Plugging Joint Services

Yesterday a few of us APA and REC clergy got together over lunch to discuss our upcoming joint choral evensong service. It reminded me to, once again, suggest that some you all try this. If your parish is not doing this with other continuing churches in your area, you need to think about trying it out. It has been a really edifying experience for us. We get together once a quarter - sometimes more - and have joint choral evensong services, with preaching, and followed by a reception afterwards. The responsibilties of the liturgy are divided up amongset the clergy, and the location varies each time. It has been a great way to build community, discuss new ministry opportunities, discuss starting new missions, and brainstorm about strengthening older parishes, etc. It has also allowed us to share prayer concerns with each other (as clergy). Sometime in the not-too-distant future we will be having a joint communion as well, and we have also talked about having a joint clergy retreat sometime in Lent. There are infinite possibilities. Worshipping together in Word and Sacrament is one of the main ways to bring organic unity about. Once again, I heartily recommend you try it!

Newman on the Ceremonies of the Church

There is wonderful book published by Ignatius Press called Parochial and Plain Sermons which are sermons preached by John Henry Newman while an Anglican priest. One of the nice things about this expensive little book (about $70.00 new) is that it is arranged according to the traditional BCP lectionary, so those of us who use the old prayer book can read his sermons as the Church year progresses. It also contains "plain" sermons that are topical in nature. There are many things that could be said of this book and how useful and interesting it is.

This past Sunday, after preaching for the Feast of the Circumcision, I came home and decided to read the Newman sermon for that day to see what he had to say. His topic was the "Ceremonies of the Church". He argues that while Paul and the early Church clearly did not believe the Old Testament Law and rituals to have any value in terms of adding to our salvation in Christ, they clearly had a great deal of respect for the rituals of the Jewish "church" - especially circumcision. Custom was a sufficient reason to maintain them in most cases. Paul circumcised Timothy himself, shaved his head because he made a vow, and more. Jesus did the same thing, of course - paying the Temple tax, telling people to offer the sacrifices commanded by Moses, etc.

Newman uses this as a jumping off point in discussing the ceremonies of the Church. Quite often people ask: "Why do we bow at the Holy Name? Why do we kneel at the Holy Communion?" Because ceremonies and actions like that are not "in the Bible", they either remain indifferent to them or deride them. The most extreme example of this is the unsound teaching held by some extreme Reformed Christains known as the "regulative principle in worship." Simply put, this corrupt doctrine teaches that worship can only consist of things that are positively commanded for corporate worship in scripture. This teaching is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of revelation and the scriptures. There are many things that we prohibit that scripture is completely silent on, such as suicide. Yet no one would argue that suicide is okay. And there are many things that we do that scripture is silent on. We find out about these things in other ways (e.g. Paul: through nature). Newman says that the Bible gives us the spirit but that the Church must provide the body in which that spirit is to be lodged. It tells us what to believe and aim at, but not how to do it. Scripture talks about meeting for prayer, but it doesn't say where, or for how long, or what to pray for, or who should pray first, etc. The wisdom of the Church in her tradition, and human experience guided by God's Holy Spirit tells us these things.

Newman says that when people attempt to worship God in the excessively "spiritual" way described above that they very often end up not worshipping God at all. The mindset that goes, "Why pray at mass when I can stay home and pray in bed?" in most cases eventually leads one to neglect of prayer altogether! But the ceremonies of the Church give flesh and blood to the biblical admonitions on prayer and worship. They give them form, and help us remain faithful to the teachings of scripture and to God. Newman says that when "profane persons scoff at our forms" we can say: "These forms, even were they of mere human origin (which learned men say is not the case, but even if they were), are at least of as spiritual and edifying a character as the rites of Judaism. Yet Christ and His Apostles did not suffer these latter to be irreverently treated or suddenly discardeed. Much less may we suffer it in the case of our own; lest, stripping off from us the badges of our profession, we forget there is a faith for us to maintain, and world of sinners to be eschewed."

