Dumb Things Churches Do #151: How to NOT Attract Young Families to Your Parish

When I arrived at St. Alban's in December of 2010 with a wife and young toddler in tow I was shocked to see that the church did not have a changing table.

Keep in mind this church had two previous rectors who both had children while pastoring the parish, as well as postulants whose wives bore children while they were attending the church, and of course, the occasional parishioners who had kids, and friends and family of parishioners that sometimes brought babies to church. What did all of these women do when they had to change their kids' diapers?

If you go into any store or restaurant, or even a truck stop, there is a changing table for kids. There are changing tables everywhere in the world except, it seems, in some continuing Anglican parishes. Many churches complain about not being able to attract young families. Why complain about not being able to attract them when you don't provide for their most basic needs, such as by having a changing table for babies?

So if you wonder why young families are not coming to your parish, think about their needs and put yourself in their shoes. Is you church meeting their basic needs? If not, then perhaps that is a good place to start in terms of attracting young families.

We now have a nice changing table in the ladies room. While it obviously does not attract families to the church in and of itself, if a family with a baby does come, and they need to change a diaper, there is a nice place for them to do it. That shows that we care about them and their children.

Traditional Anglican Small Church Ministry Ideas: Youth Confirmation Classes

I hope to occasionally share some ideas I have had in my years in ministry that may be helpful to other Anglican and liturgically-oriented churches. This is not to imply that I am some kind of expert, especially as I have not been in full time parish ministry for a long time (only about eight years).  Rather, these are nothing more than little things I have done that I have found to be helpful and successful in the parishes in which I have served.

JGA+

YOUTH CONFIRMATION CLASSES:

A few years ago I began going to the houses of children preparing for confirmation to give them instruction. I found that I just did not have time to meet with a small group of confirmands out of all of our church kids that may show up on Sunday mornings. (I typically meet with all the kids from church every Sunday after Mass... more on that down the road.) And furthermore, the Sunday attendance of some confirmands was rather sporadic due to parents' schedules, so even if I had the time and the staff to meet with a small group of our kids for the purpose of confirmation instruction, a few might not show up for a week or two, and thus miss out on something. So I began going to the kids' houses during the week. This has worked really well for us and paid off in a number of ways. Here's a few.

1) During the summer months, when we typically offer instruction, parents are anxious for their kids to do anything productive... especially if it was of a spiritual nature. The parents were thrilled that I came over and told me to come whenever I wanted to. This worked out better with my schedule and the parents. Parents love the flexibility too.

2) I get a chance to meet the entire family and build relationships not only with the confirmands but also with the extended family and even with neighbors. Thus, the confirmation class becomes something of a weekly pastoral visit. In the case of one family it resulted in the entire family joining the parish and a believer's baptism (the first I ever did).

3) The whole family gets instructed. I meet with the kids in close proximity to the rest of the family, not only for purposes of pastoral integrity and responsibility, but also so the everyone within earshot can hear what I am teaching. So other family members in addition to the kids are listening in and soaking in the catholic and apostolic faith as presented in the Prayer Book catechism.

4) It gives me a chance to see how the family lives and relates to each other at home. This goes very far in dispelling my own assumptions about a family's life, and also allows me to see how they relate to each other outside of Sunday church services. I love seeing family pictures, meeting the family pet, and more, as it helps me draw close to the family and gives me insight as to how I can do a better job of being their pastor.

5) The kids love having the priest over at their house! They find it interesting to see the priest in his collar and with his Prayer Book outside of Sunday services, and in their own home.

6) It gives me a chance to work with each kid individually and discuss questions and issues pertinent to them as individuals. Kids are very interested in the faith and have lots of questions! This gives me a chance to really discuss some good things with them.

