Working for Peace

Last night I watched Hotel Rwanda. It is a very moving and disturbing film that documents the true life experience of a hotel manager in Kigali who used his influence and hotel to save over 1200 people from certain death. I recommend that everyone see this film at least once.

I remember when those massacres happened eleven years ago, and can recall how shocked I was that something like that could happen today. It shows the great evil that human beings are capable of - despite our education and technology. And once again, I was confronted with the indifference of the west. How could we let something like that happen? Over 1 million people died in just a few months during those massacres.

God created us with a free will, and endowed us with reason and intelligence. How do we use this? Because of the fall, and orginal sin, part of the human condition is to constantly struggle with abusing our freedom and reason - using it for supposed "self aggrandizement". But St. Paul tells us that in Christ we are "new creations". Indeed we need God's grace in Jesus Christ to purify us, and rescue and elevate our nature to what it was intended to be. This message needs to be brought to all the world so that such great evil will never happen again.

Continuing Wedding

I'm getting married in the fall. To be honest, I sometimes thought that I would never meet the woman of my dreams and get married. My faith is very important to me, and equally important is the classical Anglican expression of the catholic faith. And obviously, emotional and physical attraction are also very important when looking for love.

Well, traditional Anglican parishes - at least the ones I have attended - for the most part are not exactly crawling with gorgeous and intelligent young women, so it is hard to meet women at them. Once in a while there was a visitor, or someone who came at Christmas and Easter, but I wanted to meet someone who was in love with the Lord Jesus Christ, not just a "nominal" Christian. So eventually I just sort of "gave up" looking and resigned myself to living by my principles and accepting what God apparently had for me. Accepting God's will for my life was actually very freeing. I was able to get a lot of great work done, and grow much more comfortable with myself.

But lo an behold, I happened to go to a Christmas party last year, and there I met my future wife. We hit it off, started e-mailing, and then started dating. She began coming to mass with me, and has not missed a Sunday since. She comes from a somewhat liberal Mennonite background - liberal enough to dress normally and date outside the Amish/Mennonite fold, but still conservative enough to be against abortion, and pro-traditional marriage, and such. Now she has adopted Anglicanism wholeheartedly. She crosses herself, bows at the cross, genuflects, prays the rosary and talks about Mary a lot, goes to Stations and Benediction, and even says Evening Prayer with me once in a while.... it is wonderful! She'll be confirmed, Lord willing, this fall or spring. She fits right in at church, and likes the small, close-knit atmosphere of our parish and our diocese. She is real Anglican trooper - a top notch gal, and the love of my life! We're getting married this fall with the 1928 BCP and American Missal. The mass setting will be the "Mass for Three Voices" by William Byrd.

I thank the Lord that I have found someone out there to share this part of my life - the very core of my life - with. I have to admit, I had my doubts at times. The traditional Anglican world is not for everyone... it is too beautiful, too mysterious, too contemplative. But the Lord blessed me, and did not leave me hanging. He sent me someone who also found that world beautiful. The night we met, I told her, and all of the other women I met at the party, all about me, and about my Anglicanism, thinking that if she or they were not interested in me that would be fine, and that I wouldn't want to meet someone who didn't care about the Lord anyway. And I was right about 99% of them. But she was the one who e-mailed me, so I took notice. Then on our first date, after eating and hanging our for a while, I just started talking to her about the Blessed Mother, and how devotion to her has been spiritually refreshing and helpful to me. She did not run, but rather was so affirmative, and into what I was saying. Now we talk about how Mary played a role in our romance. And now we are getting married at St. Mary's Church!

Anyway, sorry to get all sentimental. I just wanted to offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, and also give hope to those who think one could never find his or her true love while attending a small, continuing Anglican parish with a (formerly) crappy organ. There is always hope with God.

Get a Spiritual Director

I recommend that all Anglicans interested in growing in deeper knowledge and love of God, and in holiness, seek out a spiritual director. A spiritual director may or may not be the same person as your confessor, but often they are the same. The spiritual director acts as sort of a 'coach' in the Christian life. He is someone who can help you develop and maintain a Rule of Life (Thornton), and he is someone to bounce ideas, hopes, and frustrations off of. It is not meant to be counseling in the psychological or emotional sense, though there may be some overlap once in a while.

