Hiring a New Church Organist

Hiring a decent organist can be a major challenge these days, especially if you are a small church. Our church was faced with this challenge this year. But I am happy to report that it is possible for a small Anglican parish (ASA about 65 between two services, and membership about 125) to find and hire a talented and enthusiastic candidate. I want to share the story to give hope to other small, cash strapped Anglican churches who need decent musicians.

When I was in my 20’s, before I was ordained, I worked for what was at the time the nations fifth-largest IT consulting firm. This company had “five principles of productivity management.” These were basic guidelines and rules that, if followed, generally lead to success in a project. One of the principles was “get the right people involved.” A project would not be a success if the wrong people were involved.

This principle applies to parish churches as well. The ministry will not be a success if the right people are not involved. Music ministry is one area where this is the case. And in an Anglican parish it is especially the case, because our tradition is known for great music and beautiful, solemn worship. Bad music drives people away from church. Every continuing Anglican parish that is large and successful has great music - at least in my jurisdiction. But what is a small, cash-strapped church to do about hiring a competent organist? How do we attract such candidates, and how do we pay for them?

It became apparent to me over this past year that it was time to part ways with our former organist of 20+ years. Although she was very faithful in her duties, and well known in the community for her Christian service and ministry (to the homeless), the church was at the point where we needed to move to the next musical level, so to speak. More important, I felt as though the level of her playing and overall approach and enthusiasm were actually hurting the parish, and probably had been for a number of years. This is where “getting the right people involved” comes in. If there is a great preacher, and a wonderful hospitality team at the church, but terrible music… or the preaching horrible, but music good, and etc., then the whole mission of the parish will be derailed. Everything - the whole team - has to be good.

So for those reasons I decided we needed to step out in faith and try to hire a new musician. But I knew that I couldn’t just “fire” the organist. Even though that is my prerogative as rector, only a fool would just fire a sweet old lady organist who’d been there for 20+ years. What I had to do was try to get her and my people on the same page… to get them to see things as I saw them. I believed passionately about what needed to be done, so I had to sell them on it.

The first step was to meet with the organist. So I scheduled a lunch meeting with her to discuss the matter. In advance of it I prayed and prayed that God would help the meeting to go well and that his will would be done in this important matter. These matters must always be brought before the Lord in prayer. I also sought some godly counsel from the previous rector and some other experienced and godly clergy. We met, and I shared my concerns with her in as gentle and non-accusatory a way as possible. Though I was determined at the outset what the course of action was going to be, and made that clear to her, I did not in any way want to be rude to her. This was about business. It was not personal. She took it very well, and as it turned out, agreed that it would probably be a good thing for her to move on given all that I wanted the church to do and become, and also because of her own work and family schedule. So in short, while she was not necessarily chomping at the bit to go she was definitely not turning it down. In the end, she agreed to retire from the post and be made “organist emeritus.” As I had not even begin to advertise, we established a timeline for her to step down. She would keep playing through the end of the year, thus giving her plenty of time to slowly pull back from the organist’s bench.

The next step was to consult with some talented, big city church organists to get some advice on how to find a candidate. Being in the metro Baltimore area I figured there would be plenty of organists around. But how would we attract one to our small parish? An organist from a large Roman Catholic parish who also played with several Episcopalian parishes met with me and said the key was two things: write a good job description to really sell the position, and advertise in the right places. He also said that we needed to try to add at least $50/month in pay to get someone. He assured me that there would be a number of organists who would love to play at a church like ours. Many of them are very devout believers who want to have a sincere ministry in music for the Lord. And they tend to like the high church Anglican liturgy, and not having to lead a contemporary praise band in addition to playing the organ. It helped, of course, that my predecessor had spent over 20K on a very nice electronic organ. While not all organists insist on playing pipe organs, a church must have a decent instrument. The organist who was guiding me told me that our organ was a very good, respectable organ, especially for a church our size.

So with all of that in mind I worked for about two weeks writing a detailed and enticing job description. When I was done I sent it to the organist with whom I’d met so he could vet it. He said it looked good and then said to advertise with the AGO, the American Choral Directors Association, and with the Peabody Conservatory. I also sent the job description out to some other organists whom I knew so they could keep their ears to the ground for any possible candidates. And then I prayed, prayed, prayed.