I generally meet with them once a week for half an hour. We use only the Cathechism and Offices of Instruction from the Prayer Book. I print up packets with those offices in them and use the backside to draw diagrams, make comments and notes, etc. They are only required to memorize the Lord's Prayer, Creed, and Ten Commandments and be very familiar with the Catechism and Offices of Instruction. In other words, I keep it very basic, because the assumption is that they will continue attending Mass (most do) and so their education will continue with youth Sunday School (again, more on that down the road). The Cathechism and Offices of Instruction provide a great jumping off point to discuss polity, sacraments, etc., so in no way do I feel limited by using only the Prayer Book for Confirmation prep.

This has worked very well for us at St. Alban's... a small church with just me on staff. If you are looking for an alternative way to provide instruction for Confirmation consider taking classes to the kids during the week! It may work out well for you too.

Dear Friends, I wrote these meditations last night for Good Friday services. But due to the birth of my first-born son, I was not able to give them. So I am sharing them here.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

How often do we begin to say, “I did not know what I was doing”? Is it true? Is it a lie? Our Lord seems to think that it is true that we know not what we do in some sense, for He cannot lie. In the Garden of Eden, the Serpent said to Eve concerning eating of the Apple of our Destruction, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Do we then know? What do we know? Do we know when something is wrong? Sometimes. Do we know what is good? Sometimes. Do we know the effects of our sins? Sometimes. Do we know the effects of our sins long after we are gone, unto the third and fourth generation? Perhaps, but it is unlikely.

            Life is not for knowing; it is for living. God gave life to Adam and Eve so that they could live life; not so that they could know so many many things. What then of truth? Are not we to know truth? But truth is to be observed, to be adored, to be loved. God had already given Adam and Eve the opportunity to know Truth, to live with Truth, to observe Truth and to love Truth. They were allowed to walk with God in the Garden, the God Who is Truth. But for the sake of knowing, a certain kind of knowing, a sinful kind of knowing, Adam and Eve were tossed away from Truth into a state that we are presently in, a state of not really knowing Good or Evil.

            If the Serpent’s promise to Eve was true, that she would know Good and Evil, why did the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve spit upon the laboring Christ, the Truth incarnate, the Truth revealed, lumbering up that weary hill, paraded before all the World. Why did they not know what they saw and fall down and worship at the foot of that Cross? It was not flesh and blood (that same flesh and blood born in the iniquity of Adam and Eve) that could reveal the Truth incarnate to the people of God, the Jews, but rather the Spirit of God. It was the Spirit of God after all (not flesh and blood) that revealed to St. Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

            Therefore, we must be very very careful as we observe our fellow sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. We must not presume to know anything, to know the faults or weaknesses, to guess what it is that anyone is thinking. This is presumptuous unless it is revealed to us by God through prayer, fasting, penance and a life of holiness: It is presumptuous because if it is not revealed to us by the Spirit of God, then it may well be a lie of Satan. For if we do not even know what we it is that we do when we sin, how can we know for certain why it is that people hurt us the way that they do.

            Can we imagine what the world would be like if everybody today, this Good Friday, apologized to each other for all the wrong assumptions and the wrong acts that were done in that false-knowledge? How much un-Truth and hurt could we undo?    

            How can we learn to forgive as Jesus forgave? We can do so in praying, fasting, penance and a life of holiness lived in the Spirit of God. We can do so by entering in our prayer life into what is known as the Cloud of Unknowing; that Cloud in which God revealed Himself to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is here that we Un-know everything we have known before and start with observing and loving Truth, in the Person of Jesus Christ and then working outward from that Point of Reference, that foundation on which the whole Universe lies.

            Another thing that we can do to forgive is to remember that the person who has offended us is under far greater guilt, condemnation, and punishment, so much so that our lack of forgiving them cannot ever add to that weight. To this end, Fr. John of Kronstadt, a great Russian priest of the 19^th Century has a word to say:

“Every person that does any evil, that gratifies any passion, is sufficiently punished by the evil he has committed, by the passion he serves, but chiefly by the fact that he withdraws himself from God, and God withdraws Himself from him: it would therefore be insane and most inhuman to nourish anger against such a man; it would be the same as to drown a sinking man, or to push into the fire a person who is already being devoured by flame. To such a man, as to one in danger of perishing, we must show double love, and pray fervently to God for him; not judging him, not rejoicing at his misfortune.”

