An interesting article on VOL. I once had lunch with Bp. Hewitt of the DHC and he was explaining to me and some other priests that the first fissure in TEC began in the late 60's/early 70's when they changed the canons governing divorce and remarriage for the clergy. That paved the way to the ordination of women, which eventually lead to the acceptance of homosexuality.
Anyway, it is interesting that the so-called Global South bishops are so strong on this issue, and on the homosexuality issue, but not on the issue of women's ordination which bridges the two. I think most of the Global South churches in the Anglican Communion ordain women - if not to the priesthood to the diaconate. Other groups, such as FiFNa churches and AMiA, ordain women to the diaconate.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Church Growth 2
These are some more random thoughts swirling around in my head about church growth as it relates to continuing Anglican parishes. These observations refer to a typical continuing Anglican parish like St. Francis: small, no choir (much less a paid choir), Sunday parish mass with hymns.
1) Most people prefer to come to church and do as little as possible and be entertained. Extremely clerical churches where the minister does everything (e.g. Presbyterian), or entertainment-oriented "game show" churches - where the service is like an episode of "The Price is Right" - appeal to the vast majority of people because of basic human laziness. Older services like ours (and maybe the Tridentine mass) service demand a lot of people, therefore there is a natural aversion to them. We clergy should simply expect this of people.
2) Most people prefer a service that is not only reverent but easy to follow. Ours is very complex, even in its lowest (straight Prayer Book) form. So we need to try to make our services as easy as possible to follow so as to make it accessible to the broadest number of people. I think we do that by sticking as close to the Prayer Book as possible. We clergy tend to become so familiar with the liturgy that we often get bored with it, so we are tempted to add, add, add. But we need to put ourselves in the laity's shoes. Sometimes adding all of that stuff (e.g. the minor propers, the extra collects, etc.) makes the service too hard for them to follow. (especially if they have to go from Prayer Book, to Hymnal, to bulletin, and back and forth)
3) Most people can only absorb a limited amount in one hour. Again, I think that adding all of the minor propers and extra collects is simply too much to absorb. It works in the old Roman mass because much of that mass was said in silence. But it doesn't always work with us. We forget that besides the mass we have: the hymns, the announcements, the sermon, coffee hour, and Sunday school. All of that takes a certain chunk of people's "spiritual absorption" quota. When we start adding tons of beautiful but verbose prayers people just begin to zone out after a while and the whole kit and caboodle becomes ineffective.
4) Too many hymns and too much singing can definitely be a bad thing. Unless you have a paid choir, or a good volunteer choir, we need to do less singing. Why? Time and taste: our typical mass music is pretty dreary (Willan, Merbecke), and adds lots of unnecessary time to the service. There is no rule that those parts MUST be sung, so if you have a small group just recite them and sing only the hymns. Why else? Our culture is becoming less and less musical. Average people do not sing much anymore, or even read music, so they feel awkward doing too much singing (especially of such alien music). Why else? Their voices get tired after a while from all of the responses and recitations; they are also tired from kneeling, and from it being so early in the morning. So I think the less music we have the better. I think it is best to try to get the biggest bang for your buck with the music - if there is going to be singing, let it be just the bare minimum of hymns, and just recite the ordinary of the mass (except maybe on special occasions). Too much music, especially when it is bad, just drives people away.
1) Most people prefer to come to church and do as little as possible and be entertained. Extremely clerical churches where the minister does everything (e.g. Presbyterian), or entertainment-oriented "game show" churches - where the service is like an episode of "The Price is Right" - appeal to the vast majority of people because of basic human laziness. Older services like ours (and maybe the Tridentine mass) service demand a lot of people, therefore there is a natural aversion to them. We clergy should simply expect this of people.
2) Most people prefer a service that is not only reverent but easy to follow. Ours is very complex, even in its lowest (straight Prayer Book) form. So we need to try to make our services as easy as possible to follow so as to make it accessible to the broadest number of people. I think we do that by sticking as close to the Prayer Book as possible. We clergy tend to become so familiar with the liturgy that we often get bored with it, so we are tempted to add, add, add. But we need to put ourselves in the laity's shoes. Sometimes adding all of that stuff (e.g. the minor propers, the extra collects, etc.) makes the service too hard for them to follow. (especially if they have to go from Prayer Book, to Hymnal, to bulletin, and back and forth)
3) Most people can only absorb a limited amount in one hour. Again, I think that adding all of the minor propers and extra collects is simply too much to absorb. It works in the old Roman mass because much of that mass was said in silence. But it doesn't always work with us. We forget that besides the mass we have: the hymns, the announcements, the sermon, coffee hour, and Sunday school. All of that takes a certain chunk of people's "spiritual absorption" quota. When we start adding tons of beautiful but verbose prayers people just begin to zone out after a while and the whole kit and caboodle becomes ineffective.
4) Too many hymns and too much singing can definitely be a bad thing. Unless you have a paid choir, or a good volunteer choir, we need to do less singing. Why? Time and taste: our typical mass music is pretty dreary (Willan, Merbecke), and adds lots of unnecessary time to the service. There is no rule that those parts MUST be sung, so if you have a small group just recite them and sing only the hymns. Why else? Our culture is becoming less and less musical. Average people do not sing much anymore, or even read music, so they feel awkward doing too much singing (especially of such alien music). Why else? Their voices get tired after a while from all of the responses and recitations; they are also tired from kneeling, and from it being so early in the morning. So I think the less music we have the better. I think it is best to try to get the biggest bang for your buck with the music - if there is going to be singing, let it be just the bare minimum of hymns, and just recite the ordinary of the mass (except maybe on special occasions). Too much music, especially when it is bad, just drives people away.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The rewards of being an artist
Being an artist is just as intense and demanding a vocation as being a priest. Like the priesthood, the artistic life has its highs and lows, and ups and downs. But the rewards of both vocations are immeasurable. I have been very blessed to touch many lives through my art - from people around the world. Recently I was sent this note about an icon that I did: (I gave it to a client who passed it on as a gift, and the client sent me the comment that follows.)