In the meantime, some very good-hearted and generous people at church stepped up and offered to cover the extra expense of the organist. How we were going to finance our new person was a major question. The key things was to talk about the need for a new organist to the right people - people who were sympathetic and in a position to help contribute. So often churches don’t get what they need simply because they do not ask, or they do not ask the right people!

We got our man fairly quickly. A retired music teacher and lifelong church organist who had played at several of the most prestigious churches in Baltimore in his long and storied career. And believe me it makes all the difference in the world having a highly experienced and enthusiastic musician sitting on the organist’s bench who knows how to play this magnificent instrument, and understands the role music plays in glorifying God in worship. My prayer now is that in the long run this would be a great thing for our parish and ministry and that God would use his playing and enthusiasm to help bring our church to the next level.

I hope that other churches out there - particularly small, continuing Anglican ones - are inspired by this story. There is an organist for your church. You need to just pray, pay, and advertise in all of the right places. There are any number of great organists out there who would love to play at your church. Find them and hire them!

A Thanksgiving Reflection

I attempted this year in my Thanksgiving sermon to begin with the question: “What would America be like if Benjamin Franklin’s idea for the national bird, the Turkey, had won out over the Eagle?” I couldn’t seem to ever come up with more than the intriguing intro. One is tempted to go in all sorts of directions, very few patriotic. One is tempted to talk about the America of Isolationism (the cowardly “Turkey” America, unwilling to intrude into the private lives of other countries) versus the America of Imperialism (the Eagle, ready to swoop with talons and lex talionis in order to uphold Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctine and a world “safe for democracy”.) Such a sermon direction might be intriguing and provocative, but I am reminded of a similar sermon episode: A group of my classmates at Hillsdale on a junket (to Boston, I think) stopped at an Episcopal church because of the Bach cantata or some such classical mass-setting. They walked into the gray-haired, sparsely-seated church as a group and took up a whole pew, all except one young lady who, upon spying a woman in vestments, refused to enter the nave (the young lady later became Eastern Orthodox). The music was fine, but then a male priest got up and started preaching in a foppish voice about all the phallic symbols in war (this was just after 9/11), you know, obvious phallic symbols of belligerence – missiles, bullets, so on. The Hillsdale students, a whole pew full, all looked at each other and got up as one and walked out. Yes, such a sermon would not do on Thanksgiving.

Indeed, it is hard to be historical and be patriotic and catholic on Thanksgiving - not all at the same time anyway. No doubt, today, ecumenical services are preaching on how Thanksgiving is about, the Pilgrims came here for, Religious Freedom – nonsense. They came to establish an aquiline theocracy that made the Roman Catholic tyranny look like a Thanksgiving turkey. No. We have Pennsylvanians like Ben Franklin and Will Penn to thank for Religious Freedom, not quite the Pilgrims.

There is grave hypocrisy in the first Thanksgiving, grave hypocrisy and profound theology: The Puritans were Sabbatarians. They objected to Christmas, All Saints Day, even Easter – anything but the Sabbath. And the first thing they do when they come to America is initiate an extra-biblical feast day. They were turning into the Catholic Church, establishing extra-biblical feast days as a church! One Presbyterian theologian I heard speak said, “When your Catholic friends are celebrating Epiphany, tell them you have the Sabbath!” Ridiculous. The Old Testament is filled with feast days and fast days above and beyond the Sabbath.

Perhaps what the Puritans objected to was what so many Discovery-channel scholars want to remind us of, the pagan background to the Catholic Feasts - the Samhain of All Saints, the Solstice of Christmas. Certainly, America has historically, despite the “separation” of church and state, had national days of feasting and fasting. I overstate my case when I say that the Pilgrims were being hypocritical – but you get my point.

“Puritan” means to purify, to cleanse the Church of England from all idolatrous practices – bravo! I have no beef with that, so far as it goes. For them, All Saints, Christmas, even Easter, still had too much of the old pagan in it. But the Catholic tells the Puritan that he is wrong on that score. The problem with the feasts was and is that there was and is too much of sinful man in them, and I can prove it by talking about Thanksgiving.

