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.

A Pastoral Letter: Thoughts and Reflections

Recently the presiding bishops of the Anglican Province of America and the Anglican Church in America released a statement on the merger process between the two provinces. I think that it is a very good, straightforward letter, and I applaud the bishops for their courage and honesty in writing it. The letter acknowledges some of the difficulties involved with trying to merge our two jurisdictions, but at the same time affirms our mutual commitment to work for eventual corporate unity. 

A process like this can take a long time, sometimes a generation or two. But it is best to have it take a while and wait for God's perfect timing so it gets done right rather than forcing it through because we think it suits our timetable and desires better. Considering how much time, energy, and other resources these processes consume it is best to be slow and methodical so we get the results that we want the first time around and avoid any unintended, negative results. This is what happened with the "Ecumenical Movement" of the 20th century in certain areas.

I can understand how some people would want to rush a process like this because it can make it seem as though the churches are "doing" something. That attitude reminds me of the rector of my old seminary who always had a major construction program going on - even if it wasn't needed and cost tons of money - because it conveyed "progress"... even if the seminary was mostly empty of students studying for the priesthood! Likewise, we have to have as our first priority spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and building the Kingdom of God. We need to engage in actions that will help us reach the lost and strengthen the Body of Christ and view mergers and unification programs as means to that end.

Personally, I see nothing wrong in simply spending an indeterminate number of years in fellowship and full intercommunion, while trying to work together on the ground and on other projects as much as we can. This has been happening in various ways between most of the continuing churches, so much so that we are already, for most practical purposes, one church. Once again, I applaud these two men for this letter and for their godly leadership, and may we offer prayers on their behalf, as well as on behalf of all of those involved in the process, and for all of the people of the two churches.

Conversations about the Continuing Church

In recent days I've had some interesting, very revealing discussions with folk - laity and clergy - about the continuing church, and was able to clear up a major misconception about the Church for them.

This was the misconception: not everyone in a continuing Anglican parish is there for strictly theological reasons... because they are ultra conservative and highly informed churchmen who strongly adhere to the theology of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible. For some reason these folk - both clergy and laity from other traditions - thought that was the case, but it is not. They were amazed to hear that continuing Anglican parishes are, for better or worse, just as diverse as every other church in the United States. My own parish is interracial and has people of all ages - newborns all the way up to retirees - each active and involved in their own way. The people have been drawn there, I have discovered, for all sorts of reasons: they like the little country "feel" of the place; they like the people; they like the rector; they like the hymns; they like the service; it is like how it was when they grew up, they like the theology; etc. In short, there is no single defining factor that seems to attract people to the church. In some ways I think the spectrum of theological beliefs runs the gamut, despite my best efforts to teach what the church teaches in a such way as to get them to believe it! Like folk in other traditions, many people that I have come across in the continuum have simply a basic knowledge of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and some but much less knowledge of the Bible and theology. So anyone who thinks that continuing Church parishes are bodies dominated by conservative political or orthodox theological "groupthink" is just plain wrong. Our people are as diverse as the people in any other church out there.

The difference, however, between us and the larger, mainline churches is mainly our liturgy and, of course, related to that, the orthodox catholic teaching of the Tradition. The membership of the Episcopal Church, for example, also has diversity in belief. But their church also has diversity of teaching. We are different. The continuing Church is much closer to the Roman Catholic Church in this area, inasmuch as, like them, our membership may believe any number of things, but the teaching of the Church in specific theological areas is quite clear and is unequivocally taught and preached.

Anglican Theological Education, Part 2

While reading "Nineteenth Century Anglican Theological Education" I could not help but think about the relationship between, on one hand, the theological colleges and the ancient universities in England of that era and, on the other hand, the relationship between reading for orders and attending seminary today in the United States. The latter is of course how continuing Anglicans have traditionally prepared for ordination. Some people read for orders, while others chose to attend a seminary or divinity school. Personal circumstances usually dictate who follows which path. While in the APA reading for orders is far less common today than perhaps it once was there are still a significant number of folk in the larger traditional Anglican world who read for orders under the direction of a priest. It should be noted, of course, that there is a lot of tradition behind this, as before the Episcopal seminary system was established men in the United States had to read for orders.

An interesting parallel between the subject matter of the book and priestly formation for continuing churchmen in the 21st century is the whole question of effectiveness. In the period covered by this book there was lots of disagreement about whether or not the theological colleges were effective in preparing men for the ministry. The same question has often been raised with regard to reading for orders, and/or attending open of the unaccredited [by ATS] theological school that different jurisdictions have tried to establish over the years.

The issues that the old guard in England raised concerning the new colleges were largely cultural and social. Men who attended the ancient universities were thought to better prepared because they were more well-rounded and had contact with all different people in different fields of study, which improved their own theological thinking. They were also thought to be better socially prepared for ministry, since the universities were not isolated like the colleges (and especially the Roman Catholic seminaries). These opinions and more were held even despite evidence that in many cases those who attended the universities were less prepared in some equally important ways! If we think about it some of these same types of criticisms have been leveled against reading for orders.

But just as the establishment figures in England (mostly bishops) did not have actual evidence to support their prejudices, so it is today I think with those who criticize these alternative ways of educating clergy. Now, to my knowledge there are no reliable statistics about which way of preparing men for orders is most effective, or even agreement as to how effectiveness is to be judged. But if there is a connection between the situation in the Church of England in the 19th century and the continuing churches in America today, as I think there is, then we need only look at the theological colleges and their graduates to see that just as the schools became very well established, and just as their graduates went on to have very effective ministries and hold high offices, so those in the Church today who prepare for ordination by way of reading for orders or doing an unaccredited diocesan program also often go on to have very effective ministries and hold high office.

I would go so far as to say that in a lot of cases the alternative ways of educating certain men for the ministry are more effective and efficient than requiring them to attend seminary. This is certainly true of older men who offer themselves for ordination. The APA, following Episcopalian tradition and canons, is actually very flexible in this area and only requires a seminary degree for men who are under a certain age, and lets older men pursue Holy Orders via these other avenues.

So in the end, one of the "take aways" for me from this book was that just as many of the men who attended the theological colleges worked hard and proved their intelligence, godliness, and diligence by their effective ministries and advancement, so the same is true of many of those in our own day and age who have prepared for the ministry in some other way than going to seminary. As any priest who is worth his salt will tell you, attending seminary definitely does not mean one will have an effective ministry. The opposite may very well be the case, and not only will he have a crash and burn ministry, he will also have lots of debt.

Next time I want to write about some insights I gained from this book regarding founding theological colleges.

Anglican Theological Education, Part 1

I read a very interesting book recently by David Dowland and published by Oxford University Press entitled "Nineteenth-Century Anglican Theological Training." I discovered this work accidentally while researching theological material for APA postulants in our overseas provinces and missions to use in their training and preparation for ministry.

This monograph tells the story of the founding of the theological colleges St. David's, Lampeter; King's College, London; St. Aidan's, Birkenhead; St. John's, Highbury, and Kelham. These, and many other similar schools, were established by various people in the Church of England in the nineteenth century as an alternative to Oxford and Cambridge for educating and forming men for the sacred ministry.

