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.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
A Review of "Rescuing the Church from Consumerism" by the Rev'd. Dr. Mark F.M. Clavier
In his new book published by SPCK the Rev’d Dr. Mark F.M. Clavier addresses the problem of consumerism. This phenomenon is presented as not only the spirit of the age, but also as the religion of the age, complete with its own value system, sacraments, and rites of passage. In beautiful prose, Fr. Clavier laments the effects of consumerism on individuals, society, and the planet. Unfortunately, the one body that can offer a real, viable alternative to the religion of consumerism, namely the Church, has, according to Fr. Clavier, succumbed to consumerism by adopting practices and techniques that cater to consumeristic culture rather than correct it. But far from being merely descriptive, “Rescuing the Church from Consumerism” is also, as implied in the title, prescriptive. It not only diagnoses one of the main problems afflicting the Church and the world today, but also offers suggestions for the Church to free itself from the consumeristic spirit and reclaim its true identity so it, in turn, may be a viable prophetic witness to a world lost in the mire and hopelessness of consumerism. The solution, according to Clavier, is for the Church to reclaim its true identity as the “household of God.” The Church should strive to be a body where people immersed in the throw-away, narcissistic culture of consumerism can come and find a true home and identity that is rooted in the love of God. In the final chapter of his book Clavier gives some principles for Christian communities to develop into a truly “domestic” church. These include such things as being faithful to its own tradition and being a community that is truly rooted in worship and liturgy. All in all the main body of “Rescuing the Church from Consumerism” is interesting and thought-provoking.
The reader should be aware that the book assumes a familiarity with the concept of consumerism. This is evident by the fact that Fr. Clavier never really defines what consumerism is. Opening the book with at least a working definition of consumerism would have been very helpful to avoid ambiguity. The book is also more sociological than religious in content and outlook. Indeed the Bible is quoted hardly at all in the entire book. And rather than locating the problem of consumerism in, say, “greed” - one of the traditional ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ - or even in human sin in general he instead blames consumerism mostly on evil “corporations.” Though he does quote the occasional Church Father, Anglican Divine, and Medieval theologian here and there, one would think that a book written by a priest who did a doctorate in St. Augustine, and who is involved in clergy training and pastoral ministry would be more biblical and theological - religious - than sociological in outlook. Indeed one has to wonder exactly how a person who did a doctorate in an early Church Father from North Africa is even qualified to write a book that is essentially sociological in nature. So while it is a very interesting and even timely book, the reader should note that this is not a devotional work but more of a scholarly “religious sociology/social commentary” type of book.
Anglicans of the “continuing” tradition should also be aware at the outset that Fr. Clavier is very critical of us in his preface. This is perhaps the most perplexing part about the entire book. Even though it has little to nothing to do with his thesis Fr. Clavier decides to drag the church of his birth and ordination through the mud in his autobiographical preface. He states variously that continuing Anglicans are “backwater” cave-dwelling Anglicans who are not interested in evangelism, or contemporary trends in theology, and who are fundamentally misguided. Interestingly, however, he did not hesitate to promote his book to us so we could buy it and get our people to as well. His bizarre comments about how we have not taken seriously or been affected by the liturgical movement are easily proven wrong, as is his suggestion that continuing Anglicans do not read anyone writing after C.S. Lewis or Dorothy Sayers. While that may have been true of him, it is certainly not true of the rest of us. Case in point: he references the famous University of Pennsylvania philosopher, Philip Reiff’s seminal work The Triumph of the Therapeutic. Does Fr. Claver know that the Rev’d Dr. Clarence “Chip” Sills, Ph.D, a priest of our diocese, and former university level philosophy professor, is an expert on Reiff and was responsible for getting him to lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy a number of years back? Probably not. What is further very strange is how Dr. Clavier contrasts the current demoralized state of the Church of England with the excitement and exuberance of the church of his birth, and how he does not seem to connect the dots between the former’s wholesale embrace of modernity and its current state of deadness with the latter’s continuance of the classical Anglican tradition and its exuberance and excitement. And for all of the criticism that he dishes out for us reading “out of date” theologians and using older liturgical forms he does a great job of quoting those out-of-date writers and referencing the Prayer Book throughout the book. If they are out-of-date and part of “backwater Anglicanism” then why does he reference them throughout his book? Finally, the very type of solutions he proposes to turn back the tide of consumerism in the Church and the world seem to characterize what we in the continuing Church are are and try to inculcate: the household church; worship that is both accessible but also transcendent; fellowship; ministries; etc. So it seems to me that despite the bleak and horribly inaccurate picture he paints of continuing Anglicanism in his preface (which, by the way, may be read for free on Amazon.com) that according to his own reasoning we are a Church that is getting things more right than wrong with regard to the problem of consumerism.
