and we burn wood in fires. Doesn't that make those materials profane? Has the Catholic League ever considered the unbelievable kitschy statues made of "resin"- and painted with tacky, pastel colors - that most Catholic bookstores and catalogs promote? Doesn't that cheap, mass-produced stuff demean Jesus Christ? And there is nothign wrong with portraying Jesus (in this manner) anatomically correctly.

The Catholic League, and many (I'm sorry to have to say this) "traditionalist" Christians simply do not understand modern and postmodern art, and the trajectory the art world has taken in the 20th century. And so, they condemn beautiful works of art like this (and it is a very nice looking Christ figure, if you ask me), making themselves look stupid and completely out of touch in the process. Further, they alienate a whole segment of the population (artists)
that they should be trying to reach. Artists like Caravello should be lauded for brininng Christ into the public forum of the art world; not condemned because they are not working with the same materials and in the same era as Poussin.

JP II University

Check this place out. It is a new catholic college that is geared towards preparing students for media, business, and technology careers. These conservative catholic colleges seem to pop up left and right. I guess they have to because the older ones are so wacky anymore.

I want to see an Anglican college formed. An accredited college that is Christ-centered, and whose devotional and worship life is built around the Book of Common Prayer, and the traditions of the English christianity. A college that teaches students to think with a christian mind. Are there any Anglican colleges anywhere in the states? Were there ever plans for one?

REC Orders: Not Invalid... just not recognized

I received an e-mail from Archbishop Haverland (ACC) in response to my post a month or so ago, and he clarified that in the Trinitarian article that I was referring to he never actually said REC orders are not valid, just that they should not be recognized. He said that he was merely holding what was decided by a Lambeth conference with regard to the question of REC orders. So, sorry, archbishop, for misrepresenting you (I told him I'd glady post a retraction). The archbishop obviously holds a view similar to the orthodox who neither confirm nor deny the validity of other churches sacraments; rather, they refuse to recognize them, as it would give credibility to heretics and schismatics (Cyprian of Carthage).

The trouble with all of this, and maybe with the field of theology in general, is that it seems like it can never progress beyond these differences. All of this business about, "Well, I follow Cyprian, and you follow Augustine" becomes simply a diversion and an excuse to not make any progress towards unity or resolving the fundamental problem. I am not complaining about the archbishop, mind you. This is a larger problem that we all face, whether it is deciding how Christ is present in the eucharist, or what to do about the Filoque clause, and so on. We go on and on for centuries talking about these things, and discussing and reviving the same questions, and having the same arguments, rarely making any progress. It is disheartening.

To be sure, there are real theological questions - many of great importance - attached to these things I have mentioned. The answer is not to become "atheological". But there is a difference between holding to a view out of sincere conviction, while at the same time really looking into all of the arguments for and against it, and wrestling with the question with an eye to an eventual solution vs. towing some tired old party line. The goal, I think, is a solution to these problems that divide us. And lots of people talk about how we must do that, and how important it is, but very few actually take the steps to make it happen (even if they are just small steps). There have been a few examples of this here and there, such as when the Catholics and the Lutherans signed their joint declaration on justification a few years back. Now we just need a lot more of that. ARCIC was a step in the right direction too.

Liturgical Silence

The classic Anglican book, Liturgy and Worship (SPCK, ed. Clarke and Harris), has a great chapter on liturgical silence, and discusses it in the context Holy Eucharist. Originally the entire eucharistic liturgy was recited audibly, but at a rather early date, in both and west, the most solemn parts of the liturgy began to be said softly or silently. It was meant to evoke a certain sense of awe and mystery in the worshipper. Various church fathers, such as Cyril of Jeruslam, spoke on this topic. The offering of the eucharist was, according to Cyril, the "greatest hour of trembling", so naturally the tone of the liturgy, and how it was said, began to express this.

Anyone who has done even a little bit of public speaking knows that changing your tempo, tone, and volume are very powerful communication tools. That is what all of the great preachers have done (e.g. just watch a classic Billy Graham sermon from the 50's on TV sometime). So naturally one would do that at the liturgy in appropriate ways. It can also be a pedagogical tool. I was trained to say the Words of Institution softly, but I must confess I like the practice of the clergy of the parish I attended in seminary better, where they said those words loudly and with clarity, in order to emphasize, I think, the Real Presence.
The first time I heard him say those words in that way I knew that he believed in the Real Presence.

Related to this is the whole problem of rushing through the liturgy and not saying the silent prayers in the missal because people find the silences "awkward". Personally, I think they need to just get over that. Silence is the most undervalued thing in the world (besides my art). When we sit through those longish pauses in the liturgy, it helps us slow down and really concentrate on what is happening so we can be more involved in the sacred action, and get more out of it. I think that our churches would be even more reverent and holy places if we sought to slow things down a bit and learned to observe and appreciate the periods of silence and quiet in our worship.

More Priesthood Reflections

Today is the date of my first mass a year ago (Low Sunday). I promised some more simple reflections on life as a priest so here goes...

Being a parish priest pulls you in a million different directions. You have to wear a lot of hats: administrator, teacher, counselor, etc. I spend much of my time throughout the day working on rather mundane things (not surprising, really, since life in general is pretty mundane). For example, I keep a running list of things I tell people on Sunday that I am going to do for them the next week ("I'll check that out, and e-mail you about it tomorrow." "I need to call A.B. and see how his recovery is going.", etc.). So I spend much of my mornings - especially Monday - following up on people, working the phones (updating phone numbers as necessary), sending resources to people, and so on. Then there are logistical things to work out regarding services and activities with other clergy and parishioners. There are sick parishioners to visit, and occasional weekday services to lead. And then there is sermon prep time, Bible study prep time, and other things to prepare for (e.g. I am playing guitar at the homeless ministry soon - so I have pick some songs out and rehearse them.). There are bulletins to make, and Sunday School rooms to decorate. In short, there's lots of different stuff to do... and that is just a small part of it! All of that stuff, however, is pretty mundane and ordinary. There is nothing magical about it, and I don't see visions of the Blessed Mother or Our Lord every other day. It's just... ordinary.

I mention that only to say that some aspirants to the priesthood think that being a priest only involves dressing up in fancy clothes, saying mass, and meditating on whether existence precedes essence. Some aspirants have no interest in serving people (i.e. being a pastor), or going to parish social activities (no matter how hokie they may be). Instead they want to be "ivory tower theologians" who wear a collar. They think that being a priest only involves "Sunday morning high mass". But all of that other, less glamorous stuff is really important, and is a vital part of the ministry; indeed, you can't have a succesful minstry without them. Theological study and reflection, and certainly celebrating the Eucharist is important, but priestly ministry is not consist only of those things. Related to this is the idea that because a person is devoted to the Lord, and has a certain interest in theology, he is automatically called to be ordained. That is not necessarily the case.

So, if you want gobs of thrills and constant whirring and excitement, don't become a priest. If you want to read theological treatises all the time, and refuse to answer the phone or follow up with people; and if you don't want to get out there and minister to someone who doesn't even know what "Anglican" is; and if you don't want to be involved in something that is beneath you, like helping take down the tables and clean up after a parish dinner, then don't become a priest. Because a priest, like St. Paul, must be in a certain sense, "...all things to all people." If you want the honor and glory of saying mass, administering other sacraments, and preaching and teaching the word of God, then you must accept and embrace along with that the more mundane things associated with the ministry.

When tragedy strikes, say nothing?

I am preaching this Sunday at St. Mark's and will spend some time talking about the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech. There are a number of continuing church parishes in that part of Virginia, so I hope they will say something about what happened.

Sadly, I have been to a number of continuing churches where nothing is said from the pulpit about a major national or international tragedy. Mass is not even offered for the sufferers or victims! IMHO, clergy are obligated to comment on such events. People want need to know how God and Jesus Christ relates to what has happened. People have questions, and want to see what light their faith sheds on sufffering and loss.

Reach Out and Touch Faith

Jeff Steel has a link to an article by a Catholic priest which I find very exciting. The priest lists eight principles of what he calls "Evangelical Catholicism". It is the first of these principles that I find the most exciting. Here it is:

" The Lord Jesus Christ is the crucified and risen Savior of all mankind, and no human person can fully understand his life or find his dignity and destiny apart from a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. It is not enough to know who Jesus is; we must know Jesus."