My spiritual director also serves as my confessor. He is an SSC priest who resides here in my fair city. We get together once a month for confession and direction. He has been very helpful to me, and has helped me view my spiritual life more holistically. For instance, he talked about regular exercise as being part of a balanced Rule of Life... something I had never thought of. A few years ago, I went to a legendary, really old Sulpician priest (Fr. Vincent DePaul McMurry) for spiritual direction. He was not my confessor - only my director. He was great too. He would talk about how beautiful the catholic faith is, and we would reflect on that in all sorts of interesting ways.

I have found that you have to really look around for a good spiritual director. It is like finding the perfect "hang out". You have to ask others, and pray that God would send you to the right person. It can be hard at times. And sometimes you strike out a lot before finding the right one. Even Roman Catholics have trouble finding good spiritual directors sometimes. Once you find a good spiritual director, though, go to him regularly with an open mind and heart - even if you consider yourself to be fairly "advanced" spiritually. There is always something new to learn, and greater levels of holiness to attain.

Wedding Madness

This is not a post about my own wedding, which is coming up (but I am sure I will have something up about it sooner or later), but rather about a wedding at the ECUSA 'Cathedral of the Incarnation' (or "The Cathedral of the Reincarnation" as we call here in my town) that I attended the other day. It was bizarre, and made me very happy to be a continuing Anglican.

The lady who did the wedding didn't even follow the '79 BCP Order for Marriage. They used some other crazy text. The couple did their own vows, which were rather sentimental and shallow I thought. There were no hymns or anything... so even though the ceremony was done in the context of the Eucharist, it really did not feel like a community experience. They really cut back on the responses, I suppose because they thought most people wouldn't know them, so maybe that was why we all felt like we were watching a piece of weird performance art. There were no chasubles, no procession of clergy, no altar rail, no nothing. The acolyte, after the Holy Communion, then reserved the reaminder of the Precious Blood in an aumbry!

The whole thing was just very watered down. Of course they admitted everyone to the Holy Eucharist, and there was, as to be expected with Rite II, very little talk of sin and redemption. My fiancee, who is not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, thought the whole experience was not very worshipful or holy.

At the reception, some "priestess" got up and prayed for the food. She began to quote Scripture in her prayer, but came up with her own, weird translation of the passage in question. She said, "Oh God, you said it was not good for people to be alone, so let us make for them partners to be with...." or something like that. She was quoting (I use that term loosely) from Tobit.

So the whole thing was very strange indeed. The organ music was nice, though. Hard to mess up the "Wedding March".

New Organ!

Praise the Lord! Today our parish is getting a nice new Rogers electronic organ delivered! It will replace our 1949 creep show organ. The Lord enabled us to raise all of the money for the organ in about 5 months... that is 5 months ahead of schedule! Our old organ sounded so BAD. I am convinced that it has driven many potential new members away. Now we just need to get a new organist.

My Emerging Church Experience

This past Sunday I was out of town visiting an old college friend. We visited her current church home, which is an "emerging church" in a large city in Tennessee. I thought I would comment on some of the things I noticed about the service. Warning: this is a long post. (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

First, there was no church building. Rather, they met in a large warehouse (owned by a contemporary christian musician). In fact, it looked like this goth/punk club I used to go to in Baltimore called the "Ottobar". The lighting was poor, despite a huge lighting rig that covered the ceiling. They use the room for christian rock concerts on other days, hence the rig, but apparently they do not use the rig for morning worship. There were no pews, only plastic folding chairs. As you came in, you grabbed a chair and sat down - usually with your coffee.... that's right, they serve coffee and bottled water that you are allowed to bring into the main space. There was no art on the walls, and up front, on the platform where the speaker stood, was one of those computer projectors with a million wires coming out from it. They used it to project the music lyrics up on a screen. There was no information bulletin... just a bi-fold piece of paper with a space for sermon notes on one side, and a couple of announcements on the other side. The crowd (about 200 people?) was mostly 20-30 somethings. The oldest people I saw looked to be in their sixties (they were just one couple, mind you). Out of all the people there, I'd say that 10 were 45 or older. Everyone was white.

As for the "liturgy", there was a confession of sin; a "declaration of absolution" (read by young woman in a short miniskirt); and several rock songs led by the house band - one of which was "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation". Then there was a long, rambling sermon lead by the youth pastor, followed by some announcements (that he kept messing up), and then some more rock songs. There was one, maybe two, brief prayers during the service.

There was no sacrament, no offering, no substantial prayer or prayer time, no responses, no kneeling, very little talk of sin and redemption, and no blessing (though the service ended with a wave and a hearty, "Ya'll have a great day... see ya next week.". The guy who was preaching spent so much time talking about a U2 concert he attended in Ireland that it was hard to focus on the spiritual truthes he was trying to draw out from that experience. On top of that, the people were nnot very friendly. I wouldn't say they were unfriendly, but they certainly did not come up and say hello, or even look at you, much less smile at you. My fiancee said that she thought the place was downright cold.