For every Catholic Feast there is a dark side. Halloween and the Mexican Day of the Dead precedes, “prevents” All Saints. New Years’ Eve comes before Holy Circumcision. And there is a darkness throughout the time of Advent that is more than just penitential. Santa Claus has his dark ministers, his “Black Pedro” – if not his elves. Elves are fairies, like brownies, almost as mischievous as they are ministerial. We have, at Christmas time, “tales of ghost stories” – the flying dead people, and ghosts of Dickens. Harvest Festivals were nothing new in England, but even they are not purified – they still have the “Whitsun Morris Dancers”, who darken themselves and beat sticks against the darkness, especially before Pentecost; this the Puritan objected to and there were no Morris dancers at the first Thanksgiving.

But this is not some sort of Zoroastrian dualism. It is not that the light must have the darkness in order to be light. This dark side is man-as-man in the feast; that which the Puritan and the Catholic both wish to extinguish in the light of Christ-as-man in the feast. And at Thanksgiving, we have developed Black Friday in which “Black” is as incidental as Black Pedro or the darkened faces of Morris – or “Moorish” - dancers. Black means to get the store’s accounts back into the “Black” instead of the “Red.” Sure, but we know that it really is dark. It starts in the dark. It brings out greed – although not necessarily. This greed is man-as-man in the feast of Thanksgiving, instead of Christ-as-man and in man.

And this proves that when the Puritan targeted the paganism in the feasts of the reformed catholic Church of England, it was misguided, as Puritanism so often is. Thanksgiving is the new feast, the first feast of America, established by the Puritans themselves and now corrupted, after a fashion, by Black Friday. It is not corrupted by capitalism, as the Marxist claims, no less than by paganism as the Puritan is wont to claim – but by idolatry, greed, covetousness (but not necessarily!), which the Puritan and Catholic (but not the Marxist) can both agree has no place in the feasts of the “holiday season.”

This is why the Turkey might just be a good image for Thanksgiving, this feast to begin the season of wintry feasts. The Gospel for today, established by the American [Anglican/Episcopal] Church is “consider the lilies of the field.” That is why the Turkey is perhaps a great image for Thanksgiving and for the America of Thanksgiving. It is because the Turkey, less than the Eagle, seeks (in a more obvious way) what the Lord has provided for him: The Turkey pecks around on the ground. The “birds of the air” of today’s Gospel receive what the Lord gives; they do not grasp and claw and snatch at it. (Of course, the zoologist says that they do, but you know what I mean.) They do not worry – while we worry too much throughout the Holiday Season about time, money, and “plastic stuff for Johnny”, as Dave Ramsey would say. The Turkey seems to grow fat by free grazing, because “contentment with godliness is great gain” (1 Tim. 6:6). So being like the Turkey in this respect is seeking Christ-as-man in the Season, allowing Christ to purify it, instead of letting man-as-man defile it. And this is, in fact, what I did end up preaching about today.

Why would anyone attend a continuing church parish?

A while back I had lunch with a delightful fellow on staff at an ACNA parish. At one point during our meal he asked me why I began going to a 1928 BCP parish and what it was about the service that kept me there. He didn't ask the question in a snarky way. Rather, he seemed to be genuinely interested in why me - a relatively young person - would be attracted to what was, in his opinion, a very arcane liturgy.

It was a good question. And the answer for me, and for many Anglicans, is that there is simply no other home for us than in the continuing church. It boils down to liturgy and theology, which of course are two sides of the same coin. The Roman Catholic Church is not an option because its liturgy in both its ordinary form and extraordinary forms is not to our liking. The former is too modernistic, and the latter is Latin, lacks hymnody, etc... it is not "reformed" enough. In addition, certain aspects of the theology of the Catholic Church are still problematical to many Anglicans. So they are just not an option for many Anglicans. The Episcopal Church is not an option because of their heresy, and also because of the modernistic liturgy. Although they have a few parishes that maintain the old traditions these are islands, and so one would have to come to terms with being in communion with the rest of the TEC. The Lutheran churches lack the apostolic succession and the catholic tradition of the Divine Office, and also have different levels of theological problems. Orthodox churches are too ethnic and to foreign liturgically. And finally, the ACNA is modernistic liturgically and also theologically in certain critical areas - WO especially.

