Is anyone up for the challenge?

In our consumeristic society no one really wants to be challenged anymore. People want the simplest, schlokiest crap handed to them to devour on a silver platter... or more accurately, a paper plate. Needless to say, this attitude bleeds over into church life. It seems that more and more anything that challenges people in their faith and life is cause for them to leave the church or drift into the "inactive" slot. Anglicans of the "continuing" variety can have an especially hard time with this.

When we wonder why our churches are often so small part of it has to do with the fact that our worship is very demanding. The liturgy of the Prayer Book and related service books, such and the missals, requires a level of concentration, biblical knowledge, and cultural appreciation that is extremely rare these days. Add to that kneeling, saying the responses, standing and sitting, and all of the rest of it, and what I suggest is that a lot of people just don't feel like putting in the effort. It is too much work. And God help you if you try to sing some new hymns and/or service music! It is amazing how many people know almost the entire catalogue of the Beatles and yet they balk when a new hymn or tune is used, or if a Mass setting other than "Willan" or "Merbecke" is used. This is another example of spiritual laziness. Add to that good, solid biblical teaching (whether in sermons, adult studies, or newsletters) and even more people will go. Where do they end up? If they have any level of commitment to Christ and his Church they might migrate to megachurches for a big sloppy plate of "Religious Entertainment." But more often than not they just stay home, proving that they were never converted to begin with.

Our answer to this should be to just keep on keeping on. The worst thing in the world to do in my opinion is alter our worship and traditions so as to appeal to the hoi poloi. This is always a lose-lose proposition. If we challenge people spiritually, those who are up for the challenge will grow in their faith and in knowledge and love of God. I have seen this in my own parish. I have also seen how much the liturgy of the church has improved - the singing especially - when the people have been stretched and challenged to learn new hymns and communion services. (We sing the first, second, fourth, and eighth communion services throughout the course of the year.) From the improved liturgy I have seen a greater level of commitment to the ministry and mission of the church as well. Sure, you will lose some people if you challenge them, but that is between them and God. It is better to be faithful to God than to man.

Dealing With Criticism

Recently I received the following e-mail: (not edited for grammar... name removed)

"I have been away multiple weekends this year and it will continue through the year. so I probably have no right to comment but I find the incense high mass services objectionable and when I mentioned how sad they made me you suggested I go to 8 oclock service. I have to wonder if perhaps the decline in the 10 oclock service is due to the change in high mass services . I do miss singing and what I remember as a low simple service that I associate with St _______. I asked you once what you considered Low Church and you said you'd have to think about it. What have you got against simple services an why cant a service w music w/out incense be offered biweekly to please more people that possible feel as i do.? With hope an respect."

Sigh. How is one to respond to this? Let it be said at the outset that I am very fond of this individual on a personal level. The criticism is the use of incense at our sung Mass at 10:00 a.m. Last year we began using it every Sunday in order to elevate the sense of holiness and beauty in the service. Three people complained... one of whom is this person. At one point she told me that the problem with using incense is that "it brings too much religion into the service." (That's an exact quote.)

The backstory - alluded to in the e-mail - is that this individual and the other two are rarely at church anyway. I know because we are small enough that I can track each person's attendance - and I do so for pastoral reasons. This one - on a year when we had no incense - was only in church 20 times - less than half the time. The others were there even less. One person who, admittedly lives quite far away - was there just 4 times. When I asked where she goes when she's not at our church she told me that she doesn't go anywhere.

What's amazing is that these people come to church so infrequently that they have no idea why the numbers are low. This individual - if she came - would realize that some people have moved, others died, and others have become shut-ins. But they are never here anyway - and were never here much - so they don't know any of that. They hardly know anyone's names for that matter!

So, after ten years of full time parish ministry, I have learned that clergy should not bother responding to e-mails like this. Because no matter the response, people with this attitude are not going to change their ways, and have a spiritual revival, and start coming to church, and supporting the ministry, etc. I've heard of innumerable troubles that clergy invite on themselves by answering people like this... spiritually dead people with hardened hearts. It is best for clergy to focus their energy on the people in their church who are responding positively and build the church from there. When repeated efforts to teach people fail - because they are not around, and don't read anything you send - the only thing that you can do is pray for them, as taking them seriously any other way could put them in spiritual danger.

How to deal with Post-Preaching Depression

While Depression is a rarely-mentioned side-effect to the Ministry, the hours and days after Sunday can be particularly acute. Our Lord suffered His crucible on Friday afternoon. On that same day many pastors are prepping and getting the adrenaline flowing for Sunday. Yet pastors regularly “hit the wall” around Sunday afternoon and this can last until just around the time that one gears up for Wednesday services.

