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."