"The crucifixion painting you gave me has already been a treasure. As you may know, I suffer from phases of deep depression and take medication for that depression, but as with all things, there is a very spiritual dimension to my depression. When I am able to look at something like a painting of the crucifixion, it both makes the crucifixion real and brings me great comfort. I am going through such a time right now and this afternoon I propped the painting up by my bed so that I could look at it as I tried to rest. So I thank you very very much for it."
It is a tremendous blessing, and very humbling, to be able to touch so many peoples lives artistically and ministerially.
"The crucifixion painting you gave me has already been a treasure. As you may know, I suffer from phases of deep depression and take medication for that depression, but as with all things, there is a very spiritual dimension to my depression. When I am able to look at something like a painting of the crucifixion, it both makes the crucifixion real and brings me great comfort. I am going through such a time right now and this afternoon I propped the painting up by my bed so that I could look at it as I tried to rest. So I thank you very very much for it."
It is a tremendous blessing, and very humbling, to be able to touch so many peoples lives artistically and ministerially.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Church Growth 1
All that I have been thinking about the last couple days is church growth, not only because of trying to grow/revitalize this parish (though I wonder, based on the numbers in the books, if it was ever "vitalized" to begin with), but because many "continuing Anglican" (CA) parishes seem to be stagnant or in decline. And that is a major concern on many levels.
Now, we have had growth at St. Francis since I have been here. We have added some five new university students, one older professional, and one retired professional. I am VERY THANKFUL for that growth! And, thanks be to God, most CA parishes, dioceses, and jurisdictions can probably claim the same type of growth - though the demographics are different based on where they are located (i.e. we are across the street from VA Tech, so we have a number of college students; other parishes are in retirement communities, so they have lots of older, retired folk, etc.). So we ARE growing at St. Francis! And other parishes in the APA and in similar CA jurisdictions are also growing! The numbers prove that. As I have seen it said on other CA sites: "We are growing, slowly, but we are growing."
But is the growth keeping up with 'inflation'? In other words, how much of our parish growth is actual "new adult conversions to Christianity" growth verses getting folk from other Anglican parishes, or other churches? And how much of our growth is getting folk who are converts from some other tradition, such as Presbyterianism, Anabaptism, Romanism, etc.? From what I know it is far to say that most of our very small and slow growth comes in those areas, which is not bad (no growth is "bad", per se), but not good either. Very little growth (and none so far in my tenure here at St. Francis) is growth in terms of adult converts to the Christian religion! To be honest, in my whole life I know of only one adult person who went from being a complete, unbaptized pagan to becoming a Christian entirely in a continuing Anglican church! I am sure there are more out there, but I personally only know of one. And incidentally he is no longer CA but Orthodox, I am told. But is this an inditement of CA churches alone? By no means!
The sad truth is that across the board according to statistics ALL denominations (in America) are "growing" more in transfer of membership from other churches RATHER than by adult baptisms and conversions (Source: "Comeback Churches" Setzer/Dodson) - even the so-called "true church" - the Roman Church. That is warning to ALL Christians. We are supposedly "growing" (and megachurches are "growing" a lot, so it seems), but it is not real growth! It is just baptized people transferring memberships and attendance around! In other words, the growth of the Kingdom of God is not keeping up with the growth of "paganism" at this point! The bottom line is this: the Church (across the board) is NOT growing... if anything it is slowly shrinking. The statistics prove it. The question is what are we Christians going to do about it? More important, what are we so-called "continuing Anglicans" going to do about it?
Now, we have had growth at St. Francis since I have been here. We have added some five new university students, one older professional, and one retired professional. I am VERY THANKFUL for that growth! And, thanks be to God, most CA parishes, dioceses, and jurisdictions can probably claim the same type of growth - though the demographics are different based on where they are located (i.e. we are across the street from VA Tech, so we have a number of college students; other parishes are in retirement communities, so they have lots of older, retired folk, etc.). So we ARE growing at St. Francis! And other parishes in the APA and in similar CA jurisdictions are also growing! The numbers prove that. As I have seen it said on other CA sites: "We are growing, slowly, but we are growing."
But is the growth keeping up with 'inflation'? In other words, how much of our parish growth is actual "new adult conversions to Christianity" growth verses getting folk from other Anglican parishes, or other churches? And how much of our growth is getting folk who are converts from some other tradition, such as Presbyterianism, Anabaptism, Romanism, etc.? From what I know it is far to say that most of our very small and slow growth comes in those areas, which is not bad (no growth is "bad", per se), but not good either. Very little growth (and none so far in my tenure here at St. Francis) is growth in terms of adult converts to the Christian religion! To be honest, in my whole life I know of only one adult person who went from being a complete, unbaptized pagan to becoming a Christian entirely in a continuing Anglican church! I am sure there are more out there, but I personally only know of one. And incidentally he is no longer CA but Orthodox, I am told. But is this an inditement of CA churches alone? By no means!
The sad truth is that across the board according to statistics ALL denominations (in America) are "growing" more in transfer of membership from other churches RATHER than by adult baptisms and conversions (Source: "Comeback Churches" Setzer/Dodson) - even the so-called "true church" - the Roman Church. That is warning to ALL Christians. We are supposedly "growing" (and megachurches are "growing" a lot, so it seems), but it is not real growth! It is just baptized people transferring memberships and attendance around! In other words, the growth of the Kingdom of God is not keeping up with the growth of "paganism" at this point! The bottom line is this: the Church (across the board) is NOT growing... if anything it is slowly shrinking. The statistics prove it. The question is what are we Christians going to do about it? More important, what are we so-called "continuing Anglicans" going to do about it?