There is unfortunately a lot of baggage that goes with the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". It's too bad, though, because that is a good phrase. It signifies a deep investment and involvment with God the Son. A lot of people think that it cancels out the relationship between the believer and the Church. But I have never thought that. The two actually go together. Like in a family, I have a personal relationship with my father, but I am also part of a larger unit, and have my relationship with my father by being part of this larger unit (the family). It's the same thing here.

I wish more Anglicans had a grasp on what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and what it means to walk with Christ, and to know Him. This is something that our more "evangelical" bretheren can bring to the table. Our parishes would be a lot stronger if peoples' faith became more personal, and if people knew Jesus as they knew their best friend, or their spouse.

It's only dead if you make it dead.

Looks like Rome's chief Latinist may be wrong about B16's "Motu Proprio". But that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong about Latin being a dead language. As many people know, I attended a Roman Catholic seminary, and let me tell you, they do not study Latin at many U.S. Catholic seminaries, neither do they actively promote it... not because they have anything against it, but because there is only so much time one can be in seminary, and only so many subjects a person has studied. At my school most of my classmates were required to take Spanish, because of the huge pastoral need. They didn't take Latin (which was only offered sporadically), or Greek... and much less Hebrew! There just was not enough time to take all of those extra classes. Nowadays, in addition to the ever-present philosophy requirements (though they too have been streamlined quite a bit), Catholic seminarians have to take several semesters of preaching, catechesis, counseling, professional ethics, social justice, etc. in addition to the Biblical studies, Church history, systematic and fundamental theology, etc. And so, there is only so much time available to take other courses. Eventually you have to graduate, and get out there to minister! So is Latin truly dead? Are they just too busy teaching other desperately needed courses to fit it into the schedule? Time will tell, I guess.

I think that a language like Latin or Greek is dead only if you make it dead. A seminarian can always study those langauges on his own, or take a summer course to at least get him going for private study. And when he graduates it is incumbent upon him to stay with those languages and keep using them and studying them, just as he must continue reading and studying theology, scripture, etc. I study my Latin regularly, and use my Greek everytime I prepare sermons, and I do that on purpose (so I don't forget it). That is how a language stays alive. Even if the leadership at Catholic seminaries does not teach the language for lack of time, they can at least create a favorable and enouraging environment to promote the study of it, and urge seminarians to pursue it on their own. We Anglicans, by the way, should also study Latin, even though we have our own liturgical language. It is the theological language of the western Church, and knowing it even on a small level enriches theolgical study and devotion in manifold ways. But again, there are no Latin police out there to make sure we do that. We must do it on our own, so it stays alive to us, and so we can reap its benefits.

Out with the new and in with the old...

There is a lot of talk out there about the possibility of Benedict XVI granting some sort of universal indult for catholic priests to say the old Tridentine mass. Apparently some people think it could happen at any time. On the other hand, I read an article in NOR by Rome's chief Latinist who said that the whole thing was a farce, and that Latin is deader than ever. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

Even though I am a traditionalist, I do not think it would be wise for B16 to allow this, and here's why. There are lots of practical problems that are going to come about as a result of this. First, who is going to teach all of these men to say the old mass properly? It is a lot harder to do than the Novus Ordo mass, and they must be trained to do it correctly. Second, how are they going to do it in newer churches that are not designed for that sort of service? Third, is it going to create even more of a "church-within-a-church"? That is to say, are the traditionalist/Blue Army types going to become even more estranged from their brothers and sisters in Novus Ordo parishes? Fourth, is it going to create strife and factionalism among the clergy? What if you are a young curate, and, as the saying goes, "The curate is always higher than the rector.", you want to do the old mass, but your boss - the rector - says "No, we do the Novus Ordo here." How is that to be resolved? Fiftth, are other Latin language devotions going to be brought back as well, and how will that impact things? Sixth, will this cause a liberal backlash? Those are just a few questions (there are many more) that I think need to be addressed or planned for ("change management" is the business term). If they do not, I predict that a universal indult will do more harm than good.

I think the Roman Catholic Church should cut its losses and just stick with the new mass, only issue stricter guidelines with regard to vesture, music, lay participation, and so on. They could bring back certain things, such as kneeling for most of mass and communion, in order to make a more holy atmosphere without causing a major disruption in peoples' faith and life. And they simply have to consider the average Joe catholic who grew up with the new mass and thinks it is fine.

The Refashioning of Anglicanism

One of things that I find myself doing a lot here at St. Mark's is explaining to parishioners and our gobs of visitors (St. Mark's is kind of like a tourist destination here in Vero Beach) how we are not in communion with TEC and Canterbury. This usually takes these folk by surprise. They can't seem to imagine (or it never occured to them) how one can be Anglican or Episcopalian without being in TEC, or in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. This I find fascinating. It is like saying that a copy machine cannot be a copy machine unless it is made by the Xerox company. And as I have said before, it is like saying that Ford motor company owns the word "sedan". People wrongly think of the corporate structure of the "official" Anglican Communion and the ABC as being of the essence of Anglicanism.

We read these days that the average Anglican is probably is poor black woman in Africa, and how "Anglican" doesn't equal "rich, white, males" (and hasn't for sometime). Anglicanism is global and multi-cultural. This is certainly true. So likewise, being Anglican no longer only means being in communion with TEC and Canterbury (and hasn't for some time), or being part of their revisionist club. As those bodies have, on an official level, long since fallen into heresy in so many ways, we could not be in communion with them even if they paid us (NB: there are many faithful remnant parishes for the time being within these bodies). Our being seperate from these folk is not about being "schismatic", it is about preserving and continuing the orthodox faith. When the leaders of the Church fail to uphold the vows they made at their consecrations - spceifically about "banishing and driving away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word" (BCP, p. 555), others of us must act. By failing to uphold their vows, the leaders of TEC, the CofE, and many other provinces of the "official" Anglican Communion, have shown themselves to be the ones who are schismatic. If they want to ordain women and practicing gays, teach universalism, and so on, then so be it - they can do what they want to in their club. But as for us we will take the orthodox faith in its Anglican expression and continue fulfilling the Great Commission.

Anglicanism is, more than ever before, about an idea. It is about a common, reformed catholic theology and liturgy that is centered on the authority of the scriptures as interpreted by the tradition of the undivided Church and our formularies. Being Anglican is about being faithful stewards of the faith once delivered to the saints. In the long run this will prove to be one of our strengths. The obsession that some have about being in communion with the See of Canterbury is nothing but a distraction, and it is like making the ABC a "pope", or an intrinsic part of what it means to be Anglican. I reject that. The Roman Church can't exist without the pope, but we can certainly exist without being in communion with TEC, the ABC, and their associates.

Radio Interview

Back in January I was on the Rhett Palmer Show here in Vero Beach, where I spoke about life as an artist-priest. Here is a link to the interview. Unfortunately the first half, where I talk a lot about art (and expecially Van Gogh, for some reason), is not on there, but the second half, where I talk more about the priesthood, is there.

You will also notice how I defend the Roman Catholic Church during the show... so I don't ever want to hear anything about how I am "anti-catholic", or anything like that!

Approaching One Year

The first anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood is coming up (April 15th), so I thought I would, over the next couple weeks, offer some reflections on my priestly ministry so far.

The one thing that comes to mind immediately, and that I have been thinking about a lot over the past few days, is how God has used just about every single talent and experience I have had in my brief life for His glory in the context of my ministry. I used to be an IT consultant, a middle school teacher, an administrator, a salesman, and a short order cook to name just a few things, and each one of those jobs has in some way prepared me for fulltime parish ministry. I am constantly using the skills and principles learned from those jobs in my day-to-day life as a priest. The same goes for my musical and artistic experience. Who would have known that I would be using many of the songs my old rockabily used to play out at smoky bars in Baltimore City to minister to men and women in nursing homes, homeless ministries, church fellowship events, and more. As for my art degree (trust me, you can do a lot with an art major), I use those skills to create posters and signage for my Sunday School class, I have used it in summer camp settings, selling work to people, as a basis for evangelizism, and more. Every little thing I have done in life has been, in a way, a preparation for priestly ministry. Of course, I did not know that at the time, as many of those jobs were dead end, and because the band wasn't very good, and I didn't sell gobs and gobs of art. At the time, much of that stuff seemed like a waste of time. But hindsight is 20/20. Now I see how God was preparing me for His service. I would never have thought that some of those dead-end jobs and seemingly useless talents would be so useful day in and day out as a priest.