So really, for me and for many other people, the reason we are in the continuing Anglican churches is because of genuine liturgical and theological convictions. We have read and studied a lot, and we have been to many different churches in a number of different traditions, and finally we have found our home in the continuing church. This doesn't mean that I love everything about the continuing churches, or that we are perfect. The culture of many of our parishes is problematic in its own unique way. But in times when I have been very frustrated with the church and the ministry and wanted to leave one of the things that has stopped me is the question of where else I would go! I simply wouldn't be happy anywhere else liturgically and theologically, and neither would most people who have chosen our parishes to attend.

A Society of Catholic Priests?

    While surfing the internet a while back I found out about a religious society that calls itself “The Society of Catholic Priests.” (SCP) According to Wikipedia this group was formed in England in 1994. A North American province was formed in 2004. What lead to their formation was the conservative position taken by other priestly societies such as the Society of the Holy Cross (SSC) on the ordination of women. In addition to having women clergy the group also appears to have a number of married and unmarried openly homosexual clergy. The group has a similar Rule of Life as the SSC, and similar aims: the support and encouragement of people in Holy Orders in their life and ministry. The SCP raises some interesting questions on the nature of catholic faith and practice.
    A look at the SCP website and at some of the websites of churches pastored by members of SCP seems to indicate that one of the goals of this society is to bring traditional catholic ceremonial and ritual actions back to the life of the larger church. Thus, there are pictures of incense-filled sanctuaries and gorgeous vestments, as well as essays that laud things like eastward celebration, going to confession, and having a spiritual director. All of this is a step in the right direction. In my opinion, any return to catholic tradition in this day and age can only be a good thing.
    But one has to wonder if the SCP thinks this is all there is to catholic faith and tradition. The reality is that traditional catholic ceremonial and ritual do not in themselves make one catholic, as there are in fact many different groups - christian and not - that do those things but are not catholic. Many Lutherans, for example, practice confession, use incense, wear vestments, and the like. But they are not catholic. So while those things are an expression of catholic tradition, they are not the faith in itself, and making use of them does not necessarily make one a catholic.
    Ultimately the catholic faith arises from and is built on a more fundamental theological framework. This foundation is a specific understanding of nature, God, and man. The catholic view of man is that he is made in the image and likeness of God as male and female. He has a spiritual and physical aspect that together make him who and what he is, and inform how he is to live his life. This means that the material aspect of our being is as much a part of who we are as are our spirits and souls. We can’t therefore toss aside our created physicality, and all that it entails, as though it is nothing because to do so is to suggest that our flesh, and matter in general, is inconsequential, or even worse, that it is evil. This is the position that gnosticism has always taken. And this is precisely the position of the SCP inasmuch as they embrace the ordination of women (and presumably transsexuals), and homosexualism. So I would say that they have committed themselves to an anthropology that is not only not catholic, but decidedly gnostic. All of this is bad news for a society of “catholic” priests. For if matter is of little or no consequence then what becomes of the incarnation? And furthermore, what happens to the sacraments, which are extensions of the incarnation?
    While it is good and refreshing to see clergy try to recover certain aspects of the catholic spiritual and liturgical tradition one can only hope that by reflecting on that tradition over time groups like the SCP and those who sympathize with them will come to discover the fullness of the catholic and apostolic faith, which faith the Episcopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada, and Church of England once held, but began to dismantle in the tumult of the 1960’s and 70’s.

Sermon for Trinity 17: A comparison of St. Stephen of Moldavia and Vlad the Impaler

A little background: I was moving my books last week into my new parish, Church of the Incarnation, Quakertown, PA, when I found on top of one box a bio of Vlad the Impaler by a Boston College professor and a Romanian aristocrat, a descendent of Vlad's. I pulled it out and started reading it again (thinking that a book entitled "Dracula" shouldn't probably sit over at the church). At the beginning of this week, I thought I might preach this sermon and then later in the week, I realized that there was a new Dracula movie coming out, so then I knew I needed to preach this sermon. As I read this bio this week, I thought, wow, wouldn't it be great if somebody did a movie about Vlad's life! not know that a movie was coming out.

I first became interested in St. Stephen of Moldavia when I picked up an interesting icon of him at a Romanian Orthodox monastery in Detroit some years ago. I have been a big fan of him ever since.