Let us pray a prayer from the Compline Office of the Byzantine Rite:

Forgive, O Lord, those that hate us and have injured us. Do good to those that do good to us.

            Grant to our brethren and kinsfolk all their desires unto salvation and eternal life.

            Visit those that are sick and heal them;

            Be with those that travel by land (air) or water;

            Forgive the sins of those that do us service or are kind to us.

            Remember, O Lord, our fathers and brethren that have fallen asleep; and grant them rest where the light of thy countenance shineth.

            Remember also, O Lord, us thy sinful, humble, and unworthy servants: enlighten our eyes with the light of thy wisdom, and guide us in the way of thy commandments.

            For thou art blessed for evermore. Amen.

“Woman, behold thy Son! Son, behold thy mother!”

What tongue can tell,

What intellect can grasp

The heavy weight of your desolation,

Blessed Virgin?

You were present at all these events,

Standing close by and participating in them

In every way,

This blessed and most holy flesh –

Which you so chastely conceived,

So sweetly nourished

And fed with your milk,

Which you so often held on your lap,

And kissed with your lips –

You actually gazed upon

With your bodily eyes

Now torn by the blows of the scourges,

Now pierced by the points of the thorns,

Now struck by the reed,

Now beaten by hands and fists,

Now pierced by nails and fixed to the wood of the cross,

And torn by its own weight as it hung there,

Now mocked in every way,

Finally made to drink gall and vinegar

But with the eye of your mind

You saw that divine soul

Filled with gall of every form of bitterness,

Now groaning in spirit

Now quaking with fear,

Now wearied,

Now in agony,

Now in anxiety

Now in confusion,

Now oppressed by sadness and sorrow

Partly because of his most sensitive response

To bodily pain,

Partly because of his most fervent zeal

For the divine honour taken away by sin,

Partly because of his pity poured out upon wretched men,

Partly because of his compassion for you,

His most sweet mother;

As the sword pierced the depths of your heart,

When with devoted eyes

He looked upon you standing before him

And spoke to you these loving words:

“Woman, behold your son,”

In order to console in its trial your soul,

Which he knew had been more deeply pierced

By a sword of compassion

Than if you had suffered

In your own body.

In these words by the Medieval Scholar Bonaventure, we see before us the vision of the Virgin Mary, standing staring at the Cross of our Savior. Her eyes behold with every depth of emotion the Savior no longer in the crib but crucified for our sakes. Once, as a child, with the weight of His body, He tumbled forward or backward in his meager attempts to walk and she was there to pick Him up. This time, as the weight of His body drags along the edge of the Cross, she cannot pick Him up; she cannot keep the hurt from happening; she cannot pick Him up, at least, not until He is dead.

            Many times in Scripture we see the word “behold”: We see the words of Isaiah, perhaps aptly spoken in Advent: “O Zion, that brings good tidings, get you up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that brings good tidings, lift up your voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!” We hear it with the words of John Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of God – Ecce Agnus Dei” We hear it ring from the lips of Pontius Pilate before a crowd clamoring for Christ’s blood: “Behold, the Man! – Ecce homo!” But this Ecce, this Behold, beheld by us today at the foot of the Cross, is etched more deeply on our hearts. It becomes a sign of the Trinity: John, Mary, Jesus, all looking, beholding one another in contemplation, all beholding each other in love. One suffers, the other two look on.

As with man, so it is with God. Two Persons of the one God, Father and Holy Spirit, look on as the Son suffers. In this one act of Love, heaven and earth mirror each other. On Earth, two humans behold God-made-human suffer unto death. In heaven, the First person of the Trinity, the Father, and the Third person, the Holy Spirit, equally observe; They observe that Middle Person, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, standing in the middle between heaven and earth. In Christ, the two unite, the two beholds, the two Ecce become one and foreshadow the New Heaven and New Earth that shall surely come as a result of this singular act of Love. 