The other side of this is that all Christians - not just priests - should strive to serve God with every inch of his being. If God has given us some talent, or life experience, we should always be asking ourselves, "How can I serve God with this?" We need to be on the lookout for ways we can use that gift or skill to serve God. It may seem like a big waste, but if God has you doing it, then there is a purpose for it. It is to help us grow in holiness and righteousness, and part of that is figuring out how we can use it for God's glory.

For those contemplating going into fulltime Christian ministry - whether lay or ordained - I would encourage you to be patient if you are struggling through some dead-end job, or low time in your life. If you are faithful in these small ways, and patient, you will see how God has been preparing you in little steps here and there for ministry in the name of Jesus Christ.

I Dream of Jeanie

Fr. Jones has an interesting piece on the Federation of Anglican Chruches over on his blog. It seems that Abp. Haverland of the ACC has declared the people and churches associated with FACA to be "neo-Anglicans". His beef is primarily with the REC and the supposed "invalidity" of their orders (an issue that has been discussed many times on many blogs, and that I will not go into now), and the AMiA, which has female clergy "grandmothered" in (his words). I am not going to offer my own reflections on those remarks, as I believe Fr. Jones has done an excellent job addressing them.

What amazes me is that men like Haverland seem to want to snap their fingers and instantly have laity and clergy have uniform beliefs on every single issue, and have a unified province. He says, "We desire the highest possible level of cooperation and communion." But you don't get there overnight. Now, if he had a little bottle with "I Dream of Jeanie" inside of it, he could uncork the bottle, let her out, and have her fold her arms and move her head, and instantly bring a unified province about. But I don't think he has an "I Dream of Jeanie" bottle on his desk. So it's going to take a little longer to bring about unity. It takes little steps like this. It is easy to tear something down and destroy it; it is easy to divide (as the history of the ACC has shown over and over again). But it takes a long time to build something new. The great cathedrals of Europe took years to build - sometimes hundreds, but they could be destroyed in an hour or less. Let me put it another way: there will never be unity if we do not get together in a safe forum of goodwill and charity. The "North Korea"/isolationist approach to ecumenism - which certain jurisdictions have used over the years - really doesn't produce results. This is just plain old common sense. The Federation is a step in the right direction. It is not the "new united province" in its final form. The Federation allows us to work together in ways that we can work together now. Again, this is just common sense.

Alfred Hope Patten and the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham

At the recommendation of Fr. Chandler Holder Jones, I read the biography of Alfred Hope Patten, recently published by SCM Press. It is a great book full of interesting information about Hope Patten and his associates, and all of the triumphs and failures associated with reestablishing the medieval shrine. Although he was marginalized during his lifetime for his beliefs, history has judged him to be one of the most important figures in the CofE of the 20th century, as Walsingham is now hugely succesful, and appeals to people of every type of churchmanship.

I think that the book is especially interesting from a planning and development perspective. How one man could bring about the restoration of the shrine, and raise the moral and financial support from various people to make it happen, is truly amazing. He established the shrine so it would be free from the control of hostile "protestant-minded" bishops, but also made it such that it could never be taken out of the CofE. He carefully and skillfully navigated the sometimes stormy waters of the CofE in the early part of the 20th century, when people strongly disagreed about matters of ceremonial and liturgy.

Regardless of whether or not you support the shrine and what it stands for, or if you support spikey anglo-catholicism, this is an inspiring book to read if you want to do something big, and make a dream a reality.

Recent Art

Anyone who is interested can check out some of my recent art here. Again, I am sorry about the glare on some of the pictures. I need to set up a photo space in my studio to get really good pictures of this stuff.

Diocese of the Holy Cross Joins FACA

This is hot off the press: (from the DHC website)

" On February 26, the DHC Standing Committee met and voted unanimously to apply for membership in the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas. The Federation is now comprised of the Anglican Province of America (APA), the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), the Anglican Church in America (ACA), and the Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC), totaling some 450 parishes. The Episcopal Visitor is Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas. Two Federation members, the APA and the REC, have a 'Covenant Union of Anglican Churches in Concordat' with the Church of the Province of Nigeria and the Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola.

The purpose of the Federation is the common cause of the Gospel and the furtherance of cooperation, communication, support, discipline and accountability among the various jurisdictions, each of which retains its sovereignty. The Federation is linked with Forward in Faith through mutual membership in Common Cause."

It is a great joy to have DHC as members of FACA. May God bless us as we seek to work together for the Kingdom of God, and bring the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world.

Baptismal Regeneration

One the questions I am most often asked by evangelicals is whether or not a child who is baptized is "saved". I always answer in the affirmative, of course, but then go on to mention how the scriptures speak of us as saved, being saved, and that we will be (or hope to be) saved. Then we usually get into a discussion of salvation is more of a process, with baptism as the beginning of it, rather than a one-time event that is followed by sanctification. And then, of course, a million other related issues come up. These are always very interesting discussions, and we always go away from them with much to think about.

I have never been able to figure out why some Christians object to baptismal regeneration. Usually they have two objections. First, they seem to think it is "too much grace"; God is nice, and good... but not that nice and good. God is powerful, and can perform great and marvelous acts, but He would never use water and some words to effect a change in a person's heart! It is amazing how we limit God. Why would God not use physical things to save us? Oh, wait a minute, He did - His only begotton Son dying on a cross... that was physical. So, this objection is usually pretty easily dealt with based on simple reasoning alone, and when it is coupled with scriptural and patristic evidence people usually become more open to it.

Second, many people get completely distracted by this business of "making a personal decision for Jesus." How can an infant chose to "accept" Jesus? Faith and repentence are necessary for baptism, but in infant baptism in the catholic tradition godparents (or parents) make those vows on behalf of the child. Later in confirmation, faith is confirmed, as the child ratifies the promises made in his name and vows to follow Christ as his Lord and Savior. I like to think of it in terms of money, or a trust fund. Imagine that you have a little baby, and Bill Gates comes to you and says he wants to give the baby a million dollars, but the child has to accept the gift - meaning, understand the need of money, the value of the gift, and so on. What parent would not want his child to have that gift? None. Rather, he would say to Bill Gates, "I am speaking on behalf of my child... YES, he wants and needs that gift. Give it to him, and I will oversee it on his behalf. When he comes of age he can do with it as he pleases, but if I train him right I am sure he will be a good steward of that gift." So Gates gives him the gift, and it is a real gift that is truly the baby's. I am sure that this happens in real life all the time (maybe not with Bill Gates and a complete stranger, but certainly with trust funds, and so on). So why is it so impossible for some to imagine in the spiritual realm?

The Drama of Benediction

For the first time in about seven years I will miss Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament during Lent. I suppose I'll survive... maybe I can go to a local Roman parish to one of their services (they still do Benediction pretty nicely in most cases). We don't have Benediction at St. Mark's. We also do not have Stations of the Cross yet, as we are waiting to find the perfect set to match the new church (I am told they used to have them in the old church).

I love the drama and beauty of this service, especially when coupled with choral evensong. The priest, decked out in a gorgeous cope, places the luna in the monstrance, and turns it so it is facing the people. He and the other sacred ministers kneel in prayer before the sacrament. It is censed, and hymns are sung. Then prayers are chanted, and finally the benediction - the blessing of the people with the Body of Christ - is done. That is the most dramatic part. The priest ascends the altar, takes the monstrance and makes the sign of the cross with it over the people, blessing them with the Body of Christ. The bells are rung thrice, and it is censed with incense while the blessing is going on. The monstrance is then put back on the altar, and the preist returns to kneel at the step. Then are said the Divine Praises, a Psalm, and sometimes a Marian antiphon is sung.... it is a beautiful, holy, and reverent service of devotion to Our Lord. I strongly encourage anyone who not gone to Benediction before to find a parish in your area that has this service and go to it. It is especially nice on a Sunday evening, because, assuming you have already made your communion that day and follow the traditional rule of communion once a day, you are given another opportunity to get close to the Lord again, and adore Him and receive His blessing in the Blessed Sacrament.