PAG+

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called.”

Today’s sermon will be a comparing and contrasting of two princes, two men of the 15^th century. While not renaissance men per se, they were not without renaissance qualities, qualities of leadership such that Machiavelli and Cesare Borgia might respect them. Both were baptized in the True Faith and both sinned. Both were patriots and freedom fighters. They both spoke the same language and they were even related by blood. Indeed, they were cousins. They helped each other out, actually getting each other out of tight spots on occasion. Both of their fathers were assassinated. In this they were like brothers. Yet one was declared a saint in 1992 and the other became in common folklore and popular culture, even to this day, perhaps the most recognized personification of evil. The saint is Stephen the Great of Moldavia. The sinner is Vlad Tepesh of Wallachia, a.k.a Vlad the Impaler, a.k.a. Dracula.

          These two princeps, princes, of Romania were patriots loyal to their homeland, defending their country against political pressures and invasions: from the south, Greeks and Bulgarians, sometimes allied and subjugated by the Turks; to the north, the Polish kingdom – stronghold of Roman Catholicism; to the east, the Ottoman Empire, lusting for blood after their victory over and conquest of Constantinople; and to the west, the Hungarian empire: defenders of Roman Catholicism and strongly connected with other German princedoms. The land of Romania, an ancient land of Roman settlers and gypsies, had its own identity. They were unlike the lands of the German tribes and the Magyars, the Huns, the Slovaks, the Poles or the Bulgarians. When those tribes along the Steppes of Russia had overrun the Roman empire, this Roman colony of Romania, stayed safe in the Carpathian mountains. These lovely peaks and forests were their refuge, invasion after invasion.

          The Romanian people, like the Greeks and Russians, were and are loyal to the Eastern Orthodox Faith. But many German Saxons settled there, loyal to German Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox Church needed help from the West against the Muslims and so had bandaged up their relationship with the Pope of Rome, at least the politicians had and the politicking bishops had – politicians and politicking bishops we shall always have with us, it seems. But the local people and the monks, they were suspicious of this peace between Rome and Constantinople. They knew that it was the concoction of politicians, to try to save their precious Eastern Christendom from the Turks, but the cockeyed concoction of politicians nonetheless. So for these two princes, the ecclesiastical-political scene was complex as well.

          Again, these two had a lot in common. Both had illegitimate children. Both killed in battle. Both impaled people. Both fought Hungary and each other. Both switched sides and allies. Both built churches and monasteries. Both fought for the Church. Interestingly enough, because of the advice of his spiritual father, St. Daniel the Hermit of Voronet, St. Stephen built a monastery every time he won a victory. He seemed to believe that those killed in the battles would need monks to pray for their souls. He built such churches 44 times! And he seems to have only lost two battles! Maybe the Joint Chiefs should send President Obama a memo! Nevertheless, there were differences. Let us look at them.

          Vlad, like his father, was Roman Catholic and was inducted into the Order of the Dragon, a semi-secret fraternal society, something like the Knights Hospitaler or the Teutonic Order of Knights or the now illegal and very controversial Knights Temple. In fact, Dracula means “little Dragon” because his father was “Dracul,” the big dragon. It was a military and religious order which seemed dedicated to fighting against John Hus’ disciples, who were leading the first Protestant war against the Hungarian kingdom, and against the Turks. Vlad later became Romanian Orthodox when he was called to rule Wallachia. He then switched back to Roman Catholicism, because it was advantageous to his protector and captor, the king of Hungary, into whose family Vlad eventually married.

          Stephen, on the other hand, remained loyal to the Orthodox Faith his whole life, but defended all of Christendom. He seemed to understand, on a certain level, that “There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” When Pope Sixtus IV called for yet another crusade, St. Stephen was to follow the lead of the Bishop of Rome. declaring “We are ready to resume the struggle for the defense of Christendom with all the power and heart which Almighty God [has] chosen to invest in us.” And then, at that time, Stephen requested that his cousin, Vlad, who had been a political prisoner of Hungary, be allowed to return to Wallachia to lead up the crusade from there, especially against Vlad’s owner brother, Radu the Handsome, who was moving to rule Wallachia as the Sultan’s puppet ruler.