Weird Science

Normally I am not one to be interested in the whole creation vs. evolution debate. I find that the most important parts of the creation story are not scientific, but rather philosophical and theological. It is those ideas that I ponder from time to time - not whether or not the earth is "old or "young". Still, one cannot listen to NPR, or read the newspapers today without finding out about the whole "intelligent design" debate going on in schools and universities, and it is those scientific questions that are always discussed. Political questions, such as with the separation of Church and State - are also raised, but they do not concern me here.

Recently I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on NPR ("Nationalist" Public Radio, as they say), in which she took on this topic. It was quite interesting. She had about about three guests, one of whom was the president of Stanford Medical School. Numerous points were raised during the program. One was that "science is under attack" in America, and that there is a growing "anti-science" movement. Another was that religion does has a place in public life, but that it should not overlap with science. Overall, listening to the guests discuss the issues underscored how there are more important foundational questions and assumptions that are not even part of the debate.

First, scientists (When I say "scientists" in this post I am thinking of those on the DR Show that day in particular) who oppose intelligent design seem to be annoyed that people other than scientists are daring to probe the questions of human origins and to take part in the debate at all, despite their platitudes about religion being a part of public life. What they need to understand is that there are fields other than science that have an interest in human origins, so they should not be surprised that people of faith are trying to see how the two overlap and relate to each other. It would be like a theologian just flatly writing off any insights that science may bring to the table regarding ethics. Most fields of study overlap at some point. To deny that, or severely downplay it, is not very accurate or intellectually honest. These scientists need to seriously acknowledge the insights that people from other fields bring to the table, and not be offended when others outside of their field join in the debate.

Second, these scientists clearly have little to no philosophical training. Yet the debate is to a great extent a philosophical one, at least as much as it is religious and scientific. The scientists are not aware of some very basic philosophical issues at stake, such as the problems of inductive reasoning raised by David Hume, the nature of evidence, and more. Hume undermined the validity of scientific reasoning by stating that there is no reason to suppose that the future will be like the past. So scientific theories are really just that: theories. Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, brings to light the mercurial nature of scientific progress in general, and how science is not a long, organic development, but "progresses" in radical leaps and bounds, with new theories many times completely eradicating a previously held theory or idea. They also presume that scientists are completely unbiased in their work. But all people are biased. A very basic philosophical principle is that there are no brute facts. All that we experience is filtered through our presuppositions and assumptions. Scientists have been known to fake results of studies, be bought off (e.g. the people at NIH a year or so ago who were being paid by drug companies, and the South Korean cloning fraud recently uncovered), and bring their own personal convictions into their work (e.g. Alfred Kinsey). So their false neutrality, and their complete ignorance of hermeneutics is highly problematic. Also, the scientists presume that because there is supposedly a majority consensus on traditional evolution that it is therefore true. This is known as the "tyranny of the 51%" - something is right or allowable because of more people believe it. How would they like it if we approached their other theories and discoveries that way? Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. I could go on, but you get the point. The debate would be much more productive if they had some people trained in the philosophy of science involved.

If these two items - openness to the insights from other areas of study, and acknowledgment of the philosophical issues at stake - were brought into the debate it would be much more productive, I think. These scientists can whine and complain about a so-called anti-science movement (I really don't see one myself), but they need to realize that science cannot give us all of the answers in life. Everyone else is smart enough to realize that, it seems. Just because one can mix chemicals, has the periodic table memorized, or can remove a spleen doesn't mean that he or she has an olympian knowledge of the world.

Anglican Blog Voting

Everyone please vote for my buddy Jeffrey Steel's blog, Meam Commemorationem (see link at bottom left), as being the "Most Theological" Anglican blog out there. If you read it you will see that it truly is the most theological! You vote at the "All Too Common" Anglican blog. Jeff is working on a Ph.D in the eucharistic theology of Lanceleot Andrewes over in Enlgand. I have a couple of funny college stories about him, but will keep them to myself! :-)

N.B. Sorry there are no links in the text of this post. I am on my wife's computer, and for some reason the link editing buttons are not popping up. I am too lazy right now to type in the html code myself!