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Infinity of Little Hours
I am reading an interesting book entitled An Infinity of Little Hours: Five Young Men and Their Trial of Faith in the World's Most Austere Religious Order. It is the true story of five men and their life and experiences in the English Carthusian charterhouse of Parkminster in the early 60's. It was recommended by a friend, who had also recommended it to a mutual friend of ours who is soon going to be testing his vocation with the traditionalist RC Benedictines in Oklahoma. (A curious recommendation since the Benedictine life is very, very different from the Carthusian life, as anyone who knows or has read anything about monasticism will tell you.) It is a good book and fun to read, and I have not found it to be in anyway negative towards the Church or the monastic life of the Carthusians. It is quite simply a portrait of these five men.
In reading a book like this it is sometimes tempting to wonder why anyone would want to devote his or her life to such a vocation when it seems so unnatural and austere - especially with an order like the Carthusians. But we simply cannot always probe and grasp someone else's vocation or God-given spirituality. God calls different people to different types of jobs in life, and gives people different spiritual compositions, so one can't (in most cases) say, "That vocation is stupid. The way you mortify the flesh is worthless. Your Lenten discipline is not good enough." I get so sick and tired of hearing idiotic nonsense like that... mumbo jumbo that suggests that everyone is the same, and God speaks to everyone in exactly the same way all the time, and deals with everyone the same. What a bunch of nonsense. But I guess we're all guilty of thinking that way about others from time to time. I know I am.
If a person feels a call from God to test a vocation to the religious life, or to some other task - such as being a missionary - he MUST obey that call and test the vocation, and everyone else around him just has to accept it, even if it doesn't make much sense at first. The life of a continuing Anglican priest is an utterly meaningless vocation, and a waste of time and talent, to a lot of outsiders, and to those who do not have the calling. Yet it is my vocation, and the way that God has called me to work out my salvation. The same is true for those in the religious life.
In reading a book like this it is sometimes tempting to wonder why anyone would want to devote his or her life to such a vocation when it seems so unnatural and austere - especially with an order like the Carthusians. But we simply cannot always probe and grasp someone else's vocation or God-given spirituality. God calls different people to different types of jobs in life, and gives people different spiritual compositions, so one can't (in most cases) say, "That vocation is stupid. The way you mortify the flesh is worthless. Your Lenten discipline is not good enough." I get so sick and tired of hearing idiotic nonsense like that... mumbo jumbo that suggests that everyone is the same, and God speaks to everyone in exactly the same way all the time, and deals with everyone the same. What a bunch of nonsense. But I guess we're all guilty of thinking that way about others from time to time. I know I am.
If a person feels a call from God to test a vocation to the religious life, or to some other task - such as being a missionary - he MUST obey that call and test the vocation, and everyone else around him just has to accept it, even if it doesn't make much sense at first. The life of a continuing Anglican priest is an utterly meaningless vocation, and a waste of time and talent, to a lot of outsiders, and to those who do not have the calling. Yet it is my vocation, and the way that God has called me to work out my salvation. The same is true for those in the religious life.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Blue Christmas
No, I am not talking about "blue" vestments used in some churches in Advent, but Christmas services here at St. Francis. The turnout, even though it was higher than last year (thanks be to God!), was lower than I had hoped - especially in the wake of much advertising and two big newspaper articles. That goes to show that newspaper articles do very little to help churches like us. There is just too much other stuff in the news, etc. for an article or two - even if big - to translate into visitors.
Looking at the parish register, I think that a major part of the problem is that back in 2000 the church changed the time of the Christmas Eve service from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 6:00 is the worst time for ANY evening church service no matter WHAT time of year it is. Dinner, work, and the commute always trumps church! Next year the service will be later. Plus, I think people prefer to go to late services on Christmas Eve anyway, and ours would be too early even if no one was doing anything that night.
Otherwise it was an okay service. We actually had some good music, amazingly enough, thanks to the organist from a nearby Episcopal parish filling in for us. And it was GREAT to spend the night with our beloved parishioners (sans the college students, who are all away for the holiday).
Looking at the parish register, I think that a major part of the problem is that back in 2000 the church changed the time of the Christmas Eve service from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 6:00 is the worst time for ANY evening church service no matter WHAT time of year it is. Dinner, work, and the commute always trumps church! Next year the service will be later. Plus, I think people prefer to go to late services on Christmas Eve anyway, and ours would be too early even if no one was doing anything that night.
Otherwise it was an okay service. We actually had some good music, amazingly enough, thanks to the organist from a nearby Episcopal parish filling in for us. And it was GREAT to spend the night with our beloved parishioners (sans the college students, who are all away for the holiday).
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Another Newspaper Article
The Roanoke Times ran a story today called "Pastors Reflect on the Meaning of the Season" for which I was interviewed. The cool, but also funny, thing is that I made the front page of the print edition of the magazine - for the second time in one month! The readers may think that the parish owns the newspaper after seeing me twice in so prominent a place in such a short time.
They interviewed several ministers from different churches and traditions, and took shots of several of them, but only me and the baptist minister made it in! He is on the front page of the e-version.
This is all great publicity for the parish! Thanks be to God!
They interviewed several ministers from different churches and traditions, and took shots of several of them, but only me and the baptist minister made it in! He is on the front page of the e-version.