To the Wonder (2012) - A Review

My wife and I grabbed this film from Redbox some weeks ago and found it a fascinating movie. It has the same cinematographer as The New World (2005), Emmanuel Lubezki. The movie is unique in that there is very little dialogue and what there is is not quite conclusive, leaving the viewer to decide what is going on. It becomes like a piece of art in a museum about which one asks, what was the intent?

            
There seemed to be many issues covered, but those who reviewed the movie came to very few of the same conclusions about the issues, or even the storyline, as my wife and I or, I might add, each other. There are issues of Environmental responsibility and Capitalism, issues of Male/Female relationships, Faith. One of the more striking possibilities is whether an abortion destroys the relationship between Neil (Ben Affleck) and Jane (Rachel McAdams). Leading up to Neil and Jane’s immoral relationship, there is a noticeable attempt on Jane’s part to get Neil to take the lead in the relationship. Jane tries to get Neil to pray with her, read the Bible with her, but all that they seem to do is fall headlong into bed with each other. Neil also has notably modern-guy issues taking the lead with his live-in girlfriend, Marina. He can’t seem to speak the words, “please stay”. In fact, the realities of a contraceptive, infertile and immoral world might be the shortfall of many a person's happiness in this movie. 

            
Aside from Neil’s faith, which seems to do better under the tutelage of Fr. Quintana (Javier Bardem) later in the movie, Fr. Quintana appears to have some issues with his faith, but they aren’t quite as much of a crisis as the various critics (or those trying to sell the movie) wish to advertise. No, actually, Fr. Quintana’s interior-dialogue is really profoundly that of a parish priest who is doing a good job.

            
Fr. Quintana does have difficulties with parish life and remarks how dry and empty he feels in a prayer of the heart that is almost ceaseless; a sort of kenotic response to the graces of the Priesthood. You see him hesitate at homes trying to determine whether or not to knock, but the crisis-like hesitation is just as likely the Holy Spirit telling him not to knock. He interacts with Pentecostals who try to teach him about speaking in tongues or how to be joyful. He interacts with jailbirds and jail-bound criminals who want to pretend to be repentant or are - God knows. All the way through, any priest is able to relate to almost every incident. On his way out of the parish, having been transferred to another church, an apparently-autistic man says to him, “but who is going to preach the Gospel?” and that tells you of his success. In fact, his success is apparent in the mesmerizing and insightful snippets of sermons that he preaches to a sparsely-filled nave.

            
The basic lesson here, I think, is the fundamentally segmented story of Man or a man. Whether in the various “McMansions” on the Oklahoma prairie or the almost-dead downtown of an Oklahoma “city” or the snippets in the life of the priest or the tourist-filled and monk-abandoned Abbey of Mont St. Michel, in all of this, the significance is segmented into almost-clearly-defined moments of influence, decision and of grace - much the same as that interior autobiography of St. Augustine, his Confessions: Those segmented decisions are almost predetermined by the character formed by other decisions. Maybe that is what the Director of this film is trying to portray.

            
But what the Director stumbled onto, intentionally or inadvertently, is the reality of the Priesthood: To be there for the snippets, the segments, in others’ lives while the endless tedium of insane chaos and mindless boredom (often in geographic locations where we feel estranged and awash) threaten to drive one mad and mask the moments of grace that God is showering upon His people and that when one feels empty and dry the grace of the Priesthood is still flowing out into the world; in fact, it may be flowing better the emptier you feel. To touch the World with the grace of the Priesthood is to feel “virtue” going out of one (Luke 8:46), but to be emptied is but to be filled again and again to be emptied. Indeed, the failure of any priesthood as a man is very likely God's victory through the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Col. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:10; 2 Cor. 11:30). 

Some Preconditions for Valid Theological Exploration

Recently I read a fascinating, relatively new biography about Bishop James A. Pike. As most people know, Pike was a brilliant and charismatic man who was born Roman Catholic, drifted into agnosticism, and later returned to the faith as an episcopalian layman. Of interest to continuing Anglican churchmen, Pike was a member of and first married at St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood, which is now a continuing church. (He eventually divorced this woman and later married two more times. The status of his first marriage and whether he actually got an ecclesiastical annulment was never resolved.) Also of interest to continuers were his run ins with the future Bishop Morse (APCK) who was a priest in his diocese.