To me, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is an indispensible part of being an Anglican. Some would think that you have to believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation to practice this, but I disagree. All that is required is a belief in the Real Presence. Anglican theologian E.L Mascall agrees (Corpus Christi, p.172), as does E.J. Bicknell (39 Articles, p.405). But I suppose the question with many people is the value of this devotion. While it may be permissable, and theologically justifiable, it does not serve any real purpose. I would certainly grant that it might appeal more to people of a one particular mindset than to people of another. Count me as the type to whom it really appeals. Maybe its the artist in me.

Only WE Have Valid Orders

A while back I was invited by my Presbyterian father to join him on one of his "credentials committee" meetings for his presbytery (their equivalent to a diocese). At this meeting they were interviewing a guy was transferring in from another presbytery (diocese). It was more of a formality than anything, as this guy was already ordained in their denomination. But nonetheless they used the occasion to get into several intense and fascinating theological discussions. I was just listening and kept my mouth shut since I was a "guest".

The thing that I found so interesting was that they started talking about a hypothetical situation: that if a Roman Catholic priest wanted to join their church and be a minister how he would have to be absolutely ordained, because they do not recognize Roman Catholic ministers as being truly ordained (because they preach a false gospel in this church's mind)! I don't know why I was thinking about this again recently, but it's very interesting. It goes to show that most churches do not recognize ministers from another church. If those guys were to become RC or Anglican they'd have to be reordained, and maybe even if they were to become something else (like Lutheran). If I was to join them, or the Lutherans I would probably have to be re-ordained. It's just the way it is. I think that it is far more common for churches to not recognize ministers from another communion/denomination rather than the other way around.

Sometimes we Anglicans get all bent out of shape because Rome doesn't officially recognize our orders. But we forget that other people don't recognize ours either, and that we don't recognize other groups' orders, and that they don't recognize ours or Rome's! It's just the way it is.

Dangers and Difficulties

I am very fortunate to have a vocation that I love - being a priest. Most people hate what they do, or at least that is what an old Sulpician spiritual director once told me. If you do what you love, then fall on your knees and thank the living God, because there are millions of other out there who would love to be in your shoes!

But doing what you love does not come without dangers and difficulties. For example, one of the major dangers that comes with doing what you love is that you do not always take the right amount of leisure time. For me, it is very tempting to go home and continue working on church things, and read theology all night long. But doing that leads to burnout. No matter what you do, if you do it all the time, you will suffer from burnout. A priest needs other hobbies and activities - and a wife - to help prevent burnout.

One of the major difficulties that I face on a weekly basis as a continuing Anglican priest is the appalling lack of educational resources to do my job - specifically educational resources for young children. At my parish we have used some material from the Anglican Church of Canada, which was pretty nice. Other priests have suggested various items from TEC, or from other denominations. The trouble with a lot of that stuff, though, is that it doesn't exactly fit our situation. It is designed for use with another liturgy (not the 1928 BCP and the Missal), and sometimes has pictures of priestesses, and girl altarboys. The Kalendar is different, the language of the prayers are different, and - even worse - when you buy them you are supporting a heterodox organization (e.g. TEC). Besides children's stuff, there are allso a great many other resources that we are lacking. The problem is that the various continuing churches spent so long simply trying to survive (survive outside pressure and severe in-fighting) that there simply wasn't a lot of time to devote to developing educational materials and other much-needed resources.

So what I do in the meantime is make my own signs and art for educational purposes. Currently I am making a series of posters on the church year (the real church year - e.g. with the Pre-Lenten season, the Trinity season, etc.). They are based on My Book of the Church's Year by Enid Chadwick, who decorated the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in England. I also have some other projects in mind that will be for use with children in a traditional Anglican and anglo-catholic setting. I hope to make some of this stuff available for purchase down the road.

There is so much need... new books need to be written on various topics in theology, spirituality, and the Christian life. I know that many priests out there have written books for use in their parishes. Maybe one day they will publish them or make them available for wider use. Until we all start sharing resources by making what we have developed available to a wider audience, then each one of us will be constantly reinventing the wheel and using up valuable time. The good news about this is that it is a "good problem". It means that we are growing, which is a good problem to have!

Emerging Church Redux

A while back I wrote something about the so-called "emerging church" movement. In retrospect, I see that it was kind of a mean-spirited article, so for that I apologize. Well recently, the rector of St. Mark's gave me a copy of the latest issue of Christianity Today, which contains an article about this movement by one of its leaders and theologians. Also, my parents went to one of their church's denominational meetings a few weeks back, where a teaching elder spoke about this movement. We spoke at length about his presentation over the phone one evening. So now I find myself compelled to blog about it once again, but hopefully in a nicer and more charitable way.

I want to focus on one important aspect of this movement, namely its rejection of systematic theologies. The movement loves ideas and theologies, but it doesn't believe in an airtight system or statement of faith, or a system that possibly "gets it all right". It doesn't have a systematic theology or theologian that characterizes it (e.g. Calvin, Aquinas, etc.). God revealed a story, not a theology. He reveals Himself through events, not propositions. According to McKnight, "...all theology [is] a conversation about the Truth who is God in Christ through the Spirit, and about God's story of redemption at work in the church." In other words, it is an ongoing dialogue, not a "set in stone for all time" system. It says, "This is what I believe, but I could be wrong: What do you think? Let's talk." (quotes from CT article) What people believe is not as important as how they live.

While I would certainly agree that systematic theologies, and theology in general, as a meta-language, is limited, and does not provide an Olympian view of God or the universe, and while I also would agree that God reveals Himself primarily through events rather than propositions (Moltmann), I would disagree that grand systems and systematic theologies are entirely irrelevent today, which is what some in these groups seem to suggest. It really depends a lot on the person. One of the great errors of our day is to assume that everyone approaches various phenomena in the same way that we do. Quite simply, there are still many people out there that still find grand, unifying narratives to be extremely helpful in sorting out the stories of the bible and the tradition of the Church. Yes, even today in this postmodern world!

And besides that, I would say that it is impossible to avoid forming at least a basic systematic theology. It is human nature to look for unifying themes in things, and to systematize disparate phenomena. We see this in something as simple as looking for pictures in clouds and stars. It is human nature to search for order, or to create order, out of disorder. Besides that, grand systems and basic, set assumptions are still used in this postmodern world in a multitude of other fields, so why would they be less important or irrelevent to people in their quest of knowing God? McKnight says that "truth" is important to emerging Christians and churches, and that they believe Jesus is the truth, and that the Bible is truth, the question is what does that mean? Why is Jesus the truth? What does it mean when it says no one comes to the Father except through Him? Asking all of these questions invariably leads to a theology that works together as a system. Not a perfect system, but a rational system nonetheless.

The problem lies more, I think, with how these systematic theologies have been appropriated in recent years, with certain people making them out to be systems that give an Olympian view of the universe. No theology is that way, though. And while some people do not find long systematic theologies and rational, unifying systems to be spiritually helpful, jettisoning them altogether, or downplaying dogma, is not the answer. In fact, I believe that in the long run, elevating "dialogue" over dogma will be extremely damaging to people spiritually. The two must always be held in a creative tension, which is not easy. Yes, Christianity is journey, and living in truth is a journey, but there is also "truth". The ancient Church, as decentralized and multicultural as that was, saw dogmatic truthes as being very important (e.g. the Christological controversies and the Creeds). What we believe is as important as what we do, and the two overlap and influence each other.

So many movements in the Church are reactionary. They suffer from breaking radically with the past, and denouncing it completely rather than growing from it. We see this in the catholic world with regard to the "hated" Middle Ages. The Middle Ages and everything Medieval seems to have been the whipping boy of the 20th century (and they're not putting down their whips yet!). This movement has a whipping boy too, and it is modernity. But I would be careful about rejecting all that modernity had to offer, especially unifying systems.