This is all great publicity for the parish! Thanks be to God!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Avery Cardinal Dulles, RIP
One of my favorite theologians, Avery Cardinal Dulles, died recently. The LA Times had a pretty good obituary on him. In seminary some of my classmates referred to him as Avery "Dullest" because his books were so heady, and we had to read a lot of them, as well as a lot of his articles. But I always though he was really exciting to read! All of his writings had a profound impact on me, but especially his books: The Craft of Theology; Models of the Church; and Models of Revelation. The last one was so profound and enjoyable to me that I actually had him autograph it when he came to Baltimore preach and celebrate the Eucharist at St. Ignatius Church downtown... he seemed to think it strange that he was being asked to autograph such a book! They are all great books and should be read by all seminarians... especially your more rigid, fundamentalist types. (Roman, Anglican, or otherwise)
Avery Dulles' books were so balanced, polished, and professional. He never talked down about Protestants, Orthodox, or Roman Catholics that he didn't agree with. In fact, he always treated their traditions, beliefs, and positions with utmost respect and dignity. He had the peculiar ability to see the best in people and positions that even he didn't fundamentally agree with. And he was able to look critically at his own Church and tradition. Needless to say, many of those qualities are sorely lacking in your average "convert" to Roman Catholicism today. Because of his faithfulness to the Roman Church and the papacy he was given the red hat back in 2001. He will be greatly missed.
"Rest eternal grant unto him, and let light perpetual shine upon him. May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercies of God rest in peace."
Friday, December 12, 2008
Blast from the past
This is a picture from my confirmation in 1997 at St. Stephen's Church in Timonium, MD. Left to right is the Rev. Guy P. Hawtin, rector; me; the Rt. Rev. John T. Cahoon, Jr., bishop; and the Rev. Chandler H. Jones, curate.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Preaching
I find that I get the best reaction to sermons that have some practical instruction in them. "Try doing this. Think of these three things. This week, when something happens - try to react this way." Etc.
(Not that one preaches simply to get a "good reaction", or compliments afterwards, but those reactions often indicate that somehow something I said (or even didn't say) "connected" with the person.)
Most rank-in-file parishioners are very pragmatic, and they want to see how the faith, and that particular Sunday service, "relates" to every day life. They enjoy having a "homework assignment" of sorts... a definite "charge". I find they get bored with too much pure doctrine and theology. It ends up being a waste of time on my part to craft a sermon that is fit for a Medieval disputation, and a waste of time on their part to sit through it because they can't follow it most of the time. Plus it can take away from the centrality of the Holy Eucharist. The sermon is supposed to support and point to the mass - not utterly usurp it, and be so long and boring that people do not pay attention for the rest of the service.
Still, the preacher must expound on the faith and teach the teaching of the Church. The great error of liberal religion is that it is "atheological" and "adoctrinal", which is why so many of the mainline churches have fallen into such damnable heresy. He must simply beware that if he gets to "heady" he will lose the people and not be doing them any service (though he will be doing himself a great service by stroking and showing off his massive ego).
The preacher must also beware of speaking in too many vagaries: i.e. speaking so ambiguously and in such generalities that he ends up saying nothing at all, or so that his words can be interpreted in any way under the sun. I would categorize broad phrases like "put God first in your life" this way. True, we want people to think about the sermon and engage it critically, spiritually, and in other ways, but we also have to provide some order and direction for their thinking.
Detailed exposition on dogma, doctrine, and theology is better suited for Sunday school classes and church study groups. For sermons it is best to have one or two strong theological points to show forth and explain, and to try to give parishioners some practical way to apply that doctrine, or way to think about it during the week in relation to their larger spiritual life.
If we simply teach rote dogma and doctrine, and do not teach people how to live a spiritual life, and practice their spirituality, then we have failed.
(Not that one preaches simply to get a "good reaction", or compliments afterwards, but those reactions often indicate that somehow something I said (or even didn't say) "connected" with the person.)
Most rank-in-file parishioners are very pragmatic, and they want to see how the faith, and that particular Sunday service, "relates" to every day life. They enjoy having a "homework assignment" of sorts... a definite "charge". I find they get bored with too much pure doctrine and theology. It ends up being a waste of time on my part to craft a sermon that is fit for a Medieval disputation, and a waste of time on their part to sit through it because they can't follow it most of the time. Plus it can take away from the centrality of the Holy Eucharist. The sermon is supposed to support and point to the mass - not utterly usurp it, and be so long and boring that people do not pay attention for the rest of the service.
Still, the preacher must expound on the faith and teach the teaching of the Church. The great error of liberal religion is that it is "atheological" and "adoctrinal", which is why so many of the mainline churches have fallen into such damnable heresy. He must simply beware that if he gets to "heady" he will lose the people and not be doing them any service (though he will be doing himself a great service by stroking and showing off his massive ego).
The preacher must also beware of speaking in too many vagaries: i.e. speaking so ambiguously and in such generalities that he ends up saying nothing at all, or so that his words can be interpreted in any way under the sun. I would categorize broad phrases like "put God first in your life" this way. True, we want people to think about the sermon and engage it critically, spiritually, and in other ways, but we also have to provide some order and direction for their thinking.
Detailed exposition on dogma, doctrine, and theology is better suited for Sunday school classes and church study groups. For sermons it is best to have one or two strong theological points to show forth and explain, and to try to give parishioners some practical way to apply that doctrine, or way to think about it during the week in relation to their larger spiritual life.
If we simply teach rote dogma and doctrine, and do not teach people how to live a spiritual life, and practice their spirituality, then we have failed.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
New North American Anglican Province
Reading the reports on the new north American Anglican province has been very interesting, but has left me with a number of questions:
1) What does the new province hope to gain since they would still be in communion with TEC and the other heretical provinces in the Anglican communion by virtue of being (or trying to be) recognized by the ABC as a new province? If they are in communion with the ABC, then they are in communion with TEC - they are "kissing cousins." That is how Catholic ecclesiology works.