On a personal level, one can only feel hurt at having promoted in good faith a book on a timely subject by a former rector of the parish when asked by him so to do without any warning of the antagonistic content of the preface. Is he pleasing his overlords in the Church of England, or does Dr. Clavier merely have a bone to pick with the continuing Church, perhaps because of his father’s well-known dismissal from the ordained ministry years ago? I would tend to think that the latter is the case, and therefore that Dr. Clavier abides by the motto “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
I remember when Fr. Clavier addressed diocesan synod years ago just before moving to England to begin his doctoral work. Choking up, he spoke of how wonderful the Church was and how it would always hold a special place in his heart. He was sent off with a standing ovation by everyone present. How very odd that now, years later, and from halfway around the world he decides to mount a mean-spirited and unwarranted attack that is full of inaccuracies and relates not one bit to the thesis of a book that he wrote to us to promote! How very odd indeed.
The reader should be aware that the book assumes a familiarity with the concept of consumerism. This is evident by the fact that Fr. Clavier never really defines what consumerism is. Opening the book with at least a working definition of consumerism would have been very helpful to avoid ambiguity. The book is also more sociological than religious in content and outlook. Indeed the Bible is quoted hardly at all in the entire book. And rather than locating the problem of consumerism in, say, “greed” - one of the traditional ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ - or even in human sin in general he instead blames consumerism mostly on evil “corporations.” Though he does quote the occasional Church Father, Anglican Divine, and Medieval theologian here and there, one would think that a book written by a priest who did a doctorate in St. Augustine, and who is involved in clergy training and pastoral ministry would be more biblical and theological - religious - than sociological in outlook. Indeed one has to wonder exactly how a person who did a doctorate in an early Church Father from North Africa is even qualified to write a book that is essentially sociological in nature. So while it is a very interesting and even timely book, the reader should note that this is not a devotional work but more of a scholarly “religious sociology/social commentary” type of book.
Anglicans of the “continuing” tradition should also be aware at the outset that Fr. Clavier is very critical of us in his preface. This is perhaps the most perplexing part about the entire book. Even though it has little to nothing to do with his thesis Fr. Clavier decides to drag the church of his birth and ordination through the mud in his autobiographical preface. He states variously that continuing Anglicans are “backwater” cave-dwelling Anglicans who are not interested in evangelism, or contemporary trends in theology, and who are fundamentally misguided. Interestingly, however, he did not hesitate to promote his book to us so we could buy it and get our people to as well. His bizarre comments about how we have not taken seriously or been affected by the liturgical movement are easily proven wrong, as is his suggestion that continuing Anglicans do not read anyone writing after C.S. Lewis or Dorothy Sayers. While that may have been true of him, it is certainly not true of the rest of us. Case in point: he references the famous University of Pennsylvania philosopher, Philip Reiff’s seminal work The Triumph of the Therapeutic. Does Fr. Claver know that the Rev’d Dr. Clarence “Chip” Sills, Ph.D, a priest of our diocese, and former university level philosophy professor, is an expert on Reiff and was responsible for getting him to lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy a number of years back? Probably not. What is further very strange is how Dr. Clavier contrasts the current demoralized state of the Church of England with the excitement and exuberance of the church of his birth, and how he does not seem to connect the dots between the former’s wholesale embrace of modernity and its current state of deadness with the latter’s continuance of the classical Anglican tradition and its exuberance and excitement. And for all of the criticism that he dishes out for us reading “out of date” theologians and using older liturgical forms he does a great job of quoting those out-of-date writers and referencing the Prayer Book throughout the book. If they are out-of-date and part of “backwater Anglicanism” then why does he reference them throughout his book? Finally, the very type of solutions he proposes to turn back the tide of consumerism in the Church and the world seem to characterize what we in the continuing Church are are and try to inculcate: the household church; worship that is both accessible but also transcendent; fellowship; ministries; etc. So it seems to me that despite the bleak and horribly inaccurate picture he paints of continuing Anglicanism in his preface (which, by the way, may be read for free on Amazon.com) that according to his own reasoning we are a Church that is getting things more right than wrong with regard to the problem of consumerism.
On a personal level, one can only feel hurt at having promoted in good faith a book on a timely subject by a former rector of the parish when asked by him so to do without any warning of the antagonistic content of the preface. Is he pleasing his overlords in the Church of England, or does Dr. Clavier merely have a bone to pick with the continuing Church, perhaps because of his father’s well-known dismissal from the ordained ministry years ago? I would tend to think that the latter is the case, and therefore that Dr. Clavier abides by the motto “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
I remember when Fr. Clavier addressed diocesan synod years ago just before moving to England to begin his doctoral work. Choking up, he spoke of how wonderful the Church was and how it would always hold a special place in his heart. He was sent off with a standing ovation by everyone present. How very odd that now, years later, and from halfway around the world he decides to mount a mean-spirited and unwarranted attack that is full of inaccuracies and relates not one bit to the thesis of a book that he wrote to us to promote! How very odd indeed.
Friday, August 30, 2013
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.
Monday, August 12, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, July 29, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)