I was first made aware of this in seminary when my Old Testament professor confessed that in his own Ministry Sunday afternoon is one of the hardest things to deal with. He likened it to Elijah coming from his conflict with the Baal prophets, perhaps his greatest victory (or the Lord’s victory through Elijah’s ministry), and immediately falling down into depression (I Kings 19). Yes, I imagine Elijah in a fetal position under a Juniper tree, unable to eat, wishing to die. I can imagine it because I’ve been there. Was all of this because Jezebel wished him dead? Or was it because when we realize that it is the Lord Who is working “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us” (Eph. 3:20) God becomes very real indeed and we just can’t credit ourselves, and is it this which hurts our pride and depresses us? In this instance, it couldn’t have been the attendance numbers that depressed Elijah or the lack of God’s power in the preaching or the worship. No. It was the opposite. Counterintuitively, it was the fact that God was working that may very well have depressed Elijah.

Sure, sometimes a pastor gets depressed on Sunday afternoons because of the nit picking, the backbiting, the petty comments, the lack of responsiveness and the numbers. Yet, even when God is working, “the journey is too great for thee” and for me (I Kings 19:7). No pastor can be the conduit of God’s power and not be left feeling drained occasionally. A Sabbath rest is one thing and an essential thing. Nevertheless, before taking a Sabbath rest, try the following things to diminish the Post-Preaching Depression.

Don’t take a Sabbath rest – not yet. Make sure that Monday is not your day off, and if it is make it a very constructive day off. Don’t just sit on the couch watching reruns. Talk to a colleague on the phone (if your conscience will allow you not to consider that work). Go golfing, bike riding, and walking in a park. Better yet, wait to make Tuesday your day off or some other day. Make Monday a light day. Some pastors do their sermon prep on Monday, that is, they spend the day in a library, away from people. Some get some minor things done or some immediate things but don’t let it get intense.

Do something on Sunday evening. You can’t just go from high intensity to low intensity. You don’t do it at the gym; you walk after you run. Don’t try it in the Ministry either. This is why Sunday evening services can be so fabulous. It is rarely as stressful as the Sunday morning service and it allows you to wind down slowly instead of going from service to fellowship to brunch to crash. Even better, consider going to somebody else’s Sunday evening service if there is a place where you are comfortable or can remain anonymous. You need to worship too. You have put out the Word, now you need to fill up again. The journey is too great for thee.

Have a post-game ritual. In one church where I was assisting while attending Grad school, I needed to work midnight shift as a security guard on Friday and Saturday night. This meant little to no sleep before Sunday services. Oddly enough, I would often go out for brunch with members of the congregation anyway. I would sleep from about 3 pm until dinner. After dinner I would watch Masterpiece Theater or Masterpiece Mystery. I would snooze the whole time. I am blessed by never being able to remember “who done it” with any particular mystery so it always seems new, but I definitely didn’t remember any of the ones from that time in my life! Yet, come Monday morning, I was actually more refreshed than at any other time I can recall. Many people have “pizza night” on Friday or Saturday night. Because of indigestion, this might be ill-advised before Sunday morning. Try making Sunday night pizza night. It can work wonders. (Growing up in a pastor’s home, we had tuna fish salad sandwiches nearly every Sunday afternoon because it was easy to make after services. I never really liked tuna fish salad sandwiches. I would have preferred pizza.)   

Get better sleep on Saturday night. It is very hard for many pastors to sleep on Saturday night. Any professional minister will tell you need to take it easy that evening. Really take it easy. One Anglican priest in England told another colleague that one should be in bed on Saturday night by 8 p.m. listening to the London Opera. It doesn’t mean you have to sleep. But it does mean you will be more likely to. Don’t watch TV on Saturday night but read a book. Reading is more likely to allow you to go to sleep when you need to, not when you are done staring at the blinking blue light. Eat something easy to digest. When I was boarding with an elderly pastor’s widow and her housekeeper at one point my ministry, they had “Breakfast for Dinner” every Saturday night. I always liked that.

In conclusion, try to avoid Evangelizing when you are tired. If we are upset with the attendance on Sunday, we might feel tempted to make up for it sooner than we should. One prominent pastor I knew would have a sandwich on Sunday afternoon and then go out and visit every congregant who was not in church (assuming that they must have been ill if they had not been at worship). With his personality, he could pull it off. Most probably couldn’t. But he considered this part of the normal Sunday activities and no doubt crashed later. However, when we are tired and worn out, we make mistakes and can undo all the good work of the week by not respecting the physical limitations that God knew about when He gave us bodies.

There is a line from Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe in which Rebecca the Jewess says to Sir Ivanhoe, “thy weakness and thy grief, Sir Knight, make thee miscalculate the purposes of Heaven.” At the time, Ivanhoe was wounded from a tournament and captured in a castle. These words sum up why it is that one should be careful evangelizing when tired. One’s perspective is skewed. The statements that flow from the mouth are not accurate as to how God really is working with power in “your” Ministry – because He is! When we come out of Sunday services, we are often not ourselves and there is nothing wrong with choosing the better part of valor when possible and not presenting ourselves in public until reasonably well-rested.

Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.

Is your Church a Victim or Creator?

Recently in a course I am teaching on College Success, I became aware of the distinction between “Victim” and “Creator” language as a result of the teaching material provided by the college. The distinction is straightforward and the assignment likewise. Simply translate “Victim language” into “Creator language.”

Take, for example, the following:

“I would be doing a lot better in college if the teachers were any good.”

“They ought to do something about the food around here.”