2) I thought that some of the U.S. dioceses (such as Fort Worth) were now under Venables. But now I read that they are in the new North American province. Which is it?
3) What about the differences over WO and liturgy? How is having zero common theology and zero common prayer supposed to add up to anything substantial, and how is that supposed to be a return to classical Anglicanism?
All in all, like the contemporary Anglican Communion in general, the creation of this new province seems to generate more questions than answers.
1) What does the new province hope to gain since they would still be in communion with TEC and the other heretical provinces in the Anglican communion by virtue of being (or trying to be) recognized by the ABC as a new province? If they are in communion with the ABC, then they are in communion with TEC - they are "kissing cousins." That is how Catholic ecclesiology works.
2) I thought that some of the U.S. dioceses (such as Fort Worth) were now under Venables. But now I read that they are in the new North American province. Which is it?
3) What about the differences over WO and liturgy? How is having zero common theology and zero common prayer supposed to add up to anything substantial, and how is that supposed to be a return to classical Anglicanism?
All in all, like the contemporary Anglican Communion in general, the creation of this new province seems to generate more questions than answers.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Thank you, St. Joseph!
My wife and I buried this St. Joseph statue in the front yard of the house in Florida and did the novena to help get our house sold a few months back so we could move to Virginia. What happened? Well, in the midst of the Florida housing slump, in a little, dare I say "crappy" starter house that are a dime a dozen, we sold our house in a mere two months for the full asking price, in cash, without an inspection! In addition to this, during that two month period we had about two weeks when our house was without representation and in real estate limbo because our agents were switching companies. That, my friends, is divine intervention! St. Joseph really interceded for us... as did St. Jude, I suppose (sometimes these guys work in tandem I've determined).**
My former boss, the rector of all Vero Beach, Fr. Ward, was gracious enough to dig up the statue and mail it to me so I could, as the the tradition demands, put in a place of honor in our new home (the vicarage of St. Francis)! So here he is. Thank you, St. Joseph!
** Oh, and I guess I should also mention that we had the area's top real estate agents and real estate attorneys working for us as well! That helps a lot too!
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who is the best bishop of all?
Here is a thought-provoking quote from Bp. Latimer:
"And now I would ask you a strange question. Who is the most diligent bishop and prelate in all England, that passes all the rest in doing his office? I can tell, for I know who it is. I know him well. But now I think I see you listening and hearkening that I should name him. There is one that passes all the other and is the most diligent prelate and preacher in all England. And will you know who it is? I will tell you. It is the devil.” He is the most diligent preacher of all others. He is never out of his diocese. He is never from his cure. You shall never find him unoccupied. He is ever in his parish. He keeps residence at all times. You shall never find him out of the way. & call for him when you will, he is ever at home. He is the most diligent preacher in all the realm. He is ever at his plow. No lording nor loitering can hinder him. He is ever applying his business. You shall never find him idle, I warn you. Where the devil is resident and has his plow going, there away with books and up with candles, away with Bibles and up with beads, away with the light of the gospel and up with the light of candles, yea, at noon day, up with man's traditions and his laws, down with God's traditions and His most holy word. Oh that our preachers would be as diligent to sow the corn of good doctrine, as Satan is to sow darnel or cares. There was never such a preacher in England as he. The prelates and preachers are lords and not laborers, but the devil is diligent at his plow. He is no unpreaching prelate. He is no lordly loiterer, but a busy plowman. Therefore, you unpreaching prelates, learn of the devil to be diligent in doing of your office. If you will not learn from God nor good men to be diligent in your office, learn from the devil."
"And now I would ask you a strange question. Who is the most diligent bishop and prelate in all England, that passes all the rest in doing his office? I can tell, for I know who it is. I know him well. But now I think I see you listening and hearkening that I should name him. There is one that passes all the other and is the most diligent prelate and preacher in all England. And will you know who it is? I will tell you. It is the devil.” He is the most diligent preacher of all others. He is never out of his diocese. He is never from his cure. You shall never find him unoccupied. He is ever in his parish. He keeps residence at all times. You shall never find him out of the way. & call for him when you will, he is ever at home. He is the most diligent preacher in all the realm. He is ever at his plow. No lording nor loitering can hinder him. He is ever applying his business. You shall never find him idle, I warn you. Where the devil is resident and has his plow going, there away with books and up with candles, away with Bibles and up with beads, away with the light of the gospel and up with the light of candles, yea, at noon day, up with man's traditions and his laws, down with God's traditions and His most holy word. Oh that our preachers would be as diligent to sow the corn of good doctrine, as Satan is to sow darnel or cares. There was never such a preacher in England as he. The prelates and preachers are lords and not laborers, but the devil is diligent at his plow. He is no unpreaching prelate. He is no lordly loiterer, but a busy plowman. Therefore, you unpreaching prelates, learn of the devil to be diligent in doing of your office. If you will not learn from God nor good men to be diligent in your office, learn from the devil."
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Article in the Roanoke Times
Here is an article that the Roanoke Times did on St. Francis Anglican Church and my arrival. In the print edition the article is entitled "Renaissance Man of the Cloth". That's kind of snappy sounding!
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
JGA+
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
JGA+
Monday, November 24, 2008
"Kneeling"
I can always tell when I am at the altar whether or not people in the pews are really kneeling. If they are sort of slouched over and leaning forward a lot I know that they probably have their butt resting on the pew. Some people, of course, just refuse to kneel in church - it is easy to pick them out. They either can't or don't want to. But no matter who does what in that regard, I never get on anyone's case about it. Why? Because I think we have way too much kneeling in our services. I sympathize with most of these people. Plus, I refuse to play "liturgy police" with folk, and brow-beat parishioners into doing my bidding.