The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective

Recently I read The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective: Doctrine and Rite from Cranmer to Seabury, by Edward Echlin, SJ. It was written in 1968, back, I guess, when there was still hope for some sort of a reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. The book is a study of the development of the Anglican Eucharistic rite – specifically the canon of the mass – from the 1549 BCP to the American BCP of 1789. Fr. Echlin concludes that with the 1789 American BCP, all doctrinal requirements of the Roman Church with regard to the mass were fulfilled, and that the Anglican rite – in its American incarnation, anyway – has the right form, and so is a valid mass. He believes that the Eucharistic theology of each tradition has been steadily converging over the centuries, and at the end of the book he makes the radical suggestion that Roman priests should make use of the Anglican rite, and that Anglicans use the Roman rite as a way to show the unity in Eucharistic doctrine that the churches share. He also advocates concelebration of the Holy Eucharist as a further show of unity. Needless to say, the optimism of the late 1960’s gushes out of this book.

I’m sorry to say that I don’t think he really succeeds (much as I want him to) in doing what he set out to do, primarily because he doesn’t explain what the Roman Catholic position is, or what constitutes a valid Eucharist in that tradition. Presumably a valid Roman Eucharist has something to do with sacrifice and Real Presence, as he examines in great detail what a number of Anglican divines thought about those particular topics. But he doesn’t address the issue of Transubstantiation, which is kind of the “main thing”. The only time he addresses that doctrine is with regard to Real Presence, and all but one of the Anglican divines he looks at outright reject Transubstantiation. He also says in the introduction that, in his mind, Roman Catholic Eucharistic thought has been slowly moving closer to the Anglican, just as the Anglican has been moving closer to that of the Romans, but again, he doesn’t really explain how this is the case.

The main value of the book is that it briefly and succinctly examines the theology of Eucharistic sacrifice and Real Presence of a number of important Anglican divines (e.g. Cranmer, Laud, Cosin, Wren, Johnson, Deacon, White, Seabury, Brett, Smith, Forbes, etc.). While they all nitpick and disagree about things like the role of Holy Spirit, whether or not an invocation and oblation is necessary, the nature of the sacrifice, and so on, the one thing that they all seem to agree on is their complete repudiation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Only John Cosin has a somewhat open mind towards it, when he states that while it is certainly possible through God’s omnipotence, “…none would believe that He would do it as long as it appears to our senses that the substance of the bread still remains whole and entire.” I would agree with Cosin. I personally have no objections to Transubstantiation rightly understood, but I do not subscribe to it. It is best to let mysteries be mysteries.

One of the things that reading this book made me think about that is rather timely is how Samuel Seabury and the American Church used the Scottish non-Juror’s Eucharistic canon of 1764. This was part of a deal that Seabury struck with the Scots for consecrating him when the English bishops would not. In some recent issues of Mandate, Peter Toon suggests that the 1662 BCP Eucharistic rite should be used as the new standard of Anglican liturgies from here on out. His reasons are that it is the most widely used version, and because it is more biblical, with the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper being on the Words of Institution. I think that it would be a betrayal of the Non-Juror bishops to do such a thing here in the United States. If we truly are continuing Anglicans, then we are continuing the work and ministry of the Episcopal Church, and part that includes honoring such commitments that were made by our forefathers. Seabury, interestingly enough, said of the 1662 canon: “To confess the truth, I hardly consider the form to be used as strictly amounting to a consecration.” I don’t know if I would say that myself, but I do believe that we have a strong obligation to continue using the traditional American canon.

St. Andrew's Academy, Lake Almanor, CA

Classical education has been a big trend in Christian schooling in recent years. Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and others have founded classical schools and classical home school alliances to provide children with a quality education based on time-proven classical and medieval models. Traditional Anglicans are also involved in this movement. Recently I had the great pleasure of interviewing the Rev. Brian Foos, founder and headmaster of St. Andrew’s Academy, a K-12 classical school located in Lake Almanor, CA. He told me all about the amazing things that St. Andrew’s is doing in California and beyond.


St. Andrew’s Academy is in its seventh year as a full time day school. Founded by Fr. Foos, and his wife, it was originally a supplemental program for home schooling parents. Education had been Fr. Foos’ passion and vocation since graduating from college with a degree in English literature and composition, though at the time he was neither ordained nor Anglican. It was while teaching at a small, private school that he learned about and became interested in the classical approach to education. Immediately he began applying those principles in his classroom. Parental concern over whether or not children should read Homer’s Odyssey (because of the violence it contained) lead to Brian writing and presenting a paper defending the arts and the study of the classics for Christians. A colleague who attended the presentation later told Brian that he agreed with everything he said. The two became fast friends, and it was this man who introduced Brian to Anglicanism. So for Fr. Brian, the journey into classical education and Anglicanism were parallel journeys. Later, Brian attended Cranmer House Theological Seminary, and was ordered deacon and priest. Now, in addition to his responsibilities as headmaster, Fr. Foos pastors two APA parishes: Christ the Redeemer Church (Greenville, CA) and St. Thomas Becket Church (Lake Almanor, CA).

Fr. Foos explains that St. Andrew’s Academy is much more than a “movement” school. While “movements” come and go, St. Andrew’s Academy is simply doing what the Church has always done. St. Andrew’s promotes and passes on, not an ideology, but a way of life. Daily life at the school revolves around prayer, study, and work – which is also the school’s motto. Central to the mission of the school is the idea that study must be done in the context of prayer and worship. When separated from worship, study and learning leads to arrogance and pride, but when combined with godly worship, it leads to humility and service to God and man. Nowhere is this approach more evident than in the daily offices of choral matins and evensong services that the school holds. Each student, as well as faculty and staff, participates in these services. They chant the psalms and canticles in Anglican chant and plainsong from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, thus preserving a great musical tradition. Part of the school from the beginning, the choir is now becoming well known in the Lake Almanor region. They are regularly asked to sing at local churches and venues, and recently sang a series of concerts with the Susanville Symphony Orchestra with over 200 people in attendance at each performance. Last year they sang all of the liturgical music for the APA provincial synod in Indiana, including some very difficult polyphonic pieces.


The curriculum of school is typical of classical schools, with children reading the great classics of western literature, and studying logic, Greek, and Latin. Some faculty members help in writing curriculum, and recently one of their first graduates has come back to teach at the school. St. Andrew’s has a travel program as well, and has taken trips to the British Isles and the East Coast. Plans are in the works for a trip to Italy. Fr. Foos believes that because education is incarnational, real world experiences and travel are an important part of the learning, and forming the whole person. The students come from all sorts of Christian backgrounds: Baptist, non-denominational, Nazarene, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and more. But the ethos and character of the school is thoroughly Anglican.

The biggest need of the school right now is money… money for scholarships, operating expenses, and expansion expenses. The school would like to buy 50 acres of land on which to set up permanent shop (they currently meet in an office park). Indeed, Father Foos hopes that one day St. Andrew’s Academy will be able to become a private boarding school, and for that to happen they need land. God has a definite plan for St. Andrew’s. Each year for the past couple years they have begun the year with a deficit, but the Lord has always provided the funding when they needed it. Prominent individuals, such as Dr. John David Seel, Dr. James Taylor, and General Josiah Bunting, serve on the school’s national advisory board. It is things like that which help confirm that the Lord’s blessing is upon this work.



Right now, I want everyone out there to look at the St. Andrew’s Academy website. Look at the site, and e-mail Fr. Foos if you want to find out more information about this great school and the work they are doing. Order the fantastic CD “A Hearty Rejoicing: Choral Evensong at St. Andrew’s Academy” directly from the school ($15.00) so you can hear for yourself some of they are doing. But more important, won’t you consider helping them meet their financial goals? Won’t you consider sending an offering to the school to help them preserve and hand on our classical Anglican heritage? Thanks be to God, they have gotten very far, and made some significant ground, but they need help to keep going, to expand, and to take it to the next level. Won’t you help? I know that Fr. Foos and his associates would be more than happy to talk to anyone who is interested in finding out more about this great work.

In recent years, it seems like the world has ruined the Church and its institutions and traditions in many ways. Well, Fr. Foos hopes that St. Andrew’s will help ruin the children for the world. Won’t you help them in this great endeavor?