Throughout the nineteenth century there was a shortage of priests in the Church. One of the factors that contributed to this was social class and its corollary - economic status. Men of lower economic and social status often had not the privilege of attending good public schools, and certainly not the ancient universities because they were too expensive. This was an often insurmountable barrier to them taking Holy Orders. Most bishops wanted their clergy to be "graduates." But the need for clergy in rural areas, missions, and other places essentially became too great for the Church to ignore these untapped reserves of men.

So different men took it upon themselves to establish theological colleges to form and educate "non-graduates" for the ministry. Some of these were bishops, others were priests, others were established by groups of people. The colleges were often formed along party lines, with schools like St. Aidan's and St. John's being evangelical and low church in emphasis, and Kelham being of a more high church emphasis.

The schools not only addressed the concern of educating non-graduates for the ministry, but also other concerns that the Church was facing at the time and which were not being addressed by the universities. St. David's, Lampeter, for example, was concerned to teach men to speak and read Welsh to better minister to the local population. The ancient universities were simply not doing that.

Obviously, the colleges faced numerous challenges. These were... financial - they relied largely on tuition to survive; administrative - the charismatic leaders who started the institutions often ended up being major obstacles to their growth and prosperity; and social - they and their students were viewed as inferior to the ancient universities. This especially was an ongoing problem into the 20th century.

But eventually they came to be received as normal schools for ministry, with graduates reaching some of the higher posts in the church (archdeacons, bishops, etc.). Perhaps the ultimate level of acceptance was reached when George Carey, a graduate of King's College and Durham, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1991.

This is an interesting book for those interested in theological education and ministerial formation. The question, though, is why am I writing about it here on these pages? The answer is because the history of these schools, and their founding and development, relates very much to contemporary theological education and priestly formation especially as it concerns continuing Anglicans. Next time I will write about some of the insights I gained from this book regarding founding theological schools, and priestly education and formation with regard to my own tradition as a continuing Anglican churchman.

Spending Money on Liturgy and Worship

(The following is from the May 2013 issue of St. Alban's Church parish magazine, The Centurion. I apologize for not publishing anything recently, but I have been very busy with family. JGA+)

Someone recently told me that one of the problems with Anglicans is that we have our priorities all mixed up when it comes to spending money. Why do we Anglicans insist on beautifying the house of God and ornamenting our worship at such great expense, especially in these tight financial times? Instead, shouldn’t we take what little money we have or can raise and funnel it entirely into benevolence ministries, or to giving staff members raises? The answer to this question is simple. While God has always commanded his people to take care of the weak and the poor (e.g. Gal. 2:10), and while God has always required those who preach the gospel to live by that work (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:14), God has also revealed that we are to worship him (Psalm 95:1-6). More specifically, we are to worship him sacrificially, and “in the beauty of holiness.” (Psalm 96:9).

The worship of God quite obviously requires certain supplies and items, such as eucharistic vessels, bowls, containers, books, stands, furniture, etc. Because these appointments are for the worship of almighty God it is fitting that they be of the highest possible quality, and designed and manufactured by skilled artisans who understand the nature and purpose of the various items.

In Exodus chapters 25-30 God himself reveals to Moses how the various items for the divine worship of the Israelites were to be designed and crafted. Even a cursory overview of these chapters shows that no expense was to be spared for the worship of almighty God. The finest precious metals, textiles, and gems were to be used to construct the Ark of the Covenant, the candle stands, vestments, altar, and other objects to be used for the worship of God. In Exodus chapter 31 we read that highly skilled craftsmen, under the leadership of man called Bezaleel, was to design and craft everything according to God’s plan that he revealed to Moses. All of this, mind you, was for the portable Tabernacle that was used by the Israelites while they were wandering in the wilderness. By the time King Solomon comes along and begins building the great Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 5 ff.) we see, once again, and on an even grander scale, that no expense is spared when it comes to the worship of almighty God. The lesson in all of this clear. Worship means giving God the best that we possibly can because he is our creator, and “the high and mighty ruler of the universe.” (BCP p. 17)

This reverence for the proper and fitting worship of God was carried into the ancient and medieval Church, and from there into the Anglican tradition. In the sixteenth century the great Anglican divine, Richard Hooker, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, found himself contending with Protestant radicals known as “Puritans” who not only had zero interest in adorning churches with beautiful objects but, in some quarters, maintained that the great cathedrals and churches of England should be razed! Book 5 chapters XII-XVII of Ecclesiastical Polity is a sound defense the time-honored practice of building and adorning churches for the glory and worship of God. At one point he writes, “Touching God himself, hath he any where revealed that it is his delight to dwell beggarly? And that he taketh no pleasure to be worshiped saving only in poor cottages?” (Eccl. Pol., 5:xv)

While no one is suggesting that the church go overboard and recklessly spend or borrow money to purchase all sorts of opulent and ostentatious appointments that are beyond her her means, what is being suggested is that the church should not shy away from spending money on needed accouterments or appointments as necessary for divine worship. God wants the best to be given and used for divine worship. And he wants us to offer sacrifices of ourselves and all that we have to this end.

There is a very interesting section of St. John’s Gospel (John 12:1-8) where a woman anoints Jesus with a large amount of costly perfume. Judas Iscariot, who later betrayed Jesus, said, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?” But Jesus replied, “Let her alone: against the day of my burying has she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” That the Church has a ministry to the poor and needy, and many temporal concerns relative to the cost of doing business to take of is a given. But let us remind our brethren from other traditions that the Church also has an obligation to spend money on her ultimate purpose: the divine worship of almighty God.

Why one should use the Prayer Book for Confirmation preparation

As Trinity Sunday approaches I am reminded of a story told to me about something that occurred in one of our (APA) parishes a while back. A woman and her daughter from a non-denominational church wanted to join this parish. As they were not confirmed a lay leader in the church worked with them to prepare them for confirmation. Somewhere along the line this lay leader had acquired a confirmation catechism that had been created for use in another parish by a learned and devout priest. So that is what she used to prepare these people for confirmation.

Everything was going fine until they got to the section on the Holy Trinity. Following St. Augustine, the booklet - without any explanation - said that the Holy Ghost is the "love between the Father and the Son." When the catechumen read this she questioned the lay leader: "Where is that in the Bible?" The lay leader was stumped and could not provide an answer! This "strange teaching" immediately became a major issue for these people. I never heard what happened after that, but I presume any confusion was eventually cleared up, and the people were eventually confirmed and received into the parish.

The thing I took away from hearing all of this is that it is probably best to avoid using home grown confirmation material such as this lay leader was using, as there is no telling what is in them, how orthodox they are, or quite simply if they are even appropriate. In this case, while the material itself was undoubtedly orthodox it was probably too "high level" for these new members, and thus inappropriate. In my opinion clergy and lay leaders would do best to stick with the tried and true material in the Book of Common Prayer, namely the Offices of Instruction and Catechism, for preparing folk for confirmation. This material is staright-forward, simple, and too-the-point and focuses on the essentials of the catholic faith.

