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?