“I couldn’t come to class because I had to go to the dentist for a checkup.”

“I can’t help sleeping in class.”

All you do is change the language. One might say “control the language and you control the battle.” Here is some corresponding “Creator language.”

“I need to find better teachers at this school and do more research online.”

“I should pack my own lunch.”

“I need to find out from a classmate what we covered while I was at the dentist.”

“I need to stand up during class instead of sit down and then I won’t fall asleep.”

What is even better in this exercise is to not only “create” but “excel.” This requires finding opportunities instead of obstacles. For example,

“I can’t go to class because my car needs to go to the shop and that class period is the only time that the mechanic can accommodate me.” You could change this to:

“I will get my parents to drive me.” That’s “Creator language.” But “Excellent language” changes an obstacle into an opportunity.

“I will ask the professor if I can make an announcement in class to see what other student lives near me. Then perhaps I will make a new friend and even start to car pool to save on gas and auto repair costs in the future.”

All of this a parent or grandparent or pastor could teach a young person or student. Unfortunately, those same parents, grandparents and pastors often regularly allow similar “Victim language” to control their lives and the church. This may reveal that those authority figures and mentors are not really masters of the art, but only beginners themselves. Church board meetings can quickly turn into “Victim language” sessions in which the vicious “woe-is-me” cycle scenario is talked through time and time again. The impression formed is that, just like the student, those who should be elders and teachers of the Christian community just don’t really want to try and succeed. They want to be victims instead. See if the following dangerous scenario resonates with you:

“We can’t grow because the parking lot isn’t big enough. We don’t have enough money to build a larger parking lot. We don’t have enough money because we don’t have enough people. We can’t get enough people because the parking lot isn’t big enough.” So compared to younger folks the “Victim language” is more complicated and sophisticated, sophisticated in the art of subtle “Victim-hood” but not actually or ultimately paralyzing. As my grandfather used to say, “There’s a solution to every human problem; we just might not like the solution.”

In fact, this complicated Victim language is a bit ridiculous, like the song, “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza”. This is a children’s song which goes around in a circle. “There’s a hole in the bucket” says the husband, Henry, to his wife, Liza. “Then mend it” says the wife. “With what?” says the husband and the song goes around in a circle. Eventually the axe is dull and needs sharpening and the wet stone is dry which means water is needed but something is needed to carry the water at which point the problem again becomes “There’s a hole in the bucket.” Then the song begins again like another children’s song, “This is the song that never ends.”

And this song of Victim language is the song that never seems to end when it comes to churches overcoming the problems that they face. One eventually wonders whether churches would rather sing the song or find opportunities in the midst of obstacles. Will we be teachers of Wisdom or will we perpetuate paralysis?

     Painting of a Difficult Vestry Meeting

by John Ritchie, 1867

Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.

Magna Carta 800 years later: Humbly Considered for Your Reflection & Discourse

Please bear with the twisty-turns of this thought-process...

Who can forget the words of Thomas More in A Man for all seasons that the King’s Supremacy was in direct contradiction to the rights of the Church granted in Magna Carta and in the King’s own coronation oath, along with something about the Bishop of Rome being granted supreme powers while Christ was personally present on earth? Such words haunt us as Anglicans, but are they accurate? Eight-hundred years after Magna Carta’s signing, what does it all mean for us?

It appears that More made a study of the matter (as so many scholars did at Oxford) prior to his execution and could not see any evidence that the King could be confirmed as Supreme Head of the Church. In this, Cranmer was the better scholar, being aware and honestly admitting that the Emperor of Constantinople, as an anointed head of Church and State, had acted in such a capacity until very recently, until the fall of the New Rome. As an aside, following the Battle of Hastings, the Anglo-Saxon royal family went to Constantinople; you see, the ties between the Anglo-Saxon monarchy and Constantinople were strong. The interference of the Papacy in the affairs of state had led to the Anglo-Saxon downfall, as William the Bastard had been given the throne instead of Harold. It was not the first time that the Pope had stuck his oar in across the English Channel, and it would not be the last.

It is noteworthy that we see an outbreak of Caesar-Papism (the rule of the Church by a monarch) in England and in Russia following the Fall of Constantinople. Arguably, synod/conciliar/sobernost rule does not die out prior to the Reformation but, in both East and West, makes its most noticeable resurgence in the Reformation churches and in Russia. The Russian Czar sees himself as the continuation of the Emperor of Constantinople in opposition to the Bishop of Rome and the King of England settles the question that had been on everybody’s mind for centuries: who runs the Church of England?

In fact, we could also bring the Augsburg Confession into the mix. In the late Tenth Century, you see a good deal of pagan kings become Christian around the same time: Vladimir of Kiev in 988, Mieszko of Poland in 966, Olaf Trygvasson of Norway in 984. Similarly, King Henry did not move towards a break with Rome until he had, on paper, what exactly the Reformation on the Continent was all about, in the words of the Augsburg Confession. Arguably, he did not like what he was hearing through the grapevine about Dr. Luther and that ilk. But when the written words from the noblemen at Augsburg came through, it was at that time that Henry started to relax. It is not certain that because one followed the other that one caused the other, but, incidentally, one can see that Denmark-Norway-Iceland (one kingdom) join the Reformation in 1536, Sweden does so in that same year.

Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy is in 1534, just four years after the Augsburg Confession was presented by noblemen to the German Emperor and the Ten Articles of 1536 come in the same year as all of Scandinavia joins the Reformation. This is often overlooked, but the unmentioned fact may be that there is a tendency for the Princes of the Germanic-Scandinavian tribes to move as a whole. They did so in the Eleventh Century (Vladimir was a Viking, not a Russian) and they did so again at the Reformation. The strong connection between Scandinavia and England can be evidenced by pointing out that parts of the United Kingdom at one time were under a Norwegian Archbishop. The Reformation of the Germanic-Scandinavian countries was a Prince-led Reformation in many ways, just as those tribes’ original conversion to Christianity was a conversion that was Prince-led. The Reformation sparked by the noblemen of the Augsburg Confession is in many ways a Reformation towards Caesaro-Papism.   

But what does Magna Carta have to do with all of this? A great deal, one might say. If Magna Carta, as Thomas More claims, is against the King of England being supreme it is equally against the Bishop of Rome sticking his oar in… the Thames. To say that Thomas More’s view is the only Catholic view is supremely Roman Catholic, but it is not necessarily Catholic or Orthodox.

Leading up to Magna Carta, to the “first limitation of the rights of a king” was a controversy about where the power of the Church (and especially the election of a bishop) lay and there were three possibilities: Locally, Papal-y, or Monarchical-ly. In this case, the Monarch and the Pope were (briefly) on the same side. They both were interfering with a local election, in this case election by the monks of Canterbury who had traditionally elected the Archbishop of Canterbury.

One Roman doctor of theology told me, “autocephaly [self-rule] doesn’t work” – and this he spoke as much against Orthodoxy as he did against Anglicanism. But to say so is to ignore the fact that nobody is as “autocephalous” as the Benedictines (each house is independent and they are democratic), and that in the hands of the Benedictines was the mission of the Church in Europe at one point. We generally talk about the Bishop of Rome, as commander-in-chief, overseeing and directing the missionary efforts of the whole Church. Yes, he sent out missionaries during the middle ages. Yes, he sent out St. Augustine of Canterbury to Canterbury. But the “estates” of power in the Western Church are three: Papal, Monarchical, and Local. All three can serve or hinder the missionary effort of the Church. All three did.

Now, a monastery needs the approval of the local Bishop, it is true. The whole church since the beginning seems to be, as one priest said to me “an urban religion.” Yes. A diocese is headquartered in a city and a parish is generally out in the country. But a western monastery was almost always, until the Thirteenth Century, in the rural areas. It is true that Nicaea outlined that there could only be one orthodox bishop per city, but parallel to that reality, in communion with that reality, was the Celtic Church, where the Abbots and his monks chose the bishops and sent them out to do the mission of the Church. In the Celtic Church, we see this third principle most clearly; it was rural, familial and monastic. The centers of this church were rural, not cities; this church is not diocesan, it is associative and cross-geographic, we might even say, denominational. A Celtic Monastery is set up (much like an “order” of the later church, and in many respects like orthodox monasteries – which seem to excommunicate each other at will) as a connection of associative monasteries - monasteries that sent out bishops, strangely enough. This again, although very rural, was in communion with the Roman churches both East and West until, at least, the Synod of Whitby.

In the mission to the Anglo-Saxons under St. Augustine of Canterbury we see perhaps the most ideal symbiotic action between the three “estates”: The Pope sends, the King authorizes, the Monastery establishes the Church in England. After that, all bets are off. We see the fights between local elections/kings and the Pope (St. Chad versus St. Wilfred); between Kings and Pope/Local popularity (Henry II versus St. Thomas Beckett); and the “final” showdown between the King and Pope, with greater or lesser local popularity, in the English Reformation. This isn’t the only place we see such a matter. On the continent, the same tension exists, not just the “Investiture Controversy” or the “Conciliar Movement” but also with the monasteries: Sometimes monasteries in France, for example, side with a king, sometimes against a king and with the Pope.

Magna Carta establishes that the Church of England “shall be free” – free with all its ancient rights and privileges. But the optimum thing I think that we should always remember, and history bears this out, is the Church “shall be free.” Remember that there are three different organs or “estates” of power in the Church: Patriarch, King and Monastery/Chapter House/Local Parish. Each one can serve or interfere with the ultimate mission of the Church, to proclaim the Gospel. Each one did and does. That is why the Church (which like the “Jerusalem Above” is free and not in bondage) constantly bobs and weaves throughout the middle ages, for the sake of the Gospel. She still does.