Days of Obligation

Thursday, of course, is Ascension Day. Every year this feast, along with others, such as All Saints', brings to mind the whole problem of "days of obligation" in the Anglican tradition. The problem ultimately boils down to this: are there any "days of obligation" in the Anglican tradition? At the outset I should maker clear that I am defining "day of obligation" as a holy day day where the faithful are required to receive make their communions.

That the whole concept of "days of obligation" is a problem within the Anglican tradition became apparent to me years ago when I began noticing different lists of "days of obligation" in classic Anglican devotional texts. The Practice of Religion (Knowles) lists these days as: Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday. Under the rather ambiguous heading "Other Times of Obligation or Devotion" this same books adds "Holy Days, Saints Days, and Sundays." Another old classic, St. Augustine's Prayer Book, has the days of obligation as being: Sundays, Christmas Day, Circumcision, Ascension, and All Saints'. It adds as "Special Days of Devotion" Annunciation, Corpus Christi, and the Assumption. Besides these two books who knows what other "lists" are out there. So what is one to make of all of this disparity?

In my mind, the only day of obligation in the Anglican tradition - at least for continuing Anglicans who use the 1928 BCP - is Sunday. This is because of what the Prayer Book "Offices of Instruction" says on page 291. So obviously Easter Sunday and Whitsunday, because they are both Sundays, can be considered days of obligation. Other moveable saints' days may also be, perhaps, but only when they fall on a Sunday. Otherwise I can think of no authority within our tradition that declares days such as the Ascension to be "days of obligation." As these are, however, very important days, perhaps it is best to simply refer to them as the Anglican Service Book does: "Principal Feasts."

I suppose if a diocesan bishop were to proclaim some additional days during the year as being days of obligation then that would carry some weight, but I can think of no continuing Anglican diocesan bishop who has done so. And I suppose one could make the argument from tradition that days such as Christmas are days of obligation, but what constitutes "tradition" can easily become rather subjective.

So, in my parish, I do not refer to days such as the Ascension - extremely important though they are - as being "days of obligation" because I simply do not necessarily feel that I have the authority to declare them as such within the strictures of our tradition.

What do you think about this?

The Practical Value of Studying Historical Theology

One of my theological intellectual goals has been to read through Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. As an Anglican priest I feel that I should be able to say that I have read Hooker from beginning to end. So far I am about halfway through volume 2 (book 5) of the edition edited by Keble. As anyone who has tried knows, Hooker is hard to read. In addition to being very prolix and polemical, he writes about controversies that can seem very far removed from anything relative to the life of the Church today. But the more I plod through this venerable old classic the more I find just how contemporary and relevant it really is. Because the reality is that many of the old controversies addressed by Hooker live on in the Church.

Case in point, the other day someone told me that Anglicans spend too much time and money worrying about decorating churches. Hooker addresses this question in Book V, making the argument form scripture and tradition that God's people have always seen fit to erect and embellish houses of worship. Another example, many Christians in Hooker's day decried the typical Anglican practice of preaching short (or no) homilies, assuming that God's word had to be communicated through long sermons. Hooker dismisses this notion again in several chapters of Book V, commenting especially on the power of simply reading the word of God to bring about repentance and conversion. The same controversy can still be observed in the church today.

There are many other examples that I have found from Hooker of the continued practical value and relevance of studying historical theology. Therefore I would not dismiss it as some people are quick to do. Because the voices of the 16th century and earlier can still speak to the needs of the Church today. Maybe if the Church had truly heeded the words of these authors in their own day she would not be in the mess she is in today!

Infant Communion

One of the hotly debated topics in today’s congregations is that of paedocommunion. The issue is coming up throughout the Church, regardless of denomination. It extends beyond whether one believes Confirmation or Chrismation to be a sacrament and an integral part of the Rites of Initiation. The more conservatively-minded feel that some category of “age of reason” must be defined. The early Western Church seems to have been confirming all those who had been baptized since the last visitation of the bishop. This would then mean that those who were between zero and three years old (assuming the bishop were visiting at least every three years) would have been confirmed and ready for communion according to the view that the full Rite of Initiation needs to be completed first. Even this is not an obstacle to communion according to the Roman Catholic Church as they have begun the practice of “First Communion” several years before Confirmation is received. For those within the Reformed tradition, views of covenant theology and the fact that a child participates in Old Testament covenant meals, such as the Passover, seems to be the battling ground. Whether Reformed or Catholic, those advocating having children receive communion still emphasize the “family meal” aspect and that such things depend upon what God has done in Baptism and not on what we understand. Much has been written and many minds have been stretched.

In this debate, one thing which might be helpful is the medical concept of “Free and Informed Consent.” As the Eucharist, in Patristic terms, is the “Medicine of Life,” a similarity between this concept in medicine and sacramental theology is not incongruous. Basically, informed consent refers to the doctor making clear to you all aspects of the medical treatment you are to undergo. One point in favor of paedocommunion, in my mind, has been the fact that the mother when pregnant receives communion for both herself and her unborn. I have felt it strange that we would “excommunicate” a child for three to seven years for simply being born. This would seem to confirm the harshest criticisms of St. Augustine’s theology.

I have likewise thought some aspects of Confirmation inconsistent. I was told that once I was confirmed I would be an “adult” member of the congregation, but the laws of non-profit organizations still restricted me from voting at meetings or holding office until eighteen. So inconsistencies abound naturally. Such inconsistencies stick in the craw of many young people and parents. One can easily say that “whoever sits at my table; eats my food” and then it becomes an issue of which father of which family takes the paedocommunion view or which pastor of which congregation. Arguably, however, the child has rarely been “given” permission to receive confirmation or not, and, likewise, communion. We have usually agreed in the Western Church that leading (or directing) the child to receive Confirmation (and thus Communion) is the last noticeable spiritual obligation on the part of those parents and godparents who have brought their child to the font. Thus it is typical that the child sees Confirmation as “graduation” and it corresponds often with graduation from parochial middle school in Roman Catholic parishes.    

              Yet “informed consent” provides an interesting category that Augustine might think would unify his warring spiritual progeny. A doctor can never withhold information, but what doctor can provide all information associated with a prescription or procedure? No doctor can. Nevertheless, the child under a certain age is not endued with a developed reason to decide for himself. There is no “proxy consent” associated with children under a certain age. A child’s guardian always decides. The spiritual danger associated with receiving the Medicine of Life incorrectly is nothing less than death, a “side-effect” of not discerning the Lord’s Body and Blood correctly. Many say that none of us can understand the mystery completely. So are we always in danger of discerning the Lord’s Body and Blood incorrectly? Will we put the child in such peril? Or does this make the paedocommunion-advocating parent or denomination responsible for a child’s possible lack of discernment? You see, we do not think that a person can ever be completely informed about a medical procedure. But a child under the “Age of Reason” is never able to be culpably informed at all. We can certainly say, “Whoever eats at my table, takes my medications,” to mix metaphors. However, to say that a minimal explanation of that Sacrament’s perilous side-effects which can be given to a child under the Age of Reason is sufficient is irresponsible. One does not learn about a medication’s side-effects simply by growing up and partaking when a parent takes it, especially if taking it wrongly leads to death. Eventually, some information needs to be related and total free and informed consent needs to be accepted by our children.