This experience confirmed my earlier suspicians that there is something seriously wrong with the "emerging church" model. One struggles to even call an experience like this "worship", for virtually nothing was being offered to God. It was wholly and entirely man-centered. The only thing that was being offered to God that I could see - the rock music and singing - was hardly the best that could be offered. And further, the people really didn't seem to take part in the singing at all. About half of them chatted and drank their coffee during the singing, despite the fact that they were very easy songs to sing (I picked up the tunes immediately, though I had only heard the hymn before).

True worship involves offering something to God which is pure and spotless. This is not our own "sincere hearts", or "warm fuzzy feelings", but something else - the Holy Eucharist. True worship is offering to God the spotless, most Holy Pascal Lamb - Jesus Christ. This highest and one true act of worship sanctifies our other acts of worship (singing, prayer, offering, etc.).

There was no chance to worship God with giving of tithes and offerings, despite the fact that that God commands us to give to His work. In an age when people are so irresponsible with their money, and so blatantly materialistic, to deny them the opportunity to give to the work of the Church during its corporate worship is an outrage and a slap in the face to God - who owns everything in the world. (BCP p. 9; and Psalm 24: BCP p. 368)

The worship was gnostic. That is to say, it was entirely cerebral. It was not incarnational and sacramental. The "message" - an imparting of "secret knowledge" of sorts - was the focus of the meeting. Besides there being no art, and no sacrament, and no august movements and/or ritual, the whole experience was just plain ugly. Thus, as an artist, I found the worship highly irrelevant to my life (to use one of that movement's favorite buzzwords).

One of the most troubling aspects was the fact that everyone was young. What about older folks? Is a place like this truly "for all people" when old people are nowhere to be seen? The absensce of the aged, and extremely aged seems to detract from the dogma that the Church is catholic - i.e. for all people in all times and places. (BCP p.291)

So why do people go to churches like this? I think they go to them because there is no commitment involved. There is no work to do on Sunday. You just passively sit there and sip on your coffee like you are watching TV. This type of service appeals to our basest desires. It is "worship of God" (I use that phrase lightly) on our terms as opposed to God's terms. In that sense, it is very similar to liberal Christianity. No doctrine, and God on my terms... Jesus "reconstituted" to fit my interests interests". I think people go because they can slip in and blend in with everyone else - who look, talk, and act just like me - and then they can just leave. It is "no pressure" religion.

Well, it may qualify as 'religion' in some broad sense of the word (even though there is no ritual), but it certainly does not qualify as authentic Christianity. A Christian is a follower of Christ, and followers of Christ suffer as their Lord does (indeed we participate in His suffering through the sacramental life). Followers of Christ worship God in spirit and truth, and accept inconveniences in order to be made more christlike. Most important, Christians offer to God true worship - the Sacrifice of the Mass. God in His grace raises us up to His level, and makes us holy - He makes us divine (theosis). We should not seek to drag God down to our level for the sake of convenience and the latest trends.

Looking for a 1928 Altar Service Book?

These can be really hard to find these days. What I recommend is contacting your local FiFNa parish, or other more traditional ECUSA parish and seeing if they have one they want to give away or sell. In my church restoration business travels I find mountains of those things on the shelves of church libraries. Just today I was in a parish that had about six of them in varying states that were just sitting on a shelf.

Guests at Synod

At the APA/REC synod there were several guests, such as Bp. Hewitt (Diocese of the Holy Cross). He heads up this group called the Anglican Fellowship of the Delaware Valley, which is a cooperative group of orthodox Anglican parishes from various jurisdictions up in Pennsylvannia. Apparently they work together on various initiatoves and ministries. There was Abp. Venebles (Primate of the Southern Cone), and also Bp. Lyons (Bishop of Bolivia) too. Canon Bill Atwood (head of Ekklesia) was there as well.

Seminary Revisited

(This is in response to a comment I made before. I said I was going to e-mail Mr. Cameron about seminary, but thought I would just write it out for all to see as others might find it helpful.)

At synod I met APA and REC clergy who went to every sort of seminary one could imagine. There were people who went to RTS, Nashotah House, General Seminary, Trinity Seminary, Dallas Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Cranmer House, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Philadelphia Seminary, St. Mary's, Dominican House of Studies, and more. It was staggering. Obviously they all did additional reading and liturgical studies to get where they are today.