How does this matter for today? The Roman juridical view (and with greater or lesser extent the Protestant view) is that the Church is an organization with Sacraments. The Orthodox/Celtic/Monastic model is that the Church is a Sacrament with organization (and this view, although I do not believe it is his idea originally, I credit to His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA). This does not set aside the importance of Holy Orders, but remember that the Rule of St. Benedict establishes no regula concerning the Blessed Sacrament, the Saying of Mass, Baptism, etc. There is, in fact, much more in the Celtic monastic rules about the Mass than there is in The Benedictine Rule. We know that monasteries have Sacraments, but as the Church it is “a Sacrament with organization”. The Monastery should for the sake of good order submit to the local bishop (or under unusual circumstances – for the sake of its freedom to be a sign proclaiming the Gospel - to a Patriarch or King). Submitting to a King or Prince is ultimately what the Lutheran monasteries did. A monastery while regulated by a bishop also regulates (in a very specific sense) a bishop, in that it provides many Bishops and Priests their regula, their rule, training and discipline of prayer, and often (and always in the Eastern Church) the Bishop is a monk. Historically, the King allows admittance to preachers to preach in his land, and this is another means of the checks and balances (mutual-regulation) of power.

Now back to the matter of the Magna Carta: It had a grand influence on the English Bill of Rights, then the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It also had an influence on the American Church. For America, England’s Parliament and King had not been serving the people well; neither had it served the Church well. At first, the Church of England (especially the Bishop of London) was hesitant to provide Bishops to America; later America did not seem to want Bishops. The result was that no one was confirmed without going to England, nobody was ordained without a boat ride either. Here two organs and estates of the Church (King and Episcopate) were defective in their serving the mission of the Church in America. This resulted in attempts such as Methodism and others to secure an Episcopate for America. In fact, the American Church situation prior to the establishment of the Protestant Episcopal Church is interesting because it is a diocesan-less missionary effort: It lacks local Episcopacy, is overseen by the Bishop of London, helped by societies, and “established” by colonial governments, but it remains a Sacrament with pseudo-organization, not an organization with sacraments.

Eventually, we see the local effort in which Samuel Seabury is sent off to be consecrated by the Non-Juring church, itself something of an organizational anomaly. This is looked down upon as it was an “irregular” election by ten missionaries of the Society for Propagating the Gospel who elected Seabury and off he went on a boat ride to find consecration. But, in this sense, it is no less irregular than a monastery electing a bishop; in fact, if you consider the connection between the Celtic monasteries and mission work and the missionary nature of the SPG, it bears an uncanny resemblance. Clearly, this election of Seabury corresponds to the local/monastic-type organ/estate of the Church. Seabury's election was looked down upon because it was an unelected “representation” of the Church and was looked down upon by Bishop White, who was elected under the principles of representative democracy. Even White's election, however, is still an example of the local organ of the Church.

We have a continuation of this in the “Continuing Anglican” model. Fast forwarding, the early continuing bishops in America were elected by similar small groups, for example Bishop Dees. And such bishops were early looked upon by the “Congress of St. Louis” - that body which formed the Continuing Anglican churches in North America - as the early Episcopalians looked upon the election of Samuel Seabury, an election by people who didn’t significantly represent anybody. But then, what made the “Congress of St. Louis” much better than the election of Seabury by missionaries of the SPG? The Congress was, after all, an assembly of members of societies, sometimes the delegates of parishes.

Going forward, while the role of the English Parliament in the election of Bishops should not be disregarded as a legitimate “representation” of the people and, therefore, something of the outworking of Magna Carta, it cannot continue to represent the English Christians in the election of Bishops. As the United Kingdom ceases to be a Christian nation, the whole concept that Richard Hooker pronounced that every citizen of the commonwealth is a member of the Church of England cannot be maintained when such a majority of the citizenry are apathetic or in apostasy. Even Prince Charles says that he is the “Defender of Faiths”, and so the English Parliament must become when it has to represent the People, coming as they do from such diverse backgrounds.

All of this is to say that as England and elsewhere move further into Post-Christianity, the principles of Magna Carta can again shine forth, that the Church of England and the Anglican tradition, unhampered by Pope or King, can locally be free to elect bishops and preach the Gospel in synod-communion with other bishops. The English Monarchy has ceased to be a place of protection and, for us in America, ceased to be a long time ago. There are but two courses of action, communion with like-minded bishops in synod-communion or submission to Rome. Either way, the Church will do what She has always done, seek political connection and protection in whatever way will serve and not hinder the proclamation of the Gospel. 

This may not strike us as the most romantic or comforting of possibilities for the future. We all have a tendency to shed the most idealistic light on the past instead of recognizing that Christians of the past faced the same uncertain future that we do. Yet "ideals" of organization and stability aside, we must recognize that the most important ideal is that the Church be what She needs to be and proclaim what She needs to proclaim. Making that happen, through all the political chaos, is what has always made the life of the Church a romance and an adventure. 

Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.

Domestic Servants, Day Care & a little bit about Duggar-ism

Grateful to my wonderful wife for our discussions which have led to this article.

The idea of having a domestic servant today would be inconceivable for most people, especially for a pastor’s family. Can you imagine if such were the case at your congregation’s parsonage? What would people say? Wouldn’t they say, “How much are we paying our pastor? I don’t get a servant, why should they?” Yet, historically, many pastors had such so they could minister better. The Book of Common Prayer presumes such in stating that in family prayers the whole household, including servants, should be assembled twice daily for prayers. Luther’s Small Catechism presumes it, not for everybody, but it isn’t even a matter for blinking at. “Master” Luther could be wrong but then Scripture, Old Testament and New, presumes people have servants as well.

