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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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".

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.

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.

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."

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?

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).

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.

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!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).