I think that no matter where you go today, though, you still have to do supplemental reading and train under a competant priest if you want to go into the traditional Anglican ministry. There is no seminary, for example, that can teach the manual acts that are to be done by the priest during the consecration. And very few - even moderate Roman Catholic seminaries - talk about the traditional Theological and Cardinal Virtues in their moral theology classes. Albeit, one might have to do more supplemental reading and study if he went to Bob Jones University seminary rather than Theological College (Washington), but this where having a good priest mentor comes in handy. He will be able to tell the postulant what additional books to read (e.g. Moss, Hall, Thornton, Moorman, etc.), as well as explain traditional Anglican theology as it relates to the liturgy and pastoral care (and more). Seminaries that do excel in one area (say, liturgics as they relate to us) may be lacking in other areas (say philosophy). So any way you slice it, there will need to be supplemental reading done if you want to be a traditional Anglican priest. This is not so big a deal, though, since the priestly life is a scholarly life. It is a life of constant study and learning, so seminary - even if you could go back in time and study at St. Stephen's House, Oxford during the 20's - is always just the beginning. Most places give the same basic foundation in Church History, Biblical Studies (e.g. higher critical method), and practical theology.

I will say that I think it is better to go to seminary - any seminary (maybe especially an accredited one) - and do supplemental reading and study rather than simply reading for orders. Seminary provides a unique environment to test and challenge your beliefs. Oftentimes we gain a clearer understanding of what we believe when we contrast it with something different. This is not to insult those who have read for orders, but simply to say that if you have the choice go to seminary and work with a good local priest. And if I had a choice (like if I lived in San Francisco, where there are is a cluster of schools) I would choose to go to a place that is incarnational and patristic in its emphasis, such as an Anglican, Roman, or Orthodox seminary. I'd probably go to one of these and make sure I hhad a good solid parish and rector before going to conservative evangelical seminary. But again, sometimes there is little choice... and either way, the golden rule is that there will have to be private study done on the side. Oh, and have a spiritual director too... the spiritual warfare that goes on in seminary is tremendous and potentially deadly.

Unity Synod in Florida

Well, I am back from the synod. Over the next few days I will write several reflections on it since there was so much that happened. First the name: the REC and APA did not sit in any business meetings together. Rather, we had our meetings in the same location. The "unity" part happened at the various liturgies, at the evangelism seminar, at the meals, and during recreational time. It was an opportunity to mix and mingle. The bishops all know each other already, so this was more of an opportunity for the other clergy and laity to interact. And this is how true unity will develop. Only so much can be done from the "top down". There has to be a sense of fellowship and brotherhood coming from the grassroots, and it is simple things like this that make it happen.

The unity mass was concelebrated by Bp. Riches and Bp. Grundorf at St. Alban's Cathedral in Oviedo. The liturgy was very solemn and beautiful. It was a "straight '28" for all of you liturgy buffs out there (the cathedral normally uses the American Missal). The readers were Bp. Brewer (APA) and Bp. Sutton (REC). The preacher was Abp. Venebles, who is a very exciting speaker. He spoke on unity and orthodoxy. There was a massive processsion that 90% of the clergy took part in. There were APA priests in stoles, hoods, and berettas; and there were REC priests in (in some cases) Genevan gowns with stoles on over them! Overall, there was a great deal of diversity in unity. But it was a true, Christian diversity. It was a diversity that was centered on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the ancient apostolic faith "once delivered to the saints", and to be found in the Creeds and liturgy.

I will write more on this joyous event over the next few days and weeks. Thank you all for your prayers: they were felt.

APA and REC Synod Next Week

Next week the APA and the REC are having their first unity synod down in Orlando. It should be very exciting. If the merger between the APA and REC can be pulled off smoothly that will be a great sign for the rest of traditional Anglicanism. The union is not without difficulty, however, since the two denominations have historically had very different takes on Anglicanism. But great strides have been made, and agreement has been reached on very important, formerly divisive, issues. It would be truly ironic if this merger were to work and last, and produce great fruit, when other mergers, and attempts at discussion, between continuing denominations having very similar theological beliefs, have failed.