          At the end of his life, Vlad, who had often changed his loyalty in favor of the Roman Church, was to be denounced as a sick and tyrannical prince by that very Church, despite his heroic and almost miraculous defeat of the Sultan. While, on the other hand, St. Stephen, remaining loyal to the Orthodox Faith his whole life, was to be named by the Pope, an “Athlete of Christ” and “Defender of the Faith.” The only one, besides an Albanian freedom fighter, to be so named in the fifteenth century – irony indeed.  

          Unfortunately, shortly after his bittersweet return to power as the point man of a counter-offensive against Radu the Handsome, like some sick, tragic, celebrity death, Vlad the Impaler, a national hero, was found by some monks decapitated in a swamp near the island monastery where he was probably buried. Even Vlad’s burial site is a matter for speculation, to the glee of Vampire enthusiasts. The differences continue: Vlad the Impaler only ruled six years between exiles. He was, indeed, a tragic individual. A political prisoner as a child of the Sultan, against whom he later won some stunning victories, he watched his younger brother, Radu the Handsome, undergo molestation and abuse. He became estranged from his brother, who eventually became a competitor for the princedom of Wallachia.

          Stephen, on the other hand, was one of the longest ruling in Romanian history, and that was no easy task. Romanian princes ruled, in many respects, at the pleasure of the landed gentry, the local nobles, known as boyars. This is often why Vlad failed in ruling, because he lost the confidence or was too harsh with his boyars. Stephen too, was occasionally harsh with his nobles, but remained in power, popularly. Both were freedom fighters of a holy land against an unholy invader, like the mighty Maccabees of old in Israel.

Yet one can say more truly of St. Stephen, like the valiant Simon Maccabee: “As for the land of Judea, that was quiet all the days of Simon; for he sought the good of his nation in such wise, as that evermore his authority and honour pleased them. . . . Then did they till their ground in peace, and the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the field their fruit. The ancient men sat all in the streets, communing together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. He provided victuals for the cities, and set in them all manner of munition, so that his honourable name was renowned unto the end of the world. He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: for every man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to fray them: neither was there any left in the land to fight against them: yea, the kings themselves were overthrown in those days. Moreover he strengthened all those of his people that were brought low: the law he searched out; and every contemner of the law and wicked person he took away. He beautified the sanctuary and multiplied the vessels of the temple” (1 Maccabees 13). If St. Stephen did not accomplish all these things, to be like the Maccabees was his goal instead of Machiavelli’s idea of the Prince. Interestingly enough, St. Stephen is said to have abdicated, allowing his son to rule in his stead. He appears to have taken on monastic vows after all was said and done.

Now for a moment of theology: We are not talking about St. Stephen having done more, and, therefore, being saved while Vlad went to hell. We don’t know that. Both were sinners. Both were sanctified in the life of the Church. For all we know, both Vlad and Stephen are saved and at rest. A unique form of Romanian mass intentions offers the Eucharist, praying, “For the commemoration and forgiveness of sins of all them that since the world began have fallen asleep in the True Faith, the blessed founders of this holy House, rightly believing Kings, Patriarchs, Pontiffs and Priests”. For something like 44 houses of prayer, St. Stephen is commemorated as both a rightly-believing King and as the founder of that holy house of prayer. For Vlad too, especially at the places he built, improved or endowed, the sacred blood of Christ is pleaded to wash and cover his sins and iniquities, especially his blood-guiltiness.

To be named a saint is to be made an example of by Holy Mother Church. Vlad might have been an example of patriotism and statecraft. But he was not an example of what we see in our Epistle lesson today. While remaining much of his life a prisoner, he was not a prisoner of the Lord. He did not walk worthy of the vocation wherewith he was called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing others in love. We should not be unkind to Vlad; it is hard to be a good politician, and even harder to be a Christian one. But we should glorify God for the wonderful grace and virtue declared in all of God’s saints who have been the choice vessels of his grace and the lights of the world in their several generations, and especially for the holy and rightly-believing prince St. Stephen the Great of Moldavia; and we should pray for the soul of Vlad of Wallachia, that, despite all the popular folklore to the contrary, he might be gathered with his fathers and rest in peace.

Let us pray.