Where are all the parishes?

I had lunch a couple weeks ago with a local evangelical Episcopal priest whom I met through a mutual friend. He has had a good ministry over the last 30+ years, and helped plant numerous churches all over the country. Although he identifies himself as an "evangelical", and I identify myself as an "anglo-catholic", we made a real connection over the essentials of the faith, the inspiration and authority of the scriptures, the need for evangelism and mercy ministry, and more. Hopefully he'll be able to attend my ordination this spring as a guest.

He didn't seem to know much about the APA or the continuing movement, so I filled him in as best I could. Actually, I was kind of surprised he he knew nothing about us, because he was at the Pittsburgh meeting a few months back where we also were. Anyway, when he asked where our parishes were in this area, I told him that we have three: mine in Harford county, and two outside of Annapolis. This really surprised him. He couldn't believe that we have been around as long as we have and still only have three churches in this area! It is quite shocking, I must admit. It was a little comforting to be able to tell him that our unity partners, the REC, which has been around 5 or 6 times as long as us only has 6 parishes in the area. So we, and the other anglo-catholic continuing churches are not the only ones who have not always been fervent evangelists over the years. Still, it is a situation that we must rectify.

If denominations and parishes are not growing, then they are dying. How do we evangelize? How do we grow parishes and start new ones? One of the things we talked about in relation to evangelism is empowering the laity to minister. He made the point that a parish where the priest does everything will eventually reach a certain size and then just stop growing, because the priest simply runs out of time and energy to do anything more. But if the priest can work to "equip the saints" for good works and ministry, as St. Paul talks about in Ephesians, then the laity can take the lead in some of these areas and help grow the larger Church and fulfill the Great Commission. This is, after all, part of their baptismal vocation. Laity who travel far to come to a traditional/continuing Anglican parish, for example, might be willing to help start a mission parish in their town. We need to think ahead and be proactive in these areas... otherwise we might just barely hold on for another 100+ years.

Honeymoon Cope

While honeymooning in Italy, my wife bought purses and I bought this nice, yet affordable cope (as well as a chasuble - not pictured). It was purchased in a store caddy-corner to where the pope gets his vestments made. Rome is a great place to buy vestments. Since there are lots of stores (competition), the prices are pretty good. That lovely lady standing next to me is my wife, of course.

"Merrily on High"

I have just begun reading an absolutely fantastic little book called 'Merrily on High' by the Rev'd Colin Stephenson. He was a priest in the C of E, who came of age at the height of the anglo-catholic movement in 20's and 30's. Eventually he became the warden of the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. This book is his spiritual biography. Sadly, it is no longer in print, but I managed to procure a used copy through the Anglican Bibliopole. It was recommended to me by my spiritual director and confessor.

Stephenson has a real gift for writing. The book is full of all sorts of hilarious ancedotes about churchmanship, and the sometimes misguided effort of a hearty band of priests and laymen to rescue the C of E from the clutches of Protestantism, and to restore to its liturgy the color, sound, and smell of its Roman ancestor (from the introduction). It is a MUST read for every anglo-catholic... absolutely hilarious. Once I am finished with it I plan to lend it to my rector whom I know will enjoy it.

I am Tired of Roman Triumphalism

Every morning, one of the first things I do, after my Daily Office, is sit down at my computer and read the New Oxford Review online. I check out their news links and read about all of the crazy stuff going on in the Roman Catholic world (Legionaries of Christ and their scandels; the banking scandels; the supression of traditional liturgies; clergy murdering people; bishops involved in hit-and-run accidents; child sexual abuse scandels; etc.). They have this ongoing parody about "Fr. Flapdoodle" of St. Bozo's Catholic Community - a wishy-washy priest who is always embroiled in some sort of homosexual scandel, or trying out some weird new thing at the liturgy... it is quite funny.