Excessive kneeling is the worst thing about continuing Anglicanism. I remember that I couldn't wait to be ordained in part because I got so sick of kneeling during the service. The idea that kneeling helps put one into an attitude of prayer... well, that may be true for some people but I have yet to meet anyone who that actually works for. Too much kneeling makes your knees and back hurt, and when you are in physical pain that is more distracting than helpful in worship. Plus, the constant "up and down, up and down, up and down" of the old Prayer Book service is confusing and just plain bothersome. The part where it is silliest is at the end of the mass. After everyone has taken communion, they sit. Then they kneel for the "Prayer of Thanksgiving"; then they stand for the "Gloria" (having the Gloria at the end of the mass is a whole different issue); and then they kneel again for the blessing. Then they stand for the recessional, and then (in some places) they kneel while the candles are extinguished. And on and on. It is really just too much. Besides the fact that it is painful, annoying, and confusing, kneeling was not the posture of ancient worship. People worshiped mostly standing.
The Roman Church did it right in their Novus Ordo where they have everyone stand for the mass except for the readings, where they sit, and the Canon of the Mass, where they kneel. That is what we need to do. I think that we do indeed do certain things better than the Romans, though. For instance, kneeling to receive the Body and Blood of Christ is non-negotiable; the ad orientum celebration of the rite; no girl "altar boys", etc. That is the sort of stuff that is great about our tradition. It is a very manly and solemn tradition. But kneeling as much as we do is over the top in my opinion. It has been my experience that it actually drives some people away from our parishes. At some point we need to ask ourselves what parts of our tradition limit our effectiveness and growth and should be done away with.
Excessive kneeling is the worst thing about continuing Anglicanism. I remember that I couldn't wait to be ordained in part because I got so sick of kneeling during the service. The idea that kneeling helps put one into an attitude of prayer... well, that may be true for some people but I have yet to meet anyone who that actually works for. Too much kneeling makes your knees and back hurt, and when you are in physical pain that is more distracting than helpful in worship. Plus, the constant "up and down, up and down, up and down" of the old Prayer Book service is confusing and just plain bothersome. The part where it is silliest is at the end of the mass. After everyone has taken communion, they sit. Then they kneel for the "Prayer of Thanksgiving"; then they stand for the "Gloria" (having the Gloria at the end of the mass is a whole different issue); and then they kneel again for the blessing. Then they stand for the recessional, and then (in some places) they kneel while the candles are extinguished. And on and on. It is really just too much. Besides the fact that it is painful, annoying, and confusing, kneeling was not the posture of ancient worship. People worshiped mostly standing.
The Roman Church did it right in their Novus Ordo where they have everyone stand for the mass except for the readings, where they sit, and the Canon of the Mass, where they kneel. That is what we need to do. I think that we do indeed do certain things better than the Romans, though. For instance, kneeling to receive the Body and Blood of Christ is non-negotiable; the ad orientum celebration of the rite; no girl "altar boys", etc. That is the sort of stuff that is great about our tradition. It is a very manly and solemn tradition. But kneeling as much as we do is over the top in my opinion. It has been my experience that it actually drives some people away from our parishes. At some point we need to ask ourselves what parts of our tradition limit our effectiveness and growth and should be done away with.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
"Philosophy - is talk on cereal box..."
What is the best background to have before starting theological studies? Philosophy, without a doubt. After that I think it would be classics (because of the emphasis on Greek and Latin). Like many of my interests my philosophical background is spotty and unconventional. I took a couple of philosophy classes in college, and had to take several courses in seminary. Several good friends who studied more philosophy also helped provide something of an education in that area. Now I enjoy reading philosophy perhaps even more than theology. Overall, I find that it constantly helps me address certain questions that arise in various contexts - such as in classes at church.
My main interest for the past year or so has been Thomism. I have read a couple of books on St. Thomas, as well as some surveys. The surveys have been especially helpful because they situate St. Thomas in the larger context of Medieval philosophy, which helps you see the arguments on a broader level, and realize that the Angelic Doctor is not the last word on every subject. It is tempting, when a question in a class arises, to simply quote St. Thomas. But it is not accurate to suggest that his theory on a particular subject is the official teaching of the Church, which can happen if you are not careful! I learned my lesson on this when doing a class on angels at St. Mark's (very successful, by the way - that is a good topic to do a class on at church... people are fascinated by that subject). I said, following Thomas, that angels are not a species. Each angel is its own species because they are immaterial, and matter is the principle of individuation according to St. Thomas. But I later learned, in reading a book on Medieval philosophy that the Franciscan school (Bonaventure and Duns Scotus especially) did not hold to that idea. Angels were in different species (at least in Bonaventure... I am still studying Scotus). Not that anyone really cared... but it is a matter of integrity and accuracy!
Anyway, all of that is to say that one cannot nor should not pass off, either on purpose or by accident (no pun intended), certain philosophical theories on what are ultimately speculative matters as "church teaching". Still, being able to present a certain philosopher's explanation as a plausible one to consider on some subject (such as the where evil comes from) is helpful. Thus a priest should be conversant in philosophy.