            With these thoughts in mind, it is easier to see that a pregnant mother is obliged to take medications safely for the sake of her unborn and to take Holy Communion seriously for the same reason. Those wishing to push the reception of communion to a lower age seem to want to say that children are eligible based upon membership. They are concerned with over-rationalizing. But the issue isn’t rationalism or mystery. It is rather about the child’s culpability. A parent may be able to say, “take the medication now” but only the child, after a certain age, is able to discern whether or not he is spiritually clean or unclean and can participate in the New Covenant meal. We are uncertain when the “Age of Reason” arrives and, arguably, some parents may feel it has arrived sooner for their children. Therefore, becoming culpable may arrive sooner than a spiritual guardian realizes. We don’t know when the child is culpable, but we can determine, through catechesis and the ability for self-examination and confession, that the Age of Reason has arrived (even if the child was spiritually culpable several years beforehand). We can determine when our children are able to culpably answer for themselves (while not yet eighteen and fully autonomous). We can determine when they are receiving in a free and informed way, but only through rational dialogue and questions which reveal whether the child has an informed conscience.    

Seminary Boy

I love good religious biographies. Recently I read Seminary Boy by John Cornwell, of "Hitler's Pope" fame. This book is a memoir of the time he spent at the now-defunct minor seminary known as Cotton College in England in the 1950's-60's. It is a beautifully written book that sheds light on a bygone world steeped in tradition and religion, a world that would soon be consigned to the dustbin of history by the very Church that created it. At the end of the book the reforms of Vatican II are firmly ensconced in the Church, and the author, who left Oscott major seminary and strayed from the faith for many years, but later returned, finds himself lamenting the lost liturgy and traditions of his youth.

He does not have a book detailing the time he left the Church and why, to the time he returned, but should he ever write that book I will be the first one to buy it. In researching this book I did discover that he recently wrote a book on John Henry Newman that was highly praised by none other than Alasidar Macintyre whose seminal work, After Virtue, is a must-read for anyone interested in theology. To me, if Macintyre praised this work on Newman, it must be a good book. That is the next book by Cornwell that I hope to read.

Those who might want to avoid Cornwell because of his book Hitler's Pope (which incidentally Cornwell has reevaluated) would really be missing out on a great book - which is in no way antagonistic towards the Roman Catholic Church or Christianity in general - if they didn't out check this incredibly moving book!

An Anglican Recommended Reading List

Taking some cues from other websites, I have decided to add a list of "recommended reading" on the left hand side of the blog. These are all books that I have read and feel comfortable recommending to anyone who wishes to learn more about the Anglican tradition.

Obviously, the list is not exhaustive, and there are many other good ones in each category that one could recommend. I am still working on the list, so that explains the lack of categories and certain authors.

A number of these books overlap in terms of the subject matter. Horton Davies' Worship and Theology in England, for example, could fit in any number of categories. I've categorized everything the best I could.

Many of these books are still in print. Others can be purchased used fairly easily for a great price (I recommend Amazon or ABE Books).

I hope every out there finds these recommendations helpful. May the Lord bless and keep you.

Some Reflections on the History Channel's Recent Series "The Bible"

The following is from the April 2013 edition of my parish's magazine "The Centurion." Archived volumes of The Centurion may be downloaded from the St. Alban's Church website.

During Lent the television and media world was abuzz about the History Channel’s exciting series known as The Bible. The creators of the series, Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, conceived the project in part because the Bible is the foundational text of western culture, and yet more and more people are unfamiliar with all of its content. In an fantastic op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal the producers noted that for generations a person’s intelligence was determined by how well he or she knew the Bible! What does such a statement imply about our contemporary society where so few people know the Bible?

Overall the miniseries was very well done. It had something for everyone... probably because because the Bible has something for everyone. Those tempted to nitpick about how various stories and details were presented should remember that the Bible is a very big book that covers thousands of years of history. Artistically speaking, it is impossible to capture all of the details of the various stories in four or five two-hour episodes. The series certainly holds its own with other famous dramatizations of the Bible, such as The Ten Commandments, and The Passion of the Christ. In some cases it even outdoes those old classics.

Many people from St. Alban’s watched this series and commented on how interesting and exciting it was. The net result from watching it will hopefully be that people will get curious enough about the Bible to actually sit down and read parts of it. There is no substitute actually sitting down and reading and studying God’s word! No movie, or TV show can replace opening the pages of this book and studying the written words, if for no other reason than that there is plenty of non-historical material in the Bible, such as poetry, that simply cannot be dramatized, and yet is important to know.

One of the things that I appreciated most about the miniseries is that it got me thinking once again about how I read and understand it the Bible. This is called hermeneutics - the science of interpreting the Bible. Hermeneutics is a most critical aspect of reading and studying the Bible. While most of us are not experts in this area, it is good to know that it exists, and that the Bible is book that needs to be interpreted. Watching a series like “The Bible” can be especially helpful in this regard.

Because it is an ancient library of texts, written over many generations, by a great many people from all over the world, the Bible can be a difficult book to adapt for film and TV. So producers often have to make creative decisions as to how to develop the story in such a way as to make it appealing and understandable. And they often add extra-biblical elements to make the story flow better on screen. These additions are interpretations. Usually, in the better produced shows like “The Bible” they are perfectly harmless, and even helpful. But nonetheless, producers of programs like “The Bible”need to be very careful in how they choose to interpret biblical texts through these embellishments, because sometimes they might convey something that is their own idea rather than something that is found in the text of the Bible.

In the same way, we sometimes take a little bit of creative license when we read the Bible. We imagine how scenes must have played out, how people’s voices sounded when they said certain things, and so on. We also might be tempted to fill in perceived or real historical and doctrinal gaps. All of this is unavoidable. But like TV and movie producers, we too must be very cautious when we do this. We have to be extremely careful about reading our own assumptions into the text and its world because we may put something there that is not meant to be there! While it is impossible to have an “Olympian” (i.e. pure, unbiased) view of the Bible, or anything else for that matter, we should at least be conscious that we bring to the text our own assumptions, and that sometimes those assumptions for various reasons are not always valid or correct (historically, theologically, morally, etc.).

That is but one thing that I got from watching this series. What did you get out of it? In a few weeks or so the church will have this series available to those who wish to view it. We also hope to be screening a much more in-depth series on the Bible on DVD at another parihsioner's house in the not-too-distant future. Please keep your eyes peeled for times and dates. In the meantime, remember that the best way to learn the Bible is to read and study it daily. And more important, the better we know the Bible the better we will know not only God and Christ, but also ourselves.