These articles, as well as the history of Christianity general, show that the Roman Church is just as screwed up as any other church out there, despite all of their claims to the contrary. The Episcopal Church, and other western Anglican churches, are, without a doubt, completely wacko themselves (one could fill volumes with their antics: bishops divorced and remarried multiple times; acceptance of Mormon baptism; woman "priests" and "bishops"; syncrenistic rites; clergy that double as Wicca clergy; etc.). But I will say this for them: at least they are not outright hypocrites with a lot of this stuff like Rome - at least the American Church - is. The Episcopal Church may ordain practicing homosexual clergy, but at least they are following their collective conscience (however disordered that may be), whereas Rome speaks out of two sides of their mouth on the issue, saying publically that homosexual acts are disordered and evil, but privately turning a blind eye to the highly active gay subculture culture in their own church - a very well-documented culture (e.g. is anyone else following the Fr. Haley affair in the gloriously "traditional" Diocese of Arlington?).

Rome looks great on paper. But their (false) belief that the pontiff is infallible, and the "center of catholic unity", and the "Vicar of Christ on earth", is just a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to day-to-day Roman Catholic parish life. The authoritarian model of their governance, and their innovative "four-fold office", is not a foolproof system that absolutely prevents strange doctrines and practices from ever developing. In the long run, there is nothing doctrinally or morally more "safer" or "secure" about the Roman Church as compared to any other Church. The faith that some Roman Catholics have in the office of the pope is truly amazing. They truly believe that the pope and curia will never err (e.g. ordain women, or allow married clergy, etc.). They would do well to learn from history, and study the corrupt lives of some of the Renaissance popes, or perhaps revisit some of the controversies of the Reformation (treasury of merits, indulgences, etc.... oh, yeah, indulgences are still around , by the way.). Popes have erred in the past, so why would they not in the future? They are, after all, only human. Those who think "swimming the Tiber" will solve all of their problems, and answer all of their questions, and end the struggle with sin and heresy, should think twice. It won't.

My point, believe it or not, is not to sit and bash Rome. Continuing Anglican churches have their problems too, don't get me wrong. Any church will have its problems. I think, though, we have to choose our poison. Personally, I would rather be in a church that may have a problem with overlapping jurisdiction, too many people running around claiming to be bishops, and buildings that are not grand edifaces instead of being in a church where God is spoken of as "mother", and where so-called bishops and clergy routinely deny the core doctrines of Christian faith and morality and go undisciplined. And personally, I would rather be in a church that does justice to the scriptural and historical notion of a collegial episcopate (among other things) than one that does not. I do not condemn those who, following their conscience, belong to some other church (Roman, PCA, Episcopal, ELCA, etc.). But we should always be aware of the problems in our own commmunity before we criticize others' communities. Rome seems to be one of the only churches left out there that hasn't quite realized this just yet.

What to read?

I am currently reading "Principles of Christian Theology" by John MacQuarrie. He is a recognized expert on Heidegger (he translated "Being and Time" years ago) and Bultmann, and taught at Union (NYC) for many years before going to Oxford where he currently teaches. He is Scottish, so he's obviously wonderful, as all Scottish people are, and a priest - I guess in the Scottish Episcopal Church. It is a very interesting book, and it reminds me of my seminary days when we were studying (in virtually ALL of the classes) the theology of Karl Rahner, who was also a student of Heidegger. When I am finished this book, I hope to zip through his book on the sacraments.