Pike had a very successful career as a lawyer and was a highly educated and noted legal scholar before taking Holy Orders in the Diocese of Washington, being ordained by Bishop Angus Dunn. Interestingly, he never took a theological degree, though he did take some classes at Virginia, General, and Union. This, like his divorce, would later come back to haunt him when he was nominated for Bishop of California.

Because of the heterodox theological positions he began to hold Pike faced four "heresy" trials.... though they were not actually formal ecclesiastical trials, but more like investigative commissions. It was during these "trials" that he raised the interesting and important question of what level of theological exploration was allowed in the Episcopal Church at the time. While it seems to me that that is a valid question to be asked in any church I would suggest that there are certain preconditions that are necessary for authentic and valid theological exploration. These are just a few that I have come up with, and most of them are interrelated.

First, one has to have a proper theological education, and be a proven scholar who has mastered the major movements and theologians of the tradition. Pike was more educated in the field of law than in theology. Though influenced by first-rate theologians, such as William Temple, and though he later proved himself to be a gifted theologian - at least early on - he was certainly not distinctive in this field in the way Ramsey, Mascall, or even Francis Hall were. Very tellingly, these men who were much more gifted as theologians than Pike didn't engage in any major theological speculation.

Second, theological speculation must always proceed from within the trajectory of the great catholic tradition and seek to build on it and further articulate it. It should not seek redefine it, or in a spirit of cultural and historical arrogance, do away with the wisdom of earlier ages. Novelty, as St. Vincent of Lerins reminds us, is one of the elements of heterodoxy. Pike seemed all too eager as he went on to jettison the tradition for the sake of making a name from himself. What is fascinating though was that even Pike's strange views became passe during his lifetime, as the "death of God" movement began.

Third, one should have proven experience in the praxis of ministry. Theological reflection never occurs within a vacuum. Just as it takes place within the theological tradition of the Church, so it does within the ministry, liturgy, and worship of the Church. The insights gained from the life of the Church and/or being part of a religious community shed a huge amount of light on the theological mind. The reality about Pike was that he never really had much pastoral experience. The biography notes how he stayed in places for what were really short amounts of time and the only parish of which he was rector was in Poughkeepsie... and that for a very brief time.

Fourth, extreme caution should be taken as far as appropriating the ideas of new theologians, particularly those who are alien to one's own tradition. Concepts and categories from one tradition do not always easily translate into another tradition. Pike was an avid student of Paul Tillich, who was of a liberal Lutheran tradition and also hugely influenced by Heidegger. Many of Tillich's positions are fundamentally at odds with the Anglican tradition, governed as it is by the notion of "lex orandi, lex crdendi" and fidelity to patristic and medieval tradition. The way Pike and others recklessly imported the theological speculations of Tillich has, in my opinion, proven very bad for the Church.

Fifth, the motivations for theological inquiry and exploration must be carefully evaluated. Much reckless theological speculation proceeds from the standpoint that the great tradition no longer speaks to contemporary man and/or is irrelevant to his life. But these are two highly questionable assumptions and the fact is that any age can make them. One of the problems with this assumption, which Pike had, is that the person making it presumes to be able to "know" the hearts and minds of an entire generation of people. But it is really ludicrous to make a blanket statement that ancient dogmas and definitions are completely invalid to a whole swath of people, and very dangerous to proceed to "reimagine" and "redefine" the entire tradition based on this faulty assumption. Before presuming to explore a deep question - especially one that has the potential to be dangerous and divisive to the Church - one must ask whether such speculation is even necessary.

Sixth, people whose spiritual lives are out of order have no business being involved in theological exploration. Pike's life spiraled out of control spiritually. He began to practice new age spiritualism (seances especially), which has always been condemned by the Scriptures and the Church. And he was also a chain smoking alcoholic who ran around on his second wife. If one cannot grasp the meaning of "Thou shalt not commit adultery," or God's commands regarding contacting the dead, etc. then how on earth will he be able to grasp the meaning of the deeper truths he is purporting to explore?