My main interest for the past year or so has been Thomism. I have read a couple of books on St. Thomas, as well as some surveys. The surveys have been especially helpful because they situate St. Thomas in the larger context of Medieval philosophy, which helps you see the arguments on a broader level, and realize that the Angelic Doctor is not the last word on every subject. It is tempting, when a question in a class arises, to simply quote St. Thomas. But it is not accurate to suggest that his theory on a particular subject is the official teaching of the Church, which can happen if you are not careful! I learned my lesson on this when doing a class on angels at St. Mark's (very successful, by the way - that is a good topic to do a class on at church... people are fascinated by that subject). I said, following Thomas, that angels are not a species. Each angel is its own species because they are immaterial, and matter is the principle of individuation according to St. Thomas. But I later learned, in reading a book on Medieval philosophy that the Franciscan school (Bonaventure and Duns Scotus especially) did not hold to that idea. Angels were in different species (at least in Bonaventure... I am still studying Scotus). Not that anyone really cared... but it is a matter of integrity and accuracy!
Anyway, all of that is to say that one cannot nor should not pass off, either on purpose or by accident (no pun intended), certain philosophical theories on what are ultimately speculative matters as "church teaching". Still, being able to present a certain philosopher's explanation as a plausible one to consider on some subject (such as the where evil comes from) is helpful. Thus a priest should be conversant in philosophy.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Random Reflections on the Daily Office
One of the aspects of the my 1928 BCP and "continuing" Anglican formation for which I constantly give thanks is the strong emphasis that was placed on reading the daily offices of Morning and Evening Prayer. These offices contain thousands of years of prayer: going from the Hebrews all the way down to the contemporary Church. When one prays the offices, instead of he grasping them and their spirit, the opposite is true - they grasp us. And they fold us into this great tradition prayer from the people of God, which, like a river, carries us down stream towards the new heavens and new earth, and our eternal home. In times of spiritual aridity, being in that stream keeps us alive and moving in the right direction.
I am convinced that it takes several years to really even begin to learn to pray and meditate on the divine office. Those who have been especially important to me in terms of learning to become a priest (CHJ+, RU+, MLW+, RD+, CM+, among others) have all emphasized the great importance of praying the Divine Office. It is interesting to note that when the English Church was at one of its lowest periods spiritually speaking (during the Age of Reason), the daily, public recitation of the offices corresponding declined... though, granted, there was also major clergy shortage during this period. I think the renewal of classical Anglicanism, and continuing Anglicanism, is going to come out of the Prayer Book and especially the regular, consistent use of the daily offices by both clergy and laity as Cranmer envisioned. If prayer (specifically "common" prayer) is not the ground and foundation of all that we do, then any edifice that we try to construct, no matter how good our intentions, will come crumbling down.
Experience and common sense has taught me that, besides the mass, the offices are what make a person truly Anglican. Many people whom I have known who've left the Anglican fold have not been grounded in any way in the daily offices, or even the Prayer Book for that matter, even though they may have attended a "traditionalist" TEC parish. I remember years ago one such person telling me that he was going to begin reading Morning and Evening Prayer.... this after he had been a pretty devout traditionalist Anglican for several years. But it is hard to leave the Church for supposedly greener pastures when you are doing what the Church is supposed to be doing. Because when you do that, the pastures here stay continually green and lush.
Perhaps one of the unintended results of the liturgical movement in the Anglican world was marginalization of the offices. While it is good that the centrality of the Eucharist was affirmed by this movement, to set the two services against each other is a perversion of Cranmer's spirit. The great wisdom of Cranmer in revising the breviary to make Morning and Evening Prayer was eventually seen by the Roman Church, which revised her breviary in a similar manner after Vatican II, creating an option for "Morning and Evening Prayer" in the Liturgy of the Hours. On the heals of this came the recommendation that Roman laity pray the Liturgy of the Hours, joining in with their clergy. In Baltimore, where I used to live, there were several Roman parishes that had groups that met to pray their divine office.
I am convinced that it takes several years to really even begin to learn to pray and meditate on the divine office. Those who have been especially important to me in terms of learning to become a priest (CHJ+, RU+, MLW+, RD+, CM+, among others) have all emphasized the great importance of praying the Divine Office. It is interesting to note that when the English Church was at one of its lowest periods spiritually speaking (during the Age of Reason), the daily, public recitation of the offices corresponding declined... though, granted, there was also major clergy shortage during this period. I think the renewal of classical Anglicanism, and continuing Anglicanism, is going to come out of the Prayer Book and especially the regular, consistent use of the daily offices by both clergy and laity as Cranmer envisioned. If prayer (specifically "common" prayer) is not the ground and foundation of all that we do, then any edifice that we try to construct, no matter how good our intentions, will come crumbling down.
Experience and common sense has taught me that, besides the mass, the offices are what make a person truly Anglican. Many people whom I have known who've left the Anglican fold have not been grounded in any way in the daily offices, or even the Prayer Book for that matter, even though they may have attended a "traditionalist" TEC parish. I remember years ago one such person telling me that he was going to begin reading Morning and Evening Prayer.... this after he had been a pretty devout traditionalist Anglican for several years. But it is hard to leave the Church for supposedly greener pastures when you are doing what the Church is supposed to be doing. Because when you do that, the pastures here stay continually green and lush.
Perhaps one of the unintended results of the liturgical movement in the Anglican world was marginalization of the offices. While it is good that the centrality of the Eucharist was affirmed by this movement, to set the two services against each other is a perversion of Cranmer's spirit. The great wisdom of Cranmer in revising the breviary to make Morning and Evening Prayer was eventually seen by the Roman Church, which revised her breviary in a similar manner after Vatican II, creating an option for "Morning and Evening Prayer" in the Liturgy of the Hours. On the heals of this came the recommendation that Roman laity pray the Liturgy of the Hours, joining in with their clergy. In Baltimore, where I used to live, there were several Roman parishes that had groups that met to pray their divine office.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Organization Matters
This is the sort of stuff that we "original" continuing Anglicans should have done a long time ago. If we had we might actually be somewhere today!