We have wasted too much time bickering and being divided. We need to work towards organic unity, not as an end in itself, but that we may more effectively reach people for Jesus Christ. We have spent so much time infighting that we have by and large neglected the work God has given us to do. One thing I have noticed about many continuing Anglicans (clergy and laypeople) is that there does not seem to be any great urgency about evangelism. The best catholics (and the best evangelicals too) were all evangelists at heart, though. They were concerned for peoples' souls, and they went out to reach lost for Jesus Christ. They took the Great Commission seriously. That concern, quite frankly, doesn't seem to be too prevelant among many conservative (or even liberal) Anglicans today. We'd much rather fight, or prance around in fancy costumes, and give each other grand titles. We used to be great evangelists and preachers, but somewhere along the line we let that fade, and we became concerned with things that were quite silly. Can we revive it that evangelical-catholic spirit? With God's help, yes. Can we pool our resources and unite to do this more effectively? With God's help, yes.

Spiritual OCD

There was an interesting series on Focus on the Family this week dealing with addictions and obsessive compulsive disorders. Today, the guest, Dr. Archibald something-or-other, was talking about how OCD can manifest itself in an unrelenting quest for new spiritual highs. OCD, he said, differs from addictions in that the former are rooted in some sort of insecurity or fear, whereas the latter are often rooted in biology and/or sinful desires. He spoke about how he has known some people who feel that if they do not have an ecstatic religious experience each week, they feel as though God has left them. These people, therefore, tend to bounce around from church to church, always looking for a greater high. Eventually, many of them leave the Church altogether.

I see elements of this religious OCDism more in Protestant lay people, though, than in catholic (small "c") lay people. Many of these huge mega churches have to constantly morph and adopt new tactics (such as use of special effects in worship) to keep people "interested" and "satiated". But to me, an older liturgy, like the Anglican liturgy, is more conducive to helping people grow spiritually in a measured, sober way. Sure, it is not always "exciting", but that is not what worship is supposed to be about. I think the repetative nature of it, done over years and years, helps people develop more of a deep, sober, "interior" life and spirituality. And the simplicity of it, especially the 1928 BCP, helps this happen without the people becoming obsessive compulsive or too weird in other ways.

Building Continuing Community

One of the things we do in my area of the country to build community between the APA and REC parishes (as well as other continuing groups) is have joint Choral Evensongs once a quarter. We alternate parishes and preachers, and always have a reception afterwards so there is plenty of time to meet and greet, and have fellowship. It has been very successful thus far. We've been doing it for about a year.

And one of the neat things is that there is always some "new" priest or bishop coming from a weird jurisdiction you've never heard of.... some bishop with no flock, no building, no nothing. One time they'll be there, and then they just never show up again! It's sort of like sighting the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot....

The only thing I would complain about is that sometimes lay participation is a bit lower than what it should be. But I guess that's because people do not always feel like driving very far for a special service. Usually, however, it is pretty good. There's always more people to talk to than time available.

Anyway, I highly recommend this as a way to build unity and grassroots cooperation among continuing churches in your own area. It is a simple way to work towards a more organic unity.

Liturgical Reform

I have been rereading for fun "What is Anglicanism" by Urban T. Holmes III, which is one of the books I read years ago when first exploring Anglicanism. It is actually a very good little book in many ways, but this morning I came across a passage in the section on "Liturgy" (pp. 45-46) that disturbed me.

He was talking about an Anglican historian named Ladd who was influential in developing the 1979 BCP. Ladd had a strong distaste for the American Missal, and did not want 17th century Roman liturgical forms to become normative for the Church during the Anglican liturgical reforms of the 20th century. Ladd (and Holmes) believed that the Church should have one authoritative liturgy. In other words, we should just use the BCP and not anything else, like the missal.

Well, I would say that the 1928 BCP and the American and Anglican Missals really do form one conhesive authoritative liturgy. Besides the simple fact that the BCP mass is contained in the missals, they are unified in their strict adhearance to catholic orthodoxy.

And do the liturgical reformers have just "one authoritative liturgy" anyway? I would say that the 1979 BCP, with its many Eucharistic Anaphoras, and Prayers of the People Forms, as well as the introduction of the Alternative Service Book, shows that the liturgical revisionists of the Episcopal Church really did not (and do not) care about having multiple prayers, rites, and ceremonies available for use. They didn't care... it didn't really bother them! What bothered them was something else: orthodoxy. They simply wanted to rework those orthodox liturgies that were in use for their own questionable purposes. In other words, they wanted to undermine the catholic unity of the traditional BCP and missals, and replace it with something that was close, but not quite the same thing.

I believe that the missals and BCP (1928) form a complete whole and contain no substantial disagreements about anything of great importance (remember, the Articles of Religion are not part of the BCP). And I believe that their emphasis on penitence is something that is good for us to hear, and that it is a vital part of the true gospel.

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".