There are surely many more preconditions necessary for valid and authentic theological exploration. But we should bear in mind that even if such preconditions are met it does not necessarily follow that the conclusions that may be reached are orthodox and/or important for the Church. If such preconditions are met then the chances of that being the case are high, I believe, but not necessarily guaranteed. Pike and people like him have done great damage to the Church (and themselves in some cases) by their reckless speculations that were doomed from the start.

George Carey Questions the Value of ARCIC

The other day I read this fascinating article that articulated some of my own opinions regarding the value of ecumenical meetings. Former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, is apparently questioning the value of ARCIC and similar ecumenical schemes because no one in the church seems to know or care about what they do or discuss! They are irrelevant and no one listens to what these groups have to say about anything. The goal of ARCIC - to help bring about visible unity in the Church - has, after 45 years, run into the sand, he says.

In this article he is noticeably silent about how his own actions as Archbishop of Canterbury in ordaining women to the priesthood of the Church of England helped contribute to the breakdown of ARCIC. How serious can the Anglican Communion really be about bringing about the visible unity of the Church by on one hand trying to bridge some theological gaps with the Roman Church, yet on the other hand taking steps to widen the gulf between the two jurisdictions?

In any case, he does raise a good point about the cost of all of this ecumenical stuff. The Church of England spends almost one million dollars a year on ecumenical projects like ARCIC which produce little to nothing in the way of results. Wouldn't the money be better spent somewhere else? Isn't it better to put ecumenism on the back burner right? In the case of ARCIC I think he has a point. It is a lost cause for the foreseeable future. So why spend money flying folk all over the place for these meetings that will not result in anything? He has a point.

I have often wondered if the continuing churches do not spend more money than necessary flying senior clergy around to different meetings, synods, and organizational conferences. What does all of this result in? Interestingly some of the groups and para church organizations that we send representatives to are lead by laity and clergy who are part of other groups that we send representatives to! There seems to be lots of overlap in terms of who is in each group... and yet each group has its own meeting.

It seems to me we should consider asking the same questions as Lord Carey regarding these ecumenical meetings and endeavors. Are we getting our moneys worth? Do they result in anything positive for the life of the church? More important, do the laity who pay for all of this know what these meetings and groups are for or about? One has to wonder.

A Review of "Rescuing the Church from Consumerism" by the Rev'd. Dr. Mark F.M. Clavier

In his new book published by SPCK the Rev’d Dr. Mark F.M. Clavier addresses the problem of consumerism. This phenomenon is presented as not only the spirit of the age, but also as the religion of the age, complete with its own value system, sacraments, and rites of passage. In beautiful prose, Fr. Clavier laments the effects of consumerism on individuals, society, and the planet. Unfortunately, the one body that can offer a real, viable alternative to the religion of consumerism, namely the Church, has, according to Fr. Clavier, succumbed to consumerism by adopting practices and techniques that cater to consumeristic culture rather than correct it. But far from being merely descriptive, “Rescuing the Church from Consumerism” is also, as implied in the title, prescriptive. It not only diagnoses one of the main problems afflicting the Church and the world today, but also offers suggestions for the Church to free itself from the consumeristic spirit and reclaim its true identity so it, in turn, may be a viable prophetic witness to a world lost in the mire and hopelessness of consumerism. The solution, according to Clavier, is for the Church to reclaim its true identity as the “household of God.” The Church should strive to be a body where people immersed in the throw-away, narcissistic culture of consumerism can come and find a true home and identity that is rooted in the love of God. In the final chapter of his book Clavier gives some principles for Christian communities to develop into a truly “domestic” church. These include such things as being faithful to its own tradition and being a community that is truly rooted in worship and liturgy. All in all the main body of “Rescuing the Church from Consumerism” is interesting and thought-provoking.