We might say that people today don’t have such, unless they are rich. But all sorts of folks have all sorts of domestic help. They have landscapers, plumbers, house cleaners and day-cares. All of these are modern forms of the old-fashioned “live in” help. Yet the old-fashioned “live in” help is today considered snobby, aristocratic, and down-right inappropriate – and movies like The Help definitely don’t help. Oddly, in much of conservative Christianity the external “help”: the landscaper, plumber, house cleaner and day-care is not quite the thing either.

There is a strange concept running around much of conservative Christianity that presumes that a household should be self-sufficient, except for help from friends. Where did this come from? It isn’t from the Puritan work ethic because, well, some Puritans had servants… and sometimes slaves. And in this phenomenon of self-sufficiency the Pastor and his wife are supposed to take the lead and be an example to the rest of the flock. Folks, it’s exhausting and it isn’t quite his job.

It is interesting that for a culture so committed to anti-Communism, such a Marxist (anti-bourgeois and egalitarian) ideal would become the ideal too. After all, the Free Enterprise System says that civilization has a division of labor. The plumber can fix the sink faster than you can and move on to the next house, so pay him. If he charges too much, find another plumber. That’s Free Market. Yet the idea espoused in much of conservative Christianity is that the Christian husband must become all things to all aspects of the masculine. He must mow the lawn, fix the sink, chop the firewood to save money on utilities, and bring the bacon. He should train his sons to do the same. The wife must clean house, wipe nose, cook meal and pop out children and never show a bit of frazzled-ness. She should train her daughters to do the same. Training children is great and saving money is great, but it could be said as well that “time is money” and there is plenty of training to go around even when the “help” has left. I do not judge.

To lack any of these skills is looked upon as compromise and inadequacy in many circles. If you use a day care or don’t home school, you don’t want to raise a Christian home. If the wife goes to work, even part time, she is a feminist. In fact, in a reactionary movement against Feminism, much of conservative Christianity has fallen into a trap from which it is likely to suffer for some time because we have been reactionary AND because we have looked to Scripture for all sorts of things: hints at the qualities of a godly woman, hints at what the head of a household looks like, but we have forgotten the blessed liberty with which Christ has made us free.

There is nothing wrong with Christian couples giving other Christian couples some anecdotal and loving advice. There is something incredibly wrong with the judgmental cookie-cutter way in which some circles wish to build up a holy America (read that, “dictatorial cult”), instead of a community which lives under the Word of God. In the Christian community, one is free to home-school, public school, classical school, boarding school, military school or parochial school to one’s heart’s desire. You are free to do so. Christ does not condemn you. In the Christian community, you are free to use a day care, allow your wife to go to work, use electric heat, or seek to limit the number of children that you have in the ways and under the circumstances sanctioned by Scripture, when investigated seriously and in good conscience. You are also free to prayerfully have as many children as you want. Christ does not condemn you; neither should the Church. Good counsel should be sought, but lifestyle choices will rarely be uniform.

Now for some reading this, my statements are obvious and they would never have thought otherwise. But for some reading this, you know exactly the sort of culture or tendencies illustrated. Often in conservative circles, we have heard “different strokes for different folks” and “judge not lest ye be judged” used to the detriment of our society so much that we have forgotten that there is a sense in which this is true. We have watched as congregations are torn apart over things not quite as silly as which color the carpet should be, but other matters such as day-care, homeschooling, vaccination, and breast-feeding, Sunday school or home catechism, or whether or not children should be in the sanctuary or in the nursery.

Ultimately, such judgmental behavior comes down to three things: 1) Fear 2) Pride 3) Envy. Young parents are hypersensitive and so one way to defend one’s practice is to heap condemnation on the opposite opinion. (How often does a defense of homeschooling turn into an attack on public school? Beloved, this ought not to be.) Older parents and grandparents are fearful that mistakes be made, and can be overbearing.

Pride is manifestly obvious; people think their way is better. And Envy is particularly dangerous as it sees the good that is produced in another, different situation and suspects it of evil and, ultimately, seeks to destroy it. This happens when we see a different family dynamic and a different way of handling it and suspect that it is wrong because it is not our way of handling it. In such a scenario, every short-coming often becomes a reason to pick apart another family and every triumph in that family becomes a reason to seek further for flaws. This is Envy.

For a pastor, these issues are tiresome; they tear apart congregations and they hurt the pastor’s own family. The pastor is tempted to become the sage of all wisdom on all issues. (Such has always been a temptation.) But it leads families into slavery to the cultic pastor’s various opinions. It is not the wise application of God’s Word to a variety of families in the congregation, a sign of real pastoral care. It is not wisdom at all. It is the way of folly.