James Bond & C.S. Lewis

Two novelists of the 1950’s, Ian Fleming and C.S. Lewis, both of whose works soared in sales previous to their deaths in the early sixties, had some interesting similarities. Ian Fleming died in 1964 and C.S. Lewis in 1963. Just a little while earlier, in 1962, Sean Connery played the Ian Fleming character, James Bond, in the highly successful film Dr. No. In it, James Bond combats an evil organization known as SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). Although the Communist powers are always involved somewhere, this is not Fleming’s imaginative threat to civilization. This is a noteworthy fact, given that while the novels were being written, Communism was the most perceived threat to civilization. It is not as if one couldn’t identify them as a threat in a novel, many journalists and novelists did. But I think the fact that Fleming chose SPECTRE and not the KGB as Bond’s archenemy may hold some of the reason for the success of the novels.

  

In the fifties, we are talking about post-war England, a world where literate men have set down their weapons and returned to office work, walking their dogs, and attending their wives’ tea and cocktail parties. To a greater or lesser extent, attending their parish church was involved. Furthermore, there was something plaguing the man of the fifties and he felt it very deeply. He had fought a war and now he had returned to a different kind of war. It was the war in which the challenge to make money was a daily battle. As a returning veteran said in the 1946 film The Best Years of our Lives, “Last year it was kill Japs, this year it’s make money”. Finding a way to do business better than the other company involves certain challenges and temptations. To get intelligence from the competitor, to extort, terrorize and be vengeful are all temptations which a business man is prone to and it is exactly what SPECTRE is. SPECTRE is a money making organization and not an espionage organization which is spying patriotically.

           

It was in this fifties world that organizations like the Free-Masons, Rotary, Kiwanis Club and veterans associations thrived on the membership of men of war turned men of business. It was this culture in which Playboy magazine was born and became popular. Have you looked at a picture of Hugh Hefner smoking his pipe and compared it with C.S. Lewis smoking his pipe? Ian Fleming was interviewed by Playboy magazine shortly before his death. Needless to say, C.S. Lewis, James Bond and Playboy magazine remain popular half a century later. Yet they had their beginning in a world in which the hardest kind of soul for the Church to reach, the family-man-making-money-while-middle-aged, was trying to find his place in the world again.

             

Let us look more closely. Unlike some spies, James Bond is a gentleman, relatively speaking. Ian Fleming once described James Bond and said, “He’s not a Sidney Riley”. Anyone knowing about the spy Sidney Riley knows that Riley was no gentleman. James Bond is the kind of spy that an Englishman wearing the old-school tie and carrying an umbrella can identify with. When we come to C.S. Lewis, we find a veteran with whom a veteran can identify. Lewis was no saint, struggled with his faith and struggled with lust. We now know him as a saintly writer of Christian devotion and children’s books. Nevertheless, he did not consider himself a saint and married a divorced woman, something an aging bachelor in the fifties was surely tempted to do.

             

When it came to his convictions, C.S. Lewis, like the Englishman of the fifties, was a quietly devout Anglican, so much so that many reading his works are completely unaware of his denomination. It isn’t, of course, that he wasn’t outspoken. But I wonder sometimes if we met him on the street today if we would not wag our fingers in his face. Unlike some contemporaries, like Thomas Merton, who found their faith in their bachelorhood, he didn’t go off to a monastery. Therefore, in the medieval sense of Summum Bonum, he did not seek the highest good and enter the contemplative life. On the Evangelical side of the spectrum, he did not take his anti-atheistic convictions on the road like Billy Graham. He continued to fight, indeed, in one of the most intellectual arenas in Christendom. Yet he did not follow the logical course to the highest good as sometimes visualized within Catholic and Protestant circles. He did, however, follow the course which would lead to his blessedness.

C.S. Lewis sanctified a kind of Anglican gentleman writer, a kind which included Ian Fleming, as well as Somerset Maugham and Rudyard Kipling, both of whom also wrote spy novels. C.B. Moss, the Anglo-Catholic theologian, argued that figures like Kipling and Lord Baden Powell, with their Masonic leanings, represent the worst of English Christianity because of their Pelagian do-good-ism. In their defense, men like Kipling and Powell (who practiced espionage) were patriotic gentlemen and nominally Christian. When I say, “nominal”, I mean Masonic leaning and devoted to basic duty, not given to following the logical course leading to the Summum Bonum, which Moss might well consider true Christianity. What most reading Kipling’s If consider mere Christian gentlemanliness, Moss seems to consider “broad and lazy” English churchmanship. Despite Moss’ objections, Kipling and Powell’s ‘do-good-ism’ is precisely the kind of Christianity which a man returning to his desk in 1946 could see as relevant to his life. It was this kind of basic and practical churchmanship which Lewis was able to tap into and profoundly illuminate in a way not seen, perhaps, since William Wilberforce.

             

To conclude, the kind of man who returned to his desk in 1946 was the kind of man who also espoused this basic patriotic Christianity and might be tempted to read Fleming and Playboy when his wife wasn’t looking. When he watched his best friend spill his blood on the battlefield and woke up with nightmares for the rest of his life, he didn’t think to himself that he did it for Anglo-Catholicism or Methodism or the Southern Baptist Convention any more than he did it for the Labor party or Republican party. He did not sacrifice for the sake of some logically complex and idealistic ‘highest good’. In the end, he did it for the basic good of freedom and ‘Mere Christianity’. He was glad to see as he returned to his desk day after day during the fifties that there were still men fighting against atheism and the worst of unethical business practices. Whether it was James Bond or C.S. Lewis, he identified in these personalities something he himself was – merely heroic.        

The Bishops' Course of Study

The previous post and comments brought to my remembrance a book I read a number of years ago called "Faith and Freedom: A Study of Theological Education and the Episcopal Theological School." This book was written by George Blackman and published in 1967 (Seabury Press). Most of the book is a detailed history of the foundation of the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, MA, which is now known as Episcopal Divinity School because it merged with the Philadelphia Divinity School in the 1970's.

The first chapter, however, details the history of theological education in the earliest days of the Episcopal Church. It is an interesting story, and there are many parallels with the continuing church that came along centuries later.

For at least the first fifteen years after the close of the American Revolution the Episcopal Church was too preoccupied with trying to survive than to worry about training would be clergy. Bishops such as William White were, for the sake of providing a congregation with a minister, willing to make sacrifices in terms of selecting and training candidates.

Like ministers from other traditions, Episcopalian clergy in these days read for orders under the direction of a parson, and using his library. The weakness of this was the same then as perhaps it is today and always will be: the comprehensiveness of the course of reading was limited entirely by the resources of the parson's library and his idiosyncrasies.

As Bishop White believed this to be a shortcoming of his own theological study he made sure that the ordinands he prepared were exposed to a very wide variety of books. But this did not solve all of the problems associated in those days with reading for orders. The other problem was that it was hard for ordinands to make it out to study with their mentors with great frequency. Often they were together just once a month, and when they as much information as possible was jumbled together and crammed down their throats… hardly a systematic way to read and learn theology.