Episcopal Missionary Church joins FACA

The Episcopal Missionary Church has recently voted to join the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (FACA). According to the articles, the federation has five tasks:

(1) Furthering mutual understanding of its member Provinces, Jurisdictions and Ministries with a view to eventual union when and if deemed practical;

(2) Propagating the truths of the gospel as articulated and practiced in the historic Anglican way;

(3) Taking appropriate public and private steps in common causes in order to speak with one voice and act in concert for the welfare and witness of member Provinces, Jurisdictions and parishes;

(4) Pursuing a communal and charitable relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion; and

(5) Planting mission parishes in the Americas

I think I speak for all the other members (if I may) in saying that we are thrilled to be working with our brothers and sisters in Christ in the EMC through the federation for the greater glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this spiritually destitute world. May the Lord continue to bring about goodwill, unity, and charity among all orthodox Anglicans both here and abroad.

I Asked For Wonder

That is the title of a great book I got for Christmas from my in-laws. It is a spiritual anthology from the writings of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who is one my favorite spiritual writers. When I was in seminary one of my systematics professors would often begin his classes by reading a selection from this book, which is how I found out about Heschel.

He is best described as a Jewish mystic. This particular book is a collection of sayings culled from his full length books on such topics as God, prayer, humanity, sabbath, bible, mystical awe, and more. Here are a few:

On God and Metaphors:
"Only words that would not be trite in the presence of a dying man, only ideas that would not pale in the face of the rising sun or in the midst of a violent earthquake: 'God is One' or: 'Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts...' may be used as metaphors in speaking of God."

Prayer:
"To pray is to know how to stand still and to dwell upon a word."

Sabbath:
"Judaism teaches us to be attached to holiness in time, to be attached to sacred events, to learn how to consecrate sanctuaries that emerge from the magnificent stream of a year. The sabbaths are our great cathedrals; and our Holy of Holies is a shrine that neither the Romans nor the Germans were able to burn; a shrine that even apostasy cannot easily obliterate: the Day of Atonement."

Religion:
"Religion is not 'what man does with his solitariness.' Religion is what man does with the presence of God."

Man:
"Man is a messenger who forgot the message"

"Man's sin is in his failure to live what he is. being master of the earth, man forgets that he is servant of God."

The Bible:
"The Bible is primarily not man's vision of God, but God's vision of man. The bible is not man's theology, but God's anthropology."

There are many more more quotes, with some of them being quite long, but this gives you an idea of the way he thinks and writes. I would highly recommend his works, and especially this little book, for anyone interested in spirituality and mysticism.

A Bear's Life

Sorry for the lack of posts in recent weeks. No, nothing bad has happened. Yes, everything is great. What have I been up to? Just hibernating! Now I am back.

I am working on a profile about St. Andrew's Academy, an classical Christian school in California which I hope to post very soon. I have also read some interesting books recently that I will comment on. And I have had a few funny experiences that I will relate to you all as well.

Merry Christmas

Everyone have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Can I brag about my anglo-catholic wife for a minute?

My beautiful wife came to Anglicanism through yours truly from a rather liberal Mennonite background. During our dating relationship and short year and a quarter of marriage it has been a joy to see her embrace and grow in the catholic faith in its Anglican expression. She now does it all... beats her chest, genuflects, makes the sign of the cross in all the right places, and she can explain the faith and worship to non-Anglican friends very well. On our very first date I spent a fair amount of time telling her about the Blessed Virgin Mary, and what she has meant to me in my life, and I think honoring Our Lady, and committing our relationship to her, and to her Son, of course, has brought much of this about. She's said and done a number of things that just warm my heart especially, and really make me smile. Here are a few:

When we were looking at wedding gifts after our honeymoon there was a big, huge, crusty old book in bag to us from my aunt. As we were opening the bag to see what it was Valerie said, "Maybe it's a missal!" (Turns out it was just an heirloom family old bible - which is also nice.)

We were watching something on TV the other day, and it showed an Episcopalian "womanpriest" talking about something, and Valerie goes, "Ewww, yuck." Then she changed the channel.

Recently a fellow choir member was loudly complaining about having to sing something that, in his mind, smacked of Marian devotion. So when Valerie comes home she says, "Why be Anglican at all if you do not believe that saints pray for you, or if you do not pray to them yourself?"

Indeed, I struck gold when I met and married Valerie!

Confessions

The greatest part about being a priest is being with people and families at the critical moments of their lives, and bringing the sacramental presence of Christ to bear on whatever situation they are in. Whether it is offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or annointing the sick for healing, it is a great blessing to be a shepherd of souls, and to continue the earthly ministry of Christ and His Church until He comes again.

Hearing confessions has been one of the most incredible experiences of God's grace and mercy. Many confessions I have heard have been a first confession, or from someone who hasn't been in years. It has been great to recommend the sacrament, and teach people about its necessity and place in the Christian life. I have found that most people do not mind making their confession at all. They may not go a lot, or maybe have never even been before, but when you ask them if they want to confess anything privately, and explain to them how it works and what it is all about, they gladly make their confession, and then are overwhelmed at the reconciling love they experience as they encounter Jesus in this beautiful sacrament. I firmly believe in the importance of regular confession in the Christian life.

I don't know how regularly other priests hear confessions (and I do not think priests should hear confessions if they are not regular penitents themselves), but if you do not, and would like to minister to people in this way, I would just make sure you ask people. Like a lot of other things in life, you have to ask people if they want to do it. They might say no, or have nothing to confess at that time, but at least you gave them the opportunity, and they know the offer is always there. But we have to ask. When you sense a moment coming on, where they are pouring their hearts out, why not gently recommend that it be done in the context of the confessional? It is like sales: you can have agreat presentation and product and so on, but if you never get to that point and ask, "Okay, so will you sign the contract?" You might miss out on a lot of sales. I do not like "sales" analogies very much, but it gets my point across. There is so much that we do not have simply because we do not ask.

More Plugs...

In my effort to promote everything traditional and continuing Anglican I have a few new plugs to make everyone aware of:

Great new blog by an APCK Deacon - Words Like Stone

A fantastic new journal of Anglican life and worship - Earth & Altar

And finally, please vote for The Continuum as "best new Anglican blog" over at the Anglican Blog Awards. Continuum is run by Albion Land, Poetreader, Fr. Matthew Kirby, and Fr. Robert Hart. They hosted some lively, but edifying discussions in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

Prayer Book Catholics

I have a lot of friends who are Presbyterian/Calvinist, and one of the things that they talk about and debate in their circles is the “regulative principle” in worship. Those who adhere to this principle believe that the only things that may be included in the public worship of the Lord are things that are explicitly stated in scripture. This debate goes back to the Reformers themselves, who disagreed on the subject. Now, I have tried, on numerous occasions, to get people who believe in this principle to draw up a sample worship “bulletin” so I can see exactly what the ideal “Reformed” worship service on a typical Sunday would look like. It sounds interesting in theory, but what does it look like in real life? What does it boil down to on a Sunday morning? Well, I have never gotten a sample bulletin/worship service… probably because it cannot be done. The bible, after all, is not a liturgical manual. It’s a paper theory. It doesn’t work out in real life.

Related to this is the problem of so-called “Prayer Book Catholicism” (Note: I speak of this topic in relation to the 1928 American BCP and “liturgy”). Fellow traditional and continuing Anglican bloggers get on their high horse from time to time and denounce anglo-catholic “innovations”, such as the use of the missal, certain vestment styles (showing they care more about clothing and fashion than any anglo-catholic), and more, as being not truly Anglican, or Rome-aping. But when you ask those who adhere to this principle what the Church Year would look like in an authentic “Prayer Book Catholic” parish, you get nothing. Dead silence. Is a Pascal Candle used? Is there an Exsultet? Is there a mass of the pre-sanctified on Good Friday? Are there Stations of the Cross? Is there a form for private confession of sins to a priest and a form for absolution? Are there lessons and carols in Advent? Is a priest vested in a chasuble at his ordination, if so, at what point? The list could go on and on. And the question is: where do we find any of these things in the BCP? Nowhere. Some of them aren’t even addressed in the anti-Ritual Notes book “The Parson’s Handbook”. But I’ll bet a lot, if not most, so-called “Prayer Book Catholics” would not object for one minute to these things. Like those who advocate the regulative principle, when you ask for specific details from the people who advocate this view there is no response. Why? Because Prayer Book Catholicism (in terms of liturgics, anyway) is a myth and a fantasy. If they want to use those things they undermine their position. It doesn’t quite work out in real life.