Other books I am reading right now include "Narcissus and Goldmund" (Hesse), the Thomas Cranmer biography by MacCulloch - which is very long and ponderous, and reading through the Copleston "History of Philosophy" series (I am currently on the Neo-Platonists). Like many of you, I have a backlog of books to read, and sometimes it overwhelms me. I want to read the monumental N.T. Wright series on Christian origins, maybe beginning this spring, as well as the "Stripping of the Altars" (Duffy), and the new biography on Mao. But will there ever be enough time?. There is just so much great stuff out there to read, but not enough time to read it all! Theology demands that you read in many different areas too, so I think we "theologians" (armchair or no armchair theologians) have a lot more to read than your average person. May God help us get it done! I will close with a prayer:

I consecrate my reading and study to Thee, O Lord, that thou wouldest use what I have learned and reflected on to help others come to a deeper knowledge and love of Thee, and that my own heart wouldest be pierced by Thy holy grace and mercy. AMEN.

Bible Sunday - Advent 2

This past Sunday I preached at all three services, so I preached on the Bible and Bible study. The Second Sunday in Advent is traditionally known as "Bible Sunday", because the collect - which dates from the Reformation - asks for God's grace that we might"...read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest..." the sacred scriptures. One of the great things about the Reformation was that its leaders sought to give the Bible to people. In England during the reign of Henry VIII, for example, Cranmer issued a decree that an English Bible should be placed in every parish church. Thus, from the beginning, study and knowledge of the scriptures was very important in our tradition. Just look at the Daily Offices: look at how much scripture we have to read compared with Roman Catholic "Liturgy of the Hours". We read a lot more. (Disclaimer: The Liturgy of the Hours has other merits, though.) Scripture study is still important for us today - perhaps more than ever before.

The guy that runs Prayer Works, which is a great little company that all traditional Anglican's should check out (they sell these snazzy little 1928 BCP desk calendars), writes that the traditional BCPs are two-thirds direct scripture, while the remaining third is scripture put into devotional form. Anyone who reads the BCP and the Bible will notice this. The various versicles and responses are direct quotes from the Bible. So, the 1928 BCP is 100% scripture, and if you know the BCP, you will know the scriptures.

Evangelicals & AIDS Ministry

Exciting news on Yahoo today about how Saddleback Community Church, a large non-denominational church in California, is starting a huge AIDS awareness and ministry program. I think this is fantastic.

AIDS is a horrible disease that we must strive to find a cure for. We need to pray that God would help us end this horrific disease. Most of the people who suffer from it are poor women and children in Africa. It is not only a "gay" disease. For too long, many of us conservative Christians have ignored minstering to people with this disease, and have not sought to do what we could to educate people about it, lobby congress for money to find a cure for it, and more. We cannot be Christians and ignore this disgusting disease and those who suffer from it. If we purport to care about the sick and diseased in the name of Jesus, then we should do all we can to help those people - even if they have a disease like AIDS, which we, rightly or wrongly, associate entirely with sexual deviancy.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us not only to speak prophetically, but to act prophetically. Here is an example of what I mean from the world of abortion: don't be pro-life, and then do nothing to support your local crisis pregnancy center with financial and other gifts. Don't be a pro-life guy, but then refuse to date a single mother because she has too much "baggage". Don't be pro-life, and then sleep around or have sexual relations outside of marriage. Yes, the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us not only to speak prophetically, but to act prophetically.

"O the doctrines, they are a changin'"

Looks like Rome is planning on abolishing limbo. I wonder what will happen to all of the poor souls there? Limbo is just a "hypothesis", they say. They are right about that. It is not taught in Scripture, but is more the product of scholastic reasoning. They have been planning this for sometime now, as limbo is not even in the new catechism. What they will replace it with, if anything, is a mystery.