Conjugal Love Requires an Heroic Spirit
One of the books I have been reviewing for use in marriage prep is Von Hildebrand's "Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love." There is one section which I thought was the best of the whole book, so I am going to quote it at length here:
"Certainly this decision involves a great risk; and when the choice of a spouse happens to be based on an illusion, the indissolubleness of marriage may prove a great cross for one or both consorts. But it lies in the nature of conjugal love to be bold, heroic, not to shrink back from taking risk. All great things on earth are connected with risk. Without risk, human life - in statu viae - would be deprived of all grandeur and heroism. Do not religious vows imply a similar risk? If the vocation proves itself an illusion, the religious state can become a heavy cross, a burden hard to bear. Yet an heroic love of God is willing to take such a risk, even desires to take it.
Marriage is not a bourgeois affair, a kind of insurance for happiness, providing a way of escape from every eventual cross. Does not love as such carry with it a great risk of suffering? In attaching our hearts to a person, do we not run the risk of enduring terrible sufferings, through misfortunes that may happen to our beloved or separation from her when she dies? Should we then abstain from love in order to prevent the possibility of great sorrow?
He whose life is dominated by the intention of avoiding any possible cross excludes everything that gives human life grandeur and depth. He will never know real abandon - never know real, deep happiness. Remaining in a mediocre self-centeredness, he will never be able to do aanything without a certain reserve; he will always provide for a possibility of retreat.
All life is overshadowed by death: "Media in vita mortis sumus." We must never forget that we do not live in Paradise, but that as a consequence of the Fall of man, we live in a world which is permeated by a deeply tragic element, where happiness is necessarily wrapped up with tribulation.
The redemption of the world by our Lord has not suspended disharmony and banished suffering, although He gave a new meaning to suffering by making it a means of penance and sacrifice. he transfigured it by the Holy Cross behind which shine the rays of eternal harmony.
Thus, in this fleeting, earthbound life all that is great and important is connected with risk,and calls for a holy boldness, and heroic spirit of unconditional abandon. The law of all great things in statu viae is expressed in the words of our Lord: 'No man putting his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.' (Lk. 9:62)
Of course all great decisions, insofar as they carry with them great risks, should be deeply considered before we undertake them. Entering into marriage calls for a realization of the great and decisive step which it represents, and requires profound self-examination. The objective form of marriage must correspond to the deepest meaning of marriage as the most perfect and intimate union of love, and cannot be conformed to the case of a failure.
Against this background the unspeakable shabbiness and stupidity of a trial marriage clearly appears. Trial marriage is in itself contradictory to the nature of conjugal love. Anyone who even considers trial marriage has never experienced conjugal love.
Marriage is the most intimate communion of love in Jesus and for Jesus, a community which belongs to Jesus and brings about the sanctification of both spouses. In it, two persons are one in one flesh and have been allowed to participate in the creation of a new human being by God. This community has been elevated to a Sacrament as an image of the union of Christ and the Church."
"Certainly this decision involves a great risk; and when the choice of a spouse happens to be based on an illusion, the indissolubleness of marriage may prove a great cross for one or both consorts. But it lies in the nature of conjugal love to be bold, heroic, not to shrink back from taking risk. All great things on earth are connected with risk. Without risk, human life - in statu viae - would be deprived of all grandeur and heroism. Do not religious vows imply a similar risk? If the vocation proves itself an illusion, the religious state can become a heavy cross, a burden hard to bear. Yet an heroic love of God is willing to take such a risk, even desires to take it.
Marriage is not a bourgeois affair, a kind of insurance for happiness, providing a way of escape from every eventual cross. Does not love as such carry with it a great risk of suffering? In attaching our hearts to a person, do we not run the risk of enduring terrible sufferings, through misfortunes that may happen to our beloved or separation from her when she dies? Should we then abstain from love in order to prevent the possibility of great sorrow?
He whose life is dominated by the intention of avoiding any possible cross excludes everything that gives human life grandeur and depth. He will never know real abandon - never know real, deep happiness. Remaining in a mediocre self-centeredness, he will never be able to do aanything without a certain reserve; he will always provide for a possibility of retreat.
All life is overshadowed by death: "Media in vita mortis sumus." We must never forget that we do not live in Paradise, but that as a consequence of the Fall of man, we live in a world which is permeated by a deeply tragic element, where happiness is necessarily wrapped up with tribulation.
The redemption of the world by our Lord has not suspended disharmony and banished suffering, although He gave a new meaning to suffering by making it a means of penance and sacrifice. he transfigured it by the Holy Cross behind which shine the rays of eternal harmony.
Thus, in this fleeting, earthbound life all that is great and important is connected with risk,and calls for a holy boldness, and heroic spirit of unconditional abandon. The law of all great things in statu viae is expressed in the words of our Lord: 'No man putting his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.' (Lk. 9:62)
Of course all great decisions, insofar as they carry with them great risks, should be deeply considered before we undertake them. Entering into marriage calls for a realization of the great and decisive step which it represents, and requires profound self-examination. The objective form of marriage must correspond to the deepest meaning of marriage as the most perfect and intimate union of love, and cannot be conformed to the case of a failure.
Against this background the unspeakable shabbiness and stupidity of a trial marriage clearly appears. Trial marriage is in itself contradictory to the nature of conjugal love. Anyone who even considers trial marriage has never experienced conjugal love.
Marriage is the most intimate communion of love in Jesus and for Jesus, a community which belongs to Jesus and brings about the sanctification of both spouses. In it, two persons are one in one flesh and have been allowed to participate in the creation of a new human being by God. This community has been elevated to a Sacrament as an image of the union of Christ and the Church."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)