Finally, some advice to young pastors from a pastor and a pastor’s son: If you need to hire some help, budget it and do it. It isn’t a sign of failure on your part or your wife’s. Your job is to help others in their chaotic lives. It is not a part of your duties to endure domestic chaos as a result. Your home should be a haven of blessing and of peace, ready, if you feel called, to entertain on a moment’s notice. But not all pastoral personalities are personalities well suited to the task of constant maintenance; indeed, few are. And people are constantly bringing their chaos to call, which distracts us from maintaining our domicile. Just because other pastors and pastor's wives you know are able to manage it does not require you to. If a congregation condemns you for it, then work them through the issue, live with it or find another congregation - because if they aren't happy about this, they will probably never be happy with you.

Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.

The Ad Orientem Mass is the most intimate for both sexes.

East-facing celebrations of the Holy Eucharist have gotten a lot of grief for being uninviting and lacking in intimacy. After all, how inappropriate is it that the priest spends most of the time with his back to you? How rude! Yet research may indicate that this is actually far more intimate for both sexes than the celebration style in which the priest stands behind the altar facing the congregation.

In Love & Respect by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs, a Christian book on male/female relationships, Dr. Eggerichs cites a work, Gender & Discourse by Deborah Tannen and explains a study in that work as follows:

“Research studies confirm the male preference for shoulder-to-shoulder communication with little or no talking. In one study, researchers performed a series of tests on males and females from four age groups: second graders, sixth graders, tenth graders, and twenty-five-year-olds. Instructions for each pair of females and each pair of males were exactly the same: enter a room, sit down on two chairs, and talk, if you wish.

“As the test proceeded, every pair of females, no matter what their ages, reacted the same way. They turned their chairs toward each other, or at least they turned toward each other, so they could be face to face, lean forward, and talk. The males reacted differently. They did not turn toward each other in any way. They sat side by side, shoulder to shoulder, looking straight ahead except for an occasional glance at each other.

“Because the females turned toward each other or literally turned their chairs to face one another for direct, face-to-face contact, the researchers assumed they would have the most intimate conversations. Actually, the most open and transparent of all the pairs, male or female, were the tenth-grade boys.”

Now this is really amazing research and indicates that what has often been derided as silly, insecure “Wallflower” behavior in teenage boys is actually quite bonding, like lining up in para-military organizations or monasteries or among altar boys. It is intimate, more intimate than the comparable female communication preferences.

One might quickly turn this to the debate as to how the Mass should be celebrated. We were likely informed, with the same sort of prejudiced, overconfident, psychoanalytic bravado as those conducting the above research, that “obviously” the priest facing the people from behind the altar would be more intimate, forgetting one minor detail: there is a piece of furniture between the priest and congregation. At the same time, the same sort of folks were telling teachers and bosses that they shouldn’t have the desk between themselves and their students and employees. Why? Because it made them authoritarian and cut down on open and frank communication, or so I’ve gathered. So which is it? Is having a priest standing high up and turning his back to the congregation authoritarian and distant or is having a desk/table between him and the congregation authoritarian and distant, or should we just get rid of the holy table/altar altogether?

Certainly the final option, removing the altar altogether, would be the most favored by some, but let us analyze the East-facing position for its value at providing intimate and meaningful worship for both sexes. First of all, the traditional setting with altar boys either ranging along the chancel or sanctuary walls or facing the altar along with the priest provides young men, at that critical age of second to tenth grade, the opportunity for extremely intimate bonding, an esprit de corps. The same is provided when the priest is flanked at the altar by deacon and subdeacon at certain points of the traditional Western mass. Second of all, the priest will turn around at certain points of the mass providing the female congregation face-to-face communication, without, I might add, a piece of furniture in the way. The men in the nave do have the opportunity to feel intimate with the rest of the congregation simply by standing next to them, shoulder-to-shoulder.

Nobody could doubt this when observing traditional liturgies, even in congregations where there is an iconostasis or chancel screen obstructing part or all of the "view". Nobody who has seen the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, with young men, sometimes as young as four or five, joined in worship with older men shoulder-to-shoulder in the chancel could think this lacking intimacy. Nobody can doubt this when watching the liturgies of the Malankara Orthodox with similar young men standing facing East with the priest in para-military formation. But in all of these Eastern rites, the priest is sure to have several intimate face-to-face communications with those in the nave. He will make an appearance from time to time, either to come to the King’s Doors to give a blessing or facing towards the people in gentle exchanges or loving exhortations.  

Thus, despite what many have been spouting or assuming for years, the Ad Orientem celebration is, in fact, the most intimate possibility, providing the kind of communication styles for which both sexes desire and long. To place the priest behind the altar is to reduce the male-to-male bonding during the administration of the Eucharist and to place a barrier between the priest and the female congregation during open face-to-face communications, thus reducing the appeal for female worshipers as well. By this we can see that an East-facing celebration is the better used when trying to draw both sexes to the Holy Mass. 

Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.

Photos from the Consecration of Bishop William Francis Burns (ACC)

The priest associate at my parish, Fr. Don Edelmann, is a first generation continuing Anglican priest. He recently gave me some photos that scanned of his bishop's consecration. The bishop is the Rt. Rev'd William Francis Burns of the ACC's Diocese of the Resurrection.

A friend told me that there is an old legend that a prominent "Episcopalian turned Continuing Church priest" who was expecting to be elevated to this position and was passed over decided at that point to go to Rome, where he is now a noted traditionalist convert who is featured on EWTN from time to time!