I find this interesting and am blogging about it because Anglicans (anglo-catholics especially) are often accused by Romanists of holding beliefs that certain Reformers and/or the Articles of Religion rejected. They seem to think that our whole position as a true branch of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is undermined because our beliefs about a doctrine may have changed, or developed, over time. Or they think that our change of opinion about, say, Benediction, indicates that there is some fundamental problem in our tradition as a whole. This is a very arrogant supposition, though. It assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that is allowed to change positions on certain matters of faith and practice over time. Why Rome and no one else? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

Reconciling the Jurisdictional Chaos

This is the title of an article that may be downloaded from the Christian Challenge from a recent conference about the Affirmation of St. Louis that a couple of jurisdictions participated in. While there are several articles from this conference that are worth downloading and reading, I thought that this was the best. Fr. Warren Tanghe, SSC (chaplain of All Saints' Convent - Catonsville, MD) exhorts orthodox Anglican parishes in various regions to enter into grassroots partnerships to foment a sort of "bottom-up" organic unity, rather than legislating a top-down merger, as those have been prone to fail in the past. Bp. Paul Hewitt, SSC of the Diocese of the Holy Cross has a response which includes nine suggestions for concrete action. Many of these steps are being taken right now, which is surely positive. It is a good article that is well worth reading, and may give each of us ideas as to what we can do in our part of the country to promote unity amongst orthodox Anglicans.

Jurisdictional chaos is a sad reality within the Church. It is not only continuing Anglicans that have the problem. Roman Catholics have overlapping jurisdiction, as do the Orthodox. And their jurisdictions overlap with each others' and ours! So don't let anyone tell you that it's just us. I think that the problem of multiplying jurisdictions within the continuing movement, though, comes in part from a defective understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which is viewed more so as something that an individual possesses rather than something that belongs to the Church. We have ultimately, I believe, Rome to thank for this. Their ridiculous condemnation of Anglican Orders, as many scholars have pointed out, has made some Anglicans think of orders as something that is limited to a pedigree, while other important items, such as orthodoxy and "communio", are conveniently left out of the equation. If holy orders is limited to a lineage, then any "bishop" can go start his own "apostolic" jurisdiction whenever he feels like it. In the end, such practice actually undermines the historic Catholic position on Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession, and destroys the unity of the Church.

Theological Exams & The Seminary Question

One of the most important parts of my recent ordination was the theological examinations by the board of examining chaplains. My exams were a couple hours long, and we covered all sorts of areas: sacraments; church history; biblical studies; practical theological questions; christology; moral theology - you name it, we discussed it. Each topic was interwoven with others, as they all relate to each other in various ways. They were very similar to my comprehensive exams from seminary, actually. Each diocese has its own board, served by a group of priests who rotate on and off. The board reports to the bishop.

Now personally, between inquisitor and candidate, I think they - the board - have the harder job. The reason I say that is because they have to interview and question people who have done their theological training at vastly different seminaries... because there is no "continuing church seminary". They might interview someone like me, who went to a liberal Roman Catholic seminary, and then someone who went to a conservative Presbyterian seminary, and then someone who went to an ECUSA seminary, and so on. That requires lots of discernment and very specific questioning on the examiners' part. Would not someone who went to a conservative Presbyterian seminary and someone who went to a liberal UCC seminary answer a question about the sacraments in a very different way? What is the standard of judgment? It has to make questioning very difficult in some areas, and thus the job of examiner difficult at times. Indeed, they need our prayers and encouragement.

Their job would be a lot easier if there were a set of traditional Anglican seminaries around the country with the same standards of education and formation to send men to. That way, everyone would be coming at them from the same background. I hope that one day there will be a couple of places like this to send our men to. Anyone have a couple million bucks to get this thing off the ground?

Covenant of Union

The APA/REC signed a covenant of union with the Anglican Province of Nigeria last week. This is very exciting as it is the first concordat between a so-called "separated" Anglican body and a province of the "official" Anglican Communion (a HUGE province). Here is the link to the documents.

This is exciting to me, not because it gives some sort of "official seal of approval" to the APA/REC (and by extension, some of the other continuing bodies), but because it highlights positive and constructive changes in peoples' perception as to what Anglicanism really is. Anglicanism is no longer about being in some sort of official "club" with fancy buildings and paid choirs. That changed a long time ago. And don't get me wrong: I like fancy buildings and great choirs as much as the next guy. But that is not the core of the Christian faith. Sadly, those nice things often end up becoming idols for people.