So in 1804 steps were taken to improve the quality of theological education. General Convention proposed that the House of Bishops establish what later came to be called "The Bishops' Course of Study." Bishop White himself is thought to have developed the course, which was basically a reading list that contained sections on apologetics, Scripture, and Church history. Once this course was read, and only then, did the candidate progress to the study of systematic theology ("divinity" as it was then called). Systematics included courses of reading on liturgics, and pastoral theology - including polity and canon law. The list of books in each category is very extensive (and listed in the volume under discussion) and consisted almost entirely of English theologians. Black notes that while the bishop's knew the amount of reading material was too much for most students the purpose of it was to establish an ideal, and perhaps provide some choices of books if a particular one was too difficult.

The notable thing about the list is that even though the books were readily available and still in print none of them were new books. They were what could be described as venerable classics. Many, in fact, had been standard divinity texts for over 50 years. And in the late 1860's General Seminary, Virginia Seminary, and the Episcopal Theological School still required many of these texts to be read. In fact this book list lead to the formation of General Seminary, as the need was seen to have a place where formal instruction in accordance with this curriculum could be given. Eventually, of course, the Bishop's Course of Study was eclipsed by the seminaries it helped create. But for many years it held sway over the Church.

It seems to me that while there are a number of lessons that the continuing church, or any extremely small church or denomination, can be learn from this history. One of the main ones is as follows. With the absence of our own seminaries it would be wise to establish a permanent reading list of classic texts that is meant to supplement a course study taken in a mainline, generic seminary. My diocese has a five book (I think) reading list for men in the discernment process. This is a step in the right direction. But once a person is enrolled in a non-Anglican seminary then what? He should be required to read specific books from a standard book list to supplement his theological education and make up for any gaps. I was given a number of books by my mentor, which was very helpful. I'm sure other clergy do this for men preparing under them as well. This is all good and well, but what there should really be is a comprehensive, standardized diocesan list, as in the early days of the Episcopal Church, that is used by men in seminary as well as those reading for orders. This would help create a standard of learning among the clergy, which would go a long way in building and forming stronger parishes and Christians.

Building an Anglican Library

Recently I was asked how one should go about building a decent library of classical Anglican theology. Here's the first thing I would recommend. Consider purchasing the six volumes of the Church's Teaching Series which was published by the Episcopal Church in the early 1950's.

The books in the series are: The Holy Scriptures (Bible); Chapters in Church History (Church History); The Faith of the Church (Theology); The Worship of the Church (Liturgy); Christian Living (Moral Theology and Social Ethics); and The Episcopal Church and Its Work (Church Polity).

These books are easy to find used or free, dirt cheap, and are themselves are very good resources for the basic faith of the Church as taught before some of the authors, and the Church itself, went off the theological deep end in the 60's and 70's. This, of course, is not to say that they are perfect, or the last word in Anglican theology. But they are indeed very helpful. I often give them to laity who are either new to the Anglican tradition, or wish to learn more about it.

One of the nice things about these books, though, is that they contain extensive, detailed bibliographies, divided by category, reading level, and so on. Most of the books contained in these bibliographies can be easily purchased used online. Others are still in print, or have been reprinted. A decent Anglican theological library can be built for a very affordable price by purchasing the books in the bibliography sections of these volumes.

So I recommend these books as a foundation to build a basic library of Anglican theology that is helpful to both clergy and laity.

Prayer Book Liturgy and Church Growth

Recently my parish has been blessed by God with growth. I believe that one of the things that has contributed to this has been simplifying the service.

When I arrived the liturgical state of the parish was the same as when I had left four or five years earlier. It was a typical APA "missal" parish, meaning of course that the 1928 Prayer Book liturgy was supplemented by all sorts of additional devotions and responses from the missal. That, along with six hymns, service music, announcements, a sermon, and the "three year lectionary" made for a very long and (for newcomers) confusing service. While that service may work well in some places it just did not seem to be doing anything for us here.

So I decided to do something radical: we went to a straight 1928 Prayer Book Service. Additionally, I took out the sermon hymn, a practice I began in Virginia which saves about five minutes from the service. I also brutally suppressed the long rambling list of "Mass Intentions" before the Prayer for the Church. All of this has made the service much easier to follow and a lot less intimidating for visitors. (In my opinion it is much more aesthetically pleasing as well, although I am something of a minimalist in my artistic tastes.)

It is now very easy to just give a newcomer the Prayer Book and tell him: "Put your finger here for the scripture readings, and here for the service." Often they do fine the very first time they visit, and most of the time, happily, they stay, or at least visit on a regular basis. No longer do they have to bounce between three books, or listen to a long, confusing explanation of how we are 1928 BCP parish that for some reason has all of this stuff in the service not found in the liturgy. And no longer are there those awful "service booklets" in the pews, which invariably look terrible, and are usually nothing more than monuments to a priest's idiosyncrasies.

I believe that making the liturgy more accessible in this way has helped make people feel more welcome and at ease in church. The Prayer Book liturgy is daunting for those who are new to it. We clergy sometimes forget this because we are so used to it. We err in my judgement, and reduce our effectiveness and outreach, when we take this beautiful, but very prolix liturgy, and add a lot of extra stuff to it.... stuff that is really unnecessary.

Charles, King and Martyr

What follows is a sermon preached by the Rev'd Peter A. Geromel for the feast of King Charles the Martyr. Fr. Geromel is a priest of the Diocese of the Holy Cross and will be a regular contributor to the New Continuing Anglican Churchman. Welcome aboard, Fr. Geromel!

Today, we celebrate a Feast which is still very much open to debate. It concerns an incident that came on the brink of the Modern World, a world that was transitioning from the time when kings were those who stood up against the barbarian hordes which swept across Europe all the way from the Steppes of Russia, a feudal world. It was a world that was transitioning into the one we have today and the events that shook England at that time would be fruitful in producing the America that we love. At that time, a baptized Christian named Charles was executed, whom we call a “Martyr” and the world recognizes as “Charles I of England,” and some call a good king and some a bad one, even to this day. Today, many of my colleagues have festivals in honour of this gentleman. And today, many of our conservative Presbyterian brethren, with whom we now have many things in common, whom we commend on their upholding of Holy Scripture as inerrant and infallible and joining with us in many of the postmodern battles which we face, still revile as a despot. As a tyrant, like King George; whom the American Christian should obviously, in their minds, perceive as everything we fought against in order to establish Freedom and Equality for all. Indeed, they would ask us to join with them in proclaiming Sic Semper Tyrranis over the grave of this conscientious man.

Yet the readings for today provide a different perspective. The first upholds the king as one to be honoured and the second is meant to show that, generally speaking, those who would dethrone a king are doing so out of envy, namely in the words: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.” This is basically what happened. The Puritan hordes swept down like an avalanche from off the Alps, descending to bring modern political science and a “new Jerusalem”.

Consider the following about his death: “From the time of his arrest he spent most of his time in prayer and contemplation. On the day of his execution he gladly made his preparation for death, with the aid of one of the Chaplains allowed to him; with whom he first recited the Office of the day, and then listened with great devotion to the reading of the Passion according to Matthew. Thereafter he received the last Sacraments; by which fortified, he went bravely and cheerily to his death. . . . At his execution he affirmed that he was a faithful member of the Catholic Church . . . Afterwards his body was laid in Saint George’s Chapel, Windsor; but at the command of his enemies he was buried without the Church’s rites, for their hatred of him and of the priesthood was not satisfied, even when they had accomplished his destruction” (Anglican Breviary, 1844).