On page vii of the 1928 BCP there is a note that says that the bishop is allowed to authorize certain “forms” that are not in the BCP. This is good, because the 1928 BCP is too stripped down for solo contemporary use. Even the most low church REC parishes I have attended have always added things to the BCP (usually some sort of adlibbed exhortation after the people have received communion and are still kneeling at the altar rail, but also other things). Personally, I am glad that there is no such thing as a liturgical “prayer book catholic”, because not only do I like the Stations of the Cross and Benediction, but I also like Advent Lessons and Carols, the Blessing of the Hounds, and many other English traditions that Anglican parishes do throughout the year that are not in the BCP. And if the Eucharistic liturgy must be supplemented, I would much rather it be supplemented with the use of the missal’s minor propers, which are mostly Psalms, and if not, are very ancient prayers used during the time of the undivided church (see “The Mass of the Roman Rite” by Jungmann, the authoritative commentary on the development of the Roman mass) than a prayer made up on the spot by the priest. So, to the “prayer book catholics” out there: go ahead and add things to your liturgy and to your Church Year, but realize that in doing so you are right there with us anglo-catholics!

The Lord Be With You, HON.

I am from Baltimore, and after years of denial I finally have the courage to admit that I have a Baltimore accent. It's not awful, but it's there. It is difficult to describe the Baltimore accent, but if you rent a classic John Waters movie like Pink Flamingos you will get an idea of what it is like.

So, my constant struggle is to say mass in such a way that my accent doesn't take over and make the whole thing a terrible mess. This involves careful enunciation, such as making sure I say the "D's" at the end of "and" in just the right way, and so on. But then you can spend so much time focusing on pronunciation that you mispronounce various words... you sort of overcompensate. Or even worse, some men do "fake" English accents, or sound like James Earl Jones when they say mass. There is a balance to be maintained. The key is to say it just right, which is easier said than done.

Some people out there might think that worrying about how to pronounce words, and where to pause in the canon and other prayers, is a waste of time. But we have such a great treasure in the Anglican liturgy that we must, I think, be very careful with such things. It would be like having a great old classic car that is in great shape, but is just a dirty mess... covered in mud, and full of empty candy wrappers inside. I hate it when our liturgy is rushed through, and words are not pronounced correctly, and everything is sloppy. With the Roman Mass it is one thing, or with Rite II, but with the 1928 BCP it just doesn't make sense. Why butcher the pronunciations, and rush through everything when it is written in this beautiful, poetic language? It would be like going to a Shakespeare play and hearing the actors rush through everything. Moreover, I think rushing and mispronouncing actually makes the mass harder to understand.

I can't axe my Baltimore accent completely, but I can at least work on controlling it so it doesn't rear its ugly head at the wrong time - namely at the altar!

Lessons from Television

One of the shows my wife and I love to watch is A Haunting, which is on the Discovery Channel on Thursday nights. This show has reenactments of various true hauntings and demon possessions/activities, mostly in America, but sometimes in other countries too. They interview the actual people involved, and do the whole thing in a really nice way. It is pretty creepy.

I have learned a few things from watching this show, and thought I'd share them with you all:

1) If there is a ghost in your house it always thinks the house belongs to it and wants you out.

2) Don't try to get the house blessed because it only quiets things down for about one month and makes the ghosts more angry and annoyed.

3) Don't call a Wiccan practicioner to come and help you because that also only makes the ghosts more angry and annoyed.

4) Don't presume a Catholic priest can help you, because half the time they are just as scared as you and don't stick around to help.

5) Don't waste time and money on hiring a psychic, because in the end they never do anything except affirm that you are not crazy, and that these things are indeed happening in your house (well, duh).

6) Burning sage leaves does nothing to get rid of ghosts.

7) Basically you just have to move and eat the loss!

Love After Love

A very dear friend gave me this poem by Derrick Walcott a few years ago for my birthday, and recently I redisovered it in my desk drawer. It meant so much to me when she gave it to me. Now, I share with you all. Notice the "eucharistic" imagery.

Love After Love
By Derrick Walcott

The Time will come
When with elation,
You will greet yourself arriving
At your own door, in your own mirror,
And each will smile at the other's welcome,

And say, sit here. Eat.
You will love again the stranger who was your self.
Give wine. Give bread. Give back your heart
To itself, to the stranger who has loved you

All your life, whom you ignored
For another, who knows you by heart.
Take down the love letters from the bookshelf,

The photographs, the desperate notes,
Peel your own image from the mirror.
Sit. Feast on your life.

Once and Future Priest

This past Sunday Rev. Al Kimel of Pontifications was ordained as a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I, for one, am happy for him and wish him a long and fruitful ministry in the Roman Church. It is a hard thing to leave behind the security of a ministry in one church and enter another church with the possibility of not being ordained in that new church. How does one make a living? How do you put food on the table for the family? It is all very risky, and one cannot help but admire someone like him who lives according to his conscience despite the difficulties that it can bring.

So on that note, I want to take this time to pay tribute to other priests who left ECUSA long before people like Al Kimel did. I want to remember the men who left to join the American Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Catholic Church, the APCK, and other continuing churches, who never received any recognition from anyone. These men were faithful to God and to their consciences. They were faithful catholics who understood the nature of the church as a communio, and that they could not be in communion with "womenpriests" and the bishops who ordained them. And they were faithful Anglicans, who recognized the catholicity of the English Reformation and the Book of Common Prayer, and who sought to preserve the great Anglican tradition. These men gave up rectories, secure livings, and pensions long before Gene Robinson, Barbara Harris, and all of the other yahoos came along, and long before these more recent people have. They saw the writing on the wall back in the late 60's. They were prophets, and like the prophets of old, they were often laughed at, and scorned by everyone else. But in the end, they were right... ECUSA ended up exactly where they said it would. Maybe one of the reasons continuing Anglicans are so maligned by others sometimes is because we were right about these things all along. And if these men were right about that, then maybe they were also right about the catholicity of Anglicanism, and how Anglicans always have been, and always will be a branch of Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We would do well to listen to their witness. May the sacrifice that these brave men made for the Kingdom of God never be forgotten. Who knows how their lives and ministries have borne fruit, and will continue to bear fruit for the glory of Jesus Christ until He comes again.

Strategic Planning and Continuing Anglicans

A friend who goes to my old parish is big into the importance of strategic planning. He has been using his expertise and training in that area to help the parish develop and hone its vision and mission, and to plan for the future for the glory of God. After working with him briefly on that, and doing some of my own thinking and reflection on the subject, I am more and more convinced that not only parishes, but also dioceses and provinces, need to take strategic planning more seriously. It is very simple: if there is no plan for anything - nothing will happen. Put another way, if you aim at nothing you will hit it. Making a strategic plan is saying: "This is where we want to be in X years, and this is how we are going to get there." Any serious business would have a plan, and let's face it: the church has a lot in common with a business.

I think one of the reasons continuing Anglicans have been so ineffective, maligned, and marginalized over the years is because of a lack of strategic planning and vision on the part of the leadership. Lofty but vague ideas such as "preserving orthodoxy" or "standing for tradition" are not good enough to serve as a strategic plan. A plan is more precise than that, and includes specific actions to be taken. Plans that need to be made, or concerns that need to be addressed with a plan, include: standards for parish catechesis; church planting and missions; ministrial credentialing; ecumenism and inter-church relations; development of educational and other resources (publications, etc.); fundraising; and the list could go on forever.

One of the things that mitigates against developing such strategies is a misunderstanding of our heirarchical form of church government. It is often wrongly assumed that a top-down form of government means that the bishop and the standing committee has to do everything, and have their hands in everything. When a diocese or province is small, that model works fairly well, and is probably essential. But as the church grows, those peoples' work loads soon become maxed out, so any further growth becomes impossible. Then things begin to grind to a halt, and no more progress is made. Establishing new committees to oversee particular initiatives, such as an education committee that would develop diocesan catechetical standards and resources, is a way to relieve the bishop and the standing committee from unneccesary work, and a way to make better use of our existing human resources. It is also a way to get more people (especially the laity) invovled in the church. Many hands make light work. This in no way undermines our biblical model of church government, but rather enriches it, and helps make us more faithful to St. Paul's teaching of the Church as a "body". The bishop, as chief pastor of the diocese, can be the figurehead, cheerleader, and facilitator of such a process.