Anyway, I have attached the photos of the consecration of Bp. Burns here along with a later photo of some of the clergy of that diocese with Bishops Burns and Kleppinger. Enjoy!

“I had rather be a door-keeper…” (Psalm 84:10) – A Word on Ushers.

I often say to folks that if I could be paid full time with benefits just to be a thurifer, I would. But then, for some monks and for some gentlemen in bowler hats at Oxford and Cambridge their whole lives they spend as “porters”, doorkeepers. Doorkeeper is an ancient minor order, no less than a lay reader, or an acolyte. It is something that should be taken seriously and, for the most part is. But how can it be done better? I remember in high school going to the local Pentecostal mega-church. There was a closet not unlike where the acolyte robes are kept where every gentleman had in his size a maroon usher’s blazer. I was impressed. I have heard raving reviews of the ushers at St. Michael’s in Charleston. Again, what can we do to do a better job?

After all, it’s the first contact. “You never have a second chance to make a first impression.” It doesn’t just take skill to take up the collection (repressing the urge to check out how much is going in or who is giving). It takes far more skill to gauge the person coming into church, not simply to press a bulletin into his or her hand and mumble a greeting, but to figure out exactly what is needed, where they would like to be seated.

It takes prayer. Just as the priest prepares before going to the altar and hopefully the acolytes, just as the altar guild prays before their holy duties are engaged upon, perhaps even more so should the usher saturate himself with prayer, that is, if we are to take evangelism seriously. How are you, after all, to make sure the proper welcome is given, the bulletin is pressed, the nursery is pointed out, the best place for the hearing impaired is hinted at, or the warmest or coolest places for the chilly or warm looking, all in about 5 seconds?

The Usher should be well aware of the latest procedures concerning how evangelism is to take place. How important is your guest registry? Is there a place for email on it? How is your “email capture” as the sales world calls it? How do you point out where the Nursery is without making the young family think that you don’t welcome young people at the worship service? This takes tact indeed! And only prayer, I think, will pull it off. That and practice.

I was always impressed with the ushers growing up. They were serious, usually men of military experience, conscious of the importance of their task. Yet as they grow older, have they passed on their skills and the tricks of their trade to a younger generation? I wonder. Mentoring, too, is important if these traditions are to continue.

Finally, consider having a few of Our Prayer and Praise on hand to hand to young people. It may be out of print (I am not sure). It may be hiding somewhere in the parish library, but it is a fabulous version of the 1928 Prayer Book for children. There are other great resources like that. Whatever it is, it does no good just sitting in the parish library not being used and, perhaps if we start using them again, some continuing Anglican jurisdiction will think of republishing it. Have some kids inserts from the Traditional Anglican Resources available or some coloring books. Also, think about having a few of the large print 1928 BCPs on hand for those who look as if they might need them – and this, again, must be done with care after much prayer. The large print 1928 (for weakening eyes) is now available through the Anglican Province of America.

Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.

Reflections on Parish Ministry

One thing that our suffragan bishop told me years ago that I have never forgotten was that it takes thick skin to make it in parish ministry. He was commenting on a priest he knew who excelled in academic gifts and personal holiness, but who, in his opinion, would probably never make it so well in parish ministry due to his thin skin and lack of worldly experience.

Parish ministry....

Curacies are pretty easy in my opinion. I have served two of them. The main thing about being a curate is knowing your place. The curate's job is support the rector who is his direct boss. The rector is the only person in the parish that the curate has to worry about keeping happy. And whenever anyone asks the curate of his opinion on some matter at the parish the curate's only response should be, "My opinion is that of the rector." The only problem a level-headed curate may have to deal with is a rector who is nuts or who is unfair and unethical. Thanks be to God, that is not a problem in the APA.

Being the rector or priest-in-charge is another ball game. The buck stops with you. Managing the personalities, eccentricities, and expectations of your people can be highly difficult... even annoying. One group people thinks the service is too long, others say it is fine, some say it is not long enough. Some people love incense, others like it sometimes, some hate sometimes, and others hate it all the time. One group loves chant, another hates it. Still others - lifelong Episcopalians - are not familiar with the word "chant." The same goes with music, sermon length, activities, politics, etc. While most Anglican parishes are small they are incredibly diverse, so managing that type of diversity, while keeping your eye on the prize of leading people to salvation in Jesus Christ, and keeping the place afloat, can be incredibly complex. Needless to say, not everyone is cut out to handle this.

Rectors need to develop a vision for their parish and have the guts to chart the course and make it happen, while keeping as many people on board as possible, and also, most importantly, maintaining fidelity to the words of the Ordinal. Some rectors are too heavy-handed, and their "my way or the highway" attitude ends up undermining them and hurting their parish and the ministry of the gospel. Others are too mamby-pamby and let cliques of people, or deep-pocketed parishioners run the show. He has to be focused on his mission and what is needed in his parish and chart the course and remain steady with it, despite criticism and even hatred and anger. That is what Jesus did in his ministry! So rectors, who minister in his person, must do the same.