At its heart, Anglicanism is about following Jesus Christ alone as Lord and Saviour, and bringing all of our thoughts, passions, and desires under His Lordship and rule. It is about proclaiming the unchanging "faith once delivered" to the saints, and about affirming the authority and inspiration of the sacred scriptures and the tradition which interprets them.

My Very Own American Altar Missal

A friend of mine just gave me an altar version of the American Missal. I will use when, Lord willing, I am ordained to the priesthood. The binding is really beat up, as it is a first edition from 1931. The inside, though, is in great shape! Hopefully it will not cost too much to get it rebound. The Anglican Parishes Association has not carried the American Missal for some time, though I think they own the copywrite for it. I believe it used to be the only place where you could get one. But it obviously sold out some time ago. They still carry the Anglican Missal, but it is so much harder to use than the American, so I have been wanting to find an American. It would be funny if it cost as much or more to get this rebound as it would be to buy a new Anglican Missal and just get used to using that.

Fr. Ray Unterburger with New Monstrance

As promised, here is a picture of the magnificent new monstrance that a kind, older couple generously donated to our parish. The picture really doesn't do it justice - if you can believe it. It is even more amazing in person! Also in the picture is the rector of St. Alban's, Joppa, Fr. Ray Unterburger. This will add a lot to the eucharistic life of the parish.

ACC Elects New Metropolitan

The ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) has elected their Bishop of the South, Mark Haverland, Ph.D, to be their new metropolitan. Brother John-Charles retired due to health reasons, I guess. It will be interesting to see what direction he takes the ACC in over the next few years.

Like most continuing archbishops, he also still serves as the ordinary of his diocese. And to my knowledge he also still pastors a parish - again, like most continuing church bishops. It's got to be a lot of work, and require the wearing of many different hats, but I think it is good to have bishops serve a parish, as bishops are fundamentally the "pastor" of a diocese.

I know that ACC Deacon, A.R. Bayles, of St. James, Cleveland, has made comments on this blog before. Perhaps he could say a few words about this and give his thoughts and impressions if he is somehwere out there. Other ACCers are also welcome to give their thoughts and opinions. We are anxious to hear!

One Year Anniversary

This month is the one year anniversary of this blog. Thanks to everyone out there who reads and comments. I feel that all of the remarks have been charitable and constructive, and that, overall, I think it is a very positive blog. I started it as a way to anonymously talk about being a continuing Anglican... never expecting anyone to actually read it, or make comments. Then somehow, people found it and started reading. So thanks for participating.

Sincerely,
SJA

New Monstrance

Our parish was recently given a monstrance, cope, and humeral veil by a devout couple. The rector showed it to me the other day, and I was blown away. It is huge and magnificent! I hope to be able to post a picture of it sometime soon. I have never seen a monstrance this nice in any continuing church. What a tremendous gift. The couple came to every Benediction that we had last year (we used to use a ciborium). I think the guy was raised Roman Catholic, so he really likes the devotion. His wife, who was raised Lutheran and never experienced it, has grown to love it as well. They are both regular communicants and devout churchmen.

In my opinion, interest in eucharistic devotion is a sign of a healthy, eucharist-focused parish. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church here in Baltimore, the parishes that have regular eucharistic devotions (not all of them have it) are much healthier than those who do not have them. I think the same can be said of many Anglican parishes I have seen. When eucharistic devotion is done correctly it augments Holy Communion and draws people out to receive the Precious Body and Blood ("I, when I am lifted up will draw all men to myself.").

This has been a blessed year for our small country church: new organ, new monstrance, new members, new postulants, new clergy.... everything new! Except the faith - that's not new. It is the same old unchanging Christian faith, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, and the same time-tested, living liturgy. And all of that is just fine with us! Thanks be to God!