The Gospel lesson for today is one of Christ’s parables concerning husbandry, as the tending of a field is called. It falls this year between the Gospel lessons of Septuagesima and Sexagesima, both of which are also husbandry parables. Last week, we heard of the Parable of the Hired Labourers. This coming week, with themes I would more particularly wish to speak about, we have the Parable of the seeds falling in various places, rocky ground, good ground, etc. That Parable which I would like to speak about specifically is the Parable concerning the bad seed sown by the enemy among good seed. In that instance, the servants come to the householder and ask him if they should weed the field, pulling up the shoots from the bad seeds. The householder, God the Father, (indeed, the Vulgate calls him patris familias) tells them to allow both the good seed and the bad weed to grow up together until the time of harvest.

But this, as much as I have respect for the Puritans’ zeal, is exactly what they would not do. They, like the servants in the Parable, were impatient. They wished to establish God’s elect beyond the shadow of a doubt and before the time of judgment. For example, at that time, there were Puritan ministers wishing to serve in the Church of England who would refuse to read the Burial Office over those who, in their lifetime, had given no testimony of faith to the (very fallible) minister’s satisfaction, even though they had been baptized. This is perhaps partly why these usurpers of Charles’ throne refused to offer God, on behalf of their lawful king, the proper burial prayers; because he had never in his lifetime given a testimony of his faith to their satisfaction. But he had given it to the Church’s satisfaction and that should have been enough.

Today, we face the same problem. In our area and in our era, there are similarly preachers who claim that if you do not stand up and give a testimony to their satisfaction, even if you have been baptized, you are no Christian. Although “testimonies” can be helpful at certain times and in certain ways, let today remind you that you do not need to give such a so-called testimony before any congregation in order to be a Christian. You are a Christian on behalf of what God has done for you in Holy Baptism, not because of what you have provided to any congregation by way of edification or entertainment. Isaiah 49:16 says, “Behold, I have graven you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me.” Christ has testified on behalf of you. He has chiseled you into His flesh. It is true that we must stand up for Him, for Christ says, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” Nevertheless, what testimony does he require of the humble Christian, except as St. Paul says, “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” and as St. Peter says, “Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” You are a Christian on behalf of what God has done for you, not because of what you have done for a preacher by showing off just how good a job he has done evangelizing you. This smacks too much of what St. Paul writes in Galatians, “For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.”

A prayer during decent Christian Burial says, “We therefore beseech thee, let not the sentence of thy judgment press hard upon him, whom the reasonable prayer of thy faithful Christian people commendeth unto thee: but grant that by the succour of thy grace, he who while living was sealed with the sign of the Holy trinity, may be counted worthy to escape thine avenging judgment.” This is the prayer of the Baptized on behalf of the Baptized. Christ says, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” And so we pray for mercy on behalf of others, hoping to receive the same ourselves. And we should not try to separate the wheat from the tares. We should not so dare. Our duty is prayer.

Ember Day Blues

As I progress in the ministry I find the Ember Days (BCP, p. 260) to be some of the hardest holy days to celebrate. The purpose of the days is, of course, to pray for vocations to Holy Orders. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot go out into all the ends of the earth without some people being dedicated to proclaiming it on a full time basis. So it is important that the Church pray for vocations to Holy Orders.

Discouragement in the ministry, however, can incline one to not pray for vocations. Indeed it may seem almost uncharitable to pray for people to offer their lives for such a difficult and seemingly fruitless endeavor as parish ministry! I have even heard of clergy say outright that they hope their children do not go into the ministry because it is so hard, and often fraught with so much disappointment.

The propers appointed in daily lectionary of the Book of Common Prayer make no bones about the hardship of the ministry. Today's first lesson from Morning Prayer, Ezekiel 2, is almost comical inasmuch as God calls Ezekiel to proclaim his message to people who will not listen, and will not change their ways and repent! This is often the plight of the parish priest. Calls to do the simplest thing, such as show up for church on Sunday, are unheeded and ignored.

Yet the same passage reminds the priest of an important point: the priesthood is as much for his own salvation as it is for others. God acknowledges to Ezekiel that the people won't listen or care about what he says, yet he tells Ezekiel to deliver the message anyway. Ezekiel is called to be faithful, and he will be faithful, as will God, even if the people of Israel will not.

The message for the priest is to "keep on keeping on," and to faithfully discharge and fulfill his vocation to be a messenger, watchman, and steward of the Lord (BCP, p. 539), despite the inevitable difficulties of parish ministry. God gives us grace to make it through day by day. We have to continually tap into his grace through prayer, study of the scriptures, and celebration of the sacraments.

May God give his Church vocations so that the Gospel of his Son may be spread to all the ends of the earth, and may he grant grace and fortitude to those men in the ordained ministry who are laboring in the fields.

An Anglican Reflection on Benedict XVI

Yesterday the world was shocked to hear that Pope Benedict XVI, citing health concerns, is resigning from office at the end of the month. I join many others in thanking God for his ministry and praying for a restful, productive retirement for him. I also join those lifting up the Roman Catholic Church in prayer as the College of Cardinals convenes to elect his successor.

I speak for many traditional Anglicans when I say that I have greatly appreciated this pope's stand for moral and doctrinal orthodoxy. In a world that is becoming increasingly hostile towards Christianity and even the simple notion of truth, Benedict XVI stood largely alone on the world stage, steadfastly proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the confluence of faith and reason.

His books, sermons, and articles have been enjoyable to read and highly informative. I have not yet begun his trilogy on the life of Jesus Christ, but look forward to beginning it sometime this year. So far the two books of his that have been most influential to me were his books "The Spirit of the Liturgy" and "Principles of Catholic Theology." In the latter, one sees his great respect for Protestant theology in his interaction with Luther, Melanchthon, and other Lutheran theologians. This respect carried over to the Anglicans with the establishment of the personal ordinariates that we see being slowly established across the globe.

Besides all of this, many other great things could be said about this wonderful man of God and all that he accomplished while in office.

While it may seem strange to read an Anglican singing the praises of Pope Benedict XVI, those who have read Richard Hooker (see Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book III. Ch. i. 10-11) know that the Anglican perspective has always been that the Roman Catholic Church, despite having some doctrinal errors, is a true branch of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Church, and that the pope is a true bishop of the Church and the historical patriarch of the west. As such he is worthy of honor and praise... but in Benedict XVI's case, not only because of his office but because of his obvious godliness and commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Virtues and Moral Theology

For our pre-lenten and lenten study at my parish we are studying the virtues: the four cardinal virtues and the three theological virtues. After beginning with an overview of the concept of virtue in the area of moral theology and ethics in general we are moving on studying one of the virtues each week until Holy Week or thereabouts. Tonight we spent an hour talking about prudence.