The reader should be aware that the book assumes a familiarity with the concept of consumerism. This is evident by the fact that Fr. Clavier never really defines what consumerism is. Opening the book with at least a working definition of consumerism would have been very helpful to avoid ambiguity. The book is also more sociological than religious in content and outlook. Indeed the Bible is quoted hardly at all in the entire book. And rather than locating the problem of consumerism in, say, “greed” - one of the traditional ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ - or even in human sin in general he instead blames consumerism mostly on evil “corporations.” Though he does quote the occasional Church Father, Anglican Divine, and Medieval theologian here and there, one would think that a book written by a priest who did a doctorate in St. Augustine, and who is involved in clergy training and pastoral ministry would be more biblical and theological - religious - than sociological in outlook. Indeed one has to wonder exactly how a person who did a doctorate in an early Church Father from North Africa is even qualified to write a book that is essentially sociological in nature. So while it is a very interesting and even timely book, the reader should note that this is not a devotional work but more of a scholarly “religious sociology/social commentary” type of book.

Anglicans of the “continuing” tradition should also be aware at the outset that Fr. Clavier is very critical of us in his preface. This is perhaps the most perplexing part about the entire book. Even though it has little to nothing to do with his thesis Fr. Clavier decides to drag the church of his birth and ordination through the mud in his autobiographical preface. He states variously that continuing Anglicans are “backwater” cave-dwelling Anglicans who are not interested in evangelism, or contemporary trends in theology, and who are fundamentally misguided. Interestingly, however, he did not hesitate to promote his book to us so we could buy it and get our people to as well. His bizarre comments about how we have not taken seriously or been affected by the liturgical movement are easily proven wrong, as is his suggestion that continuing Anglicans do not read anyone writing after C.S. Lewis or Dorothy Sayers. While that may have been true of him, it is certainly not true of the rest of us. Case in point: he references the famous University of Pennsylvania philosopher, Philip Reiff’s seminal work The Triumph of the Therapeutic. Does Fr. Claver know that the Rev’d Dr. Clarence “Chip” Sills, Ph.D, a priest of our diocese, and former university level philosophy professor, is an expert on Reiff and was responsible for getting him to lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy a number of years back? Probably not. What is further very strange is how Dr. Clavier contrasts the current demoralized state of the Church of England with the excitement and exuberance of the church of his birth, and how he does not seem to connect the dots between the former’s wholesale embrace of modernity and its current state of deadness with the latter’s continuance of the classical Anglican tradition and its exuberance and excitement. And for all of the criticism that he dishes out for us reading “out of date” theologians and using older liturgical forms he does a great job of quoting those out-of-date writers and referencing the Prayer Book throughout the book. If they are out-of-date and part of “backwater Anglicanism” then why does he reference them throughout his book? Finally, the very type of solutions he proposes to turn back the tide of consumerism in the Church and the world seem to characterize what we in the continuing Church are are and try to inculcate: the household church; worship that is both accessible but also transcendent; fellowship; ministries; etc. So it seems to me that despite the bleak and horribly inaccurate picture he paints of continuing Anglicanism in his preface (which, by the way, may be read for free on Amazon.com) that according to his own reasoning we are a Church that is getting things more right than wrong with regard to the problem of consumerism.

On a personal level, one can only feel hurt at having promoted in good faith a book on a timely subject by a former rector of the parish when asked by him so to do without any warning of the antagonistic content of the preface. Is he pleasing his overlords in the Church of England, or does Dr. Clavier merely have a bone to pick with the continuing Church, perhaps because of his father’s well-known dismissal from the ordained ministry years ago? I would tend to think that the latter is the case, and therefore that Dr. Clavier abides by the motto “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

I remember when Fr. Clavier addressed diocesan synod years ago just before moving to England to begin his doctoral work. Choking up, he spoke of how wonderful the Church was and how it would always hold a special place in his heart. He was sent off with a standing ovation by everyone present. How very odd that now, years later, and from halfway around the world he decides to mount a mean-spirited and unwarranted attack that is full of inaccuracies and relates not one bit to the thesis of a book that he wrote to us to promote! How very odd indeed.