O God, by whose royal favor St. Stephen of Moldavia was permitted to reign over a portion of thy earthly kingdom, grant to all Christian rulers and magistrates singleness of heart, that they may punish wickedness and vice, and to us, thy servants, grace to rule our hearts according to thy commandments; that the kingdom of heaven may be made a manifest reality on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Traditonal Anglican Small Church Ministry Ideas: Prayer Book Study and Bible Study

Here's another thing that I have implemented at my parish that has gone over pretty well. I'm sure someone else has done it at some point, and that it is not original.

I have found in my ministry that there are two texts that most Anglicans need greater knowledge of: the Scriptures and the Prayer Book.

Most Anglicans that I have encountered are woefully ignorant of the Word of God. While they know more Scripture than they think they do, because they use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which puts the Scriptures into a devotional and liturgical format, they really do not know the Bible as whole, and in a comprehensive manner.

They also do not know the Prayer Book as well as one would think. In my experience they tend to know the Holy Communion service and little else. It is especially hard to get newcomers to learn how to use the Prayer Book and feel confident with it.

So how could I get people to learn the Bible and the Prayer Book better? The answer? Have a Morning Prayer service that is followed by a Bible study on the lections. This has worked very well for us. It gets people using many different parts of the Prayer Book and gives us the opportunity to study the Church Year. And it also gives us a chance to study God's Word in the context of the liturgy of the Church, and it teaches people to use the Prayer Book as a Rule of Life.

The short readings are perfect for a Bible study for people who are new to the Scriptures, though I often cover a few days worth of readings in a class. The lectionary bounces around enough to keep things interesting. And if there is a stretch of the Old Testament that you don't feel like covering one day you can switch and do the Bible study on the New Testament reading.

We also use the KJV for the Morning Prayer service, which familiarizes people with this seminal translation of the Scriptures that we use for the public services of the Church. In particular, we use pew Bibles... everyone is given the same one, so I can tell people, "The first reading is in the book of Numbers, chapter 2, beginning at verse 25... and that is on page 237 in your Bible." By doing this everyone can read along, and they learn how to become familiar with the Bible itself, and no one feels embarrassed if they can't locate the passage on their own.

For the study portion I usually switch to a modern translation. This too is educational, as it helps people see the differences and nuances in the various translations of Scripture.

I have definitely noticed a positive change in our parish by conducting Bible study in this way. The people who attend are altogether more engaged in the church and interested in growing spiritually. If you are looking for a way to teach people the Prayer Book and the Scriptures then why not teach them both at the same time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Anglican Small Church Ministry Ideas: Youth Confirmation Classes

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

JGA+

YOUTH CONFIRMATION CLASSES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Visit those that are sick and heal them;

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

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

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

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

            For thou art blessed for evermore. Amen.

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

What tongue can tell,

What intellect can grasp

The heavy weight of your desolation,

Blessed Virgin?

You were present at all these events,

Standing close by and participating in them

In every way,

This blessed and most holy flesh –

Which you so chastely conceived,

So sweetly nourished

And fed with your milk,

Which you so often held on your lap,

And kissed with your lips –

You actually gazed upon

With your bodily eyes

Now torn by the blows of the scourges,

Now pierced by the points of the thorns,

Now struck by the reed,

Now beaten by hands and fists,

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

And torn by its own weight as it hung there,

Now mocked in every way,

Finally made to drink gall and vinegar

But with the eye of your mind

You saw that divine soul

Filled with gall of every form of bitterness,

Now groaning in spirit

Now quaking with fear,

Now wearied,

Now in agony,

Now in anxiety

Now in confusion,

Now oppressed by sadness and sorrow

Partly because of his most sensitive response

To bodily pain,

Partly because of his most fervent zeal

For the divine honour taken away by sin,

Partly because of his pity poured out upon wretched men,

Partly because of his compassion for you,

His most sweet mother;

As the sword pierced the depths of your heart,

When with devoted eyes

He looked upon you standing before him

And spoke to you these loving words:

“Woman, behold your son,”

In order to console in its trial your soul,

Which he knew had been more deeply pierced

By a sword of compassion

Than if you had suffered

In your own body.

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

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

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

To the Wonder (2012) - A Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Preconditions for Valid Theological Exploration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Carey Questions the Value of ARCIC

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

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

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

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

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