I would like to see the bishops and standing committees of all continuing Anglican provinces develop a strategic five-year plan and vision for their Church so as to make better use of their time and resources, and to advance the Kingdom of God and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is ultimately a question of stewardship - how are we going to spend our time and money? Are we going to get the most out of it, or very little out of it? A plan would help us be more effective. It would also help us focus on ministering to people instead of squabbling with each other.

Consecrations Performed by Bishops Outside of the Offical Anglican Communion

In his book A Guide to the Sacraments, John MacQuarrrie makes this comment in one of his chapters on ordination:

"Even in quite recent times, individuals who have at some time received episcopal ordination (or consecration) but who are not acting in the name of any church or with the consent of any church authority have ordained (or gone through the motions of ordaining) deacons, presbyters, and even other bishops. Whether their actions are valid must be considered doubtful, though I have said a number of times in the course of this book that the action of the Holy Spirit cannot be limited to what is permitted by ecclesiastical laws." (pp.200-201)

He seems to be condemning episcopi vagantes, or "wandering bishops", who were not part of established churches, and who sometimes ordained and consecrated men without flocks. But his remarks could possibly be construed as condemning Anglicans like we continuers, and others who had to take "extreme" measures to preserve and continue the orthodox faith. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but the thought did cross my mind.

All of this was in the back of my mind while doing research recently on Samuel Seabury for a talk I had to give at the local Scottish Society. I came across this insightful passage in the newly published Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer:

"There he met with an obstacle: the establishment of the established church, and specifically the oath of allegience required of every new bishop. Seabury, no longer a British subject, could hardly take such an oath. The English bishops, though not unsympathetic, could not dispense with it on their own. The government, for largely political reasons, declined to cooperate. So it was that in November 1784 the service at which Dr. Seabury became Bishop Seabury took place in Aberdeen and the ordaining prelates were Nonjuring Scots, who themselves were not bound to the Anglican establishment." (pp.172-173; my emphasis)

The lesson here is that being outside of the "official Anglican establishment" doesn't necessarily unchurch anyone.

Look, a new jurisdiction! (and more blogs)

Raise that total number of continuing Anglican jurisdictions to 80! I just saw a CD in the record store by John Mayer called "Continuum". Since it has the word "continuum" it must be another one of those pesty "continuing Anglican" jurisdictions! Quick, alert VOL and Anglicans Online! And a google search on "continuum" reveals video games, and many other things that are also probably continuing Anglican jurisdictions!

Please note, I am being sarcastic here. This just goes to show you that not everything that says "continuing" or "continuum" is legitimate. On that note, I want to highlight four new blogs that have recently come to my attention:

Ecclesia Anglicana Continua - by the Very Rev'd Erich Zwingert, SSC (APA priest)
John One Five - by the Rev'd David Baumann, SSC (FiFNa priest)
Apology of Miscellanies - by Mr. Andrew Presler (APA postulant)
Apologetics Galore - by Mr. David H (APA layman)

The first one is especially helpful in light of recent discussion as to what is a legitmate "continuing" Anglican church. What a joy it is to see how alive and well traditional Anglicanism is! On "Apologetics Galore" there are some great pictures of the new building of St. Barnabas (APA) in Georgia. I look forward to seeing what these gentleman have to say about things, and encourgae everyone else to do the same.

Current Reading

After being interrupted by a million things, I have finally finished reading A Guide to the Sacraments by John MacQuarrie. I would not recommend this book as an introduction to the sacraments or to sacramental theology as it is not very detailed, but I do think that it would be good for someone immersed in a Ludwig Ott/Francis Hall approach to the sacraments to read, as it discusses them on more of broad, conceptual and philosophical level in the context of postmodernity. Like a lot of MacQuarrie's works, it is mind-expanding and quite thought-provoking. The older books like Hall and Ott have their place - one must know and master the traditional formulations and ideas - but they are unsuitable in and of themselves in today's postmodern situation.

My reading schedule, incidently, consists of short reads and long reads read concurrently. The sacraments book was a quick read, as it is short (200 pages) and the topic is familiar to me. My "long read" has been "Jesus and the Victory of God" by N.T. Wright. I plan on getting a few more short reads in while reading this long one.

So, my next "short read" is actually going to be a re-read: Creative Fidelity by Francis Sullivan, SJ. This book is required reading at many US Catholic seminaries. I had to read it as part of my Fundamental Theology class. The author was a professor at the Gregorian University (where many future bishops and theologians of the Church go) for many years. It is about how to weigh and interpret the documents of the magesterium. This book is so important because it shows that nothing can escape the need for interpretation and reinterpretation, not even papal documents. It discusses what dogma is; what magesterium in its various forms is; how to identify defined dogmas in papal documents; the disagreements Catholic theologians have on what these defined dogmas are and how the number of them has shrunk over the years; and it gives examples of interpretation in action. It is a very well-written and fascinating book that should be read by every Catholic and Anglican.

One of the most interesting parts about it is the afterward, where Sullivan (who, to my knowledge, is considered a centrist/conservative theologian) addresses Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by JPII, which is about the ordination of women. Sullivan does the "Catholic fudge" and says that the magesterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue, and that CDF's 11/18/1995 statement saying it has been infallibly taught, and that it is part of the Deposit of Faith is wrong. Hmmmmm. Fascinating. Then he writes: "The changes in church doctrine that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all." (pp. 181-184)

Yikes.

Happy Birthday

November 7th was the two-year anniversary of this blog. I wish to thank everyone who reads and comments. You all have taught me a lot. Blogs are a lot of work to maintain - a monster that must constantly be fed. In that sense blogging is somewhat annoying. But all of the people that you "meet", and the interesting discussions that you have make it worthwhile. I like to think that this blog, those who comment, and those blogs which I link to, contribute something to peace, unity, and goodwill amongst traditional and continuing Anglicans.

When I first began this blog it was intended to be annonymous - a way for me to "vent". But as people began reading this thing (much to my surprise, I might add; I remember how shocked I was when I saw that someone had made a comment!), and then people figured out it was me, rather than shutting it down I decided to keep it going and tried to expand it some so as to increase the visibility of "continuing Anglicans" on the web. Prior to this blog there were no "continuing Anglican" blogs that I am aware of (please correct me if I am wrong), save for "Wanna Be Anglican", which, strictly speaking, was REC, and so predates the continuing movement. Now there are a number of good continuing blogs, a continuing Anglican blog ring (special thanks goes to Continuing Home for starting that), as well as more REC blogs. All of this shows that traditional Anglicanism is alive and well, and has successfully begun to move into the 21st century. May we traditional Anglicans go into this new century with a spirit of ministry and evangelism, and with our peculiar gifts and tradition, bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to a world that so desperately needs it. Blessings to all.

J. Gordon Anderson+

What are the 53?

People are fond of talking about the numerous "continuing churches". Just yesterday I read an article on VOL that mentions the "53 continuing churches". I would love to see a list of these. Anglicans Online has a "not in the communion" list, but I don't think it adds up to 53 different jurisdictions (e.g. the "No Way APA" site, which they have in that list, is not a jurisdiction, but an opinion site). The Wikipedia entry on continuing Anglicanism lists some jurisdictions too, but they do not add up to "53". So I don't know where people get this bizarre number from. Honestly, I think much of it is an attempt to discredit the legitimate jurisdictions out there which hold to catholic faith and order (traditional BCPs, a male-only priesthood, authority of the scriptures, etc.).

True, anyone can here in America, or just about anywhere else, can start his own church, hierarchy, etc. And it can be done in the context of any tradition. But that does not mean that all of these churches are "equal", or legitimate. If people are confused about "continuing" Anglicanism, and which jurisdictions are legitimate, they should look at the links in the "not in the communion" list. They will see that half of them are dead, some are "two parish - ten bishop" jurisdictions, and so on. In short, it is very easy to figure out which jurisdictions are legitimate. The legitimate ones have a fair number of established parishes, clear cut rules and laws, organization, and institutions. They are committed to evangelism and ecumenism. So, don't believe the hype. As my former spiritual director put it, "There are 'continuing churches' and then there are continuing churches." I think most people recognize this, and can see this, but still, it bears mentioning.