Liturgical Silence

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

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

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

More Priesthood Reflections

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

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

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

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

When tragedy strikes, say nothing?

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

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

Reach Out and Touch Faith

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

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

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

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

It's only dead if you make it dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Refashioning of Anglicanism

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

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

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

Radio Interview

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

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

Approaching One Year

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

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

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

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

I Dream of Jeanie

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

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

Alfred Hope Patten and the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham

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

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

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

Recent Art

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

Diocese of the Holy Cross Joins FACA

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

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

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

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

Baptismal Regeneration

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

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

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

The Drama of Benediction

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

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

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

Only WE Have Valid Orders

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

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

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

Dangers and Difficulties

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging Church Redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective

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

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

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

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

St. Andrew's Academy, Lake Almanor, CA

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


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

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


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

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



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

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