The study is based mainly on the classic book by R.C. Mortimer, The Elements of Moral Theology. But it also draws significantly from The Four Cardinal Virtues, by Josef Pieper, The Elements of the Spiritual Life, by Harton, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Gilson, as well as a few Peter Kreeft books on Aquinas, and, of course, Nichomachean Ethics, by Aristotle.

It is very rewarding to see the level of interest people have in this subject. Not that we necessarily have tons coming out, but the people we do have coming out are very engaged in the topic and make some excellent points as they interact with the concepts.

On my part, as I prepare each section, I am reminded of how differently moral theology was taught when I was in seminary in comparison to the classical approach, revolving in large part as it does around the concept of virtue. The texts we used in seminary did not even discuss virtue, much less any of the traditional concepts of cardinal and theological virtues. In fact, as I recall, we never studied those ideas at all in any of the classes that I took. Very strange indeed. If they were discussed it was not in any class that I attended. All of my education in this area has come from my own reading and study of classic texts such as these listed above.

Moral theology is a necessary and critical component of theological study. And quite simply in my pastoral ministry I have found the traditional categories of virtues to be much more helpful in spiritual direction, confession, and pastoral counseling situations than "freedom of choice and fundamental option," which is all we ever talked about in moral theology class in seminary.

Anyone who is interested in expanding his knowledge of this subject should read the books listed above. It is important to read several books on the subject, as each author explains things in different ways, and some do a better job than others in certain areas.

Richard Rohr: A Rebuttal

Note: The following was written as a response to a piece by the Roman Catholic Franciscan theologian and spiritual writer Richard Rohr that I received via e-mail. While I was not able to copy and paste the piece to which I am responding in this post I did find a link to it here:

http://mizales.blogspot.com

Here is my response:

"I enjoy receiving these forwards as Fr. Rohr always gives one a lot to think about. The thing that is interesting about how he presents his thoughts is that he couches a legitimate social and theological concept - in this case conversion of heart; in one of the previous ones I was sent, spiritual liberation - in terms that are controversial and in the end highly questionable. I see it in two ways in this piece: with regard to the person of Christ, and with regard to the nature of the Church.

First, with regard to the person of Christ: based on the canonical Gospels it is absolutely true Jesus never said "worship me." But this hardly matters. This is in fact a highly questionable hermeneutic, and ultimately it proves too much. Because Jesus also never said, "Don't cheat while taking final exams," yet it doesn't follow from that that we are all therefore allowed to cheat on our exams! We have no record of Jesus speaking on many important issues, or what he said about a number of other issues. But yet from the historical records of his life that we do have we can discern certain principles and beliefs. 

Here's one of them: Jesus claimed to be God. And God is to be worshipped and adored. The people of Jesus' day with whom he came into contact recognized his divinity which is why they worshipped him (and also one of the reasons they killed him). The fact that he was God is evident insofar as he did not make them stop worshipping him, but rather accepted their worship. The early Church had to come to grips with the records and apostolic tradition concerning the person of Christ, which is what lead to the Arian controversy and (eventually) to the the first ecumenical council (Nicea) where it was defined that Jesus is "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, etc." 

While arguing over the mechanics of worship and devotion can be a tireless waste of time (witness some of the controversies of the Reformation), and can make one miss the point of having a personal conversion of heart, Fr. Rohr must be cautious in how he conveys all of this, as he does so in such a way as to downplay not only one of the major dogmas of the Church, but also the clear witness of Scripture. (In so doing he undermines his own methodology.) That Jesus is both God and man is a fundamental doctrine of orthodox Christianity, and has important ramifications for every other core doctrine.

Second, with regard to the nature of the Church: While making the valid point that Christianity is a "way of being" and a life to be lived, he - like many people from his point of view - simply can't resist taking a swipe at the so-called "institutional church." He claims that man has made Christianity into an institution. But, like his view regarding the person of Christ, this simply cannot be squared with the evidence of scripture or tradition. The reality is that Jesus himself established that most hated thing: an "institutional" religion. This is evident most especially in the calling of the twelve, the establishment of the Holy Eucharist, and the Great Commission. He appointed the twelve to continue his work, giving them the gift of the Holy Spirit to fulfill this duty. He gave them the power of the keys to forgive sin in his name, and to feed his sheep. They in turn appointed leaders in their stead as we see in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's epistles, and also in the writings of the apostolic fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch to name a few. Here, again, he is unfortunately quite at odds with both Scripture and Tradition, and with his own methodology. An institution has leaders, policies, and procedures. The church had this from the beginning because that is how God ordained it to be.

He then makes an entirely unfounded and not necessarily true connection between so-called "established religion" and war, greed, etc. Unfortunately for Rohr, "saying so doesn't make it so." And even if he was right (which he is not) that doesn't necessarily invalidate the intellectual claims made by a body or person, as the claims have to be considered on their own merit. (By way of example, one cannot look at atheists who live evil lives and say based on that that atheism is incorrect. The intellectual and philosophical claims have to be evaluated on their own merit.)

What has created manifold human suffering and war in the 20th century (in which more people were killed than in all other centuries combined) is Marxism, built as it is on the foundation of dialectical materialism. It is interesting that Fr. Rohr is so concerned war and violence, and yet he chooses to attack the church (in this article) but then in another article praise "liberation theology" which is built entirely on the same Marxist intellectual framework that brought the world Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few).

While it is always depressing to come across people - especially Christians - who do not "walk the talk" if Fr. Rohr studied the bible, and the parables and life of Jesus more he would learn no doubt that the Church is made up of "wheat and tares." There will always be imperfect and unconverted people in the Church. And while people of Rohr's ilk, I suppose, have some super-spiritual insight into the nature of everyone's hearts, I for one believe that Jesus came to heal those who were sick. The Church - his mystical body - is a spiritual hospital. They need conversion (as he suggests). We ALL need conversion of heart. But he really, in my opinion, shouldn't use such people to attack the basic Catholic dogma that the Church is an institution. If we can use the way some people behave and get away with it to question the legitimacy of an institution or the veracity of its teaching then we all are in trouble!!

In all of this he undermines two parts of his methodology: scripture and tradition. He undermines the other "leg" of his three-legged stool methodology - experience - by holding these views as a Roman Catholic priest! The Roman Catholic Church is defined as a hierarchical communion and an institution founded by Christ. He is part of it, yet he attacks the very idea of an institutional church, claiming that man invented it. And the Nicene Creed, which is proclaimed at almost every Mass, is clear statement on the divinity of Jesus, who is worshipped in the Mass. Very curious inconsistencies indeed!

That Rohr is concerned with such important spiritual matters as conversion of heart, helping the poor, and liberating the oppressed, is certainly laudable. But in the end, the way that he does so - at least as it is presented in this redaction of his work - is highly problematic, not only because he completely undermines his whole methodology, but because it contains many subtle errors. That said, please keep sending me these forwards as I enjoy reading them and interacting with them. I like the message I think he is trying to convey. I just have some disagreements with how he chooses to couch it, and also with some of the corollaries he attaches to them."