It is no secret that being a pastor and parish priest, especially in the Anglican tradition, is very difficult… especially these days in a rabidly secular culture where hostility to Christianity is becoming more and more prevalent. Beyond this, being a continuing Anglican clergyman brings with it unique challenges. I mean, let’s face it: we are not looked at with favor and admiration by most other Christians, whether they be episcopalians (liberal or conservative), ACNA types, Evangelical Protestants, and Roman Catholics. Most of these people misunderstand us (at best) or (at worse) openly revile us. One guy - a priest in a more so-called “evangelical” Anglican jurisdiction was amazed to discover that a continuing Anglican parish he visited actually had some real Christians in it! (That is almost an exact quote.) That people think this of us and our churches is very disheartening, especially without any firsthand knowledge of them. Then there is our liturgy and tradition: it is difficult to pass on to people in our dumbed-down “American Idol” world, so our churches are smaller than most. This is discouraging as well. I could go on, but you get the idea… you know the drill. It is tough being a continuing Anglican… and especially a continuing Anglican priest. This vocation is beautiful and rewarding, but it is not for everyone. It is hard, and for as many rewards as there are in this life, there are equally as many disappointments.
Often I have been tempted to throw in the towel. But then I think of my colleagues in the diocese and all that they have gone through and suffered, and how they are still going strong, and that helps me keep going. My diocesan bishop and his suffragan are huge inspirations to me. I know what they have had to go through in their ministries and personal lives, and yet every time I see them or talk to them they have only great things to say about what God is doing in their lives and in the Church! They always smile and laugh, and they never slander others or come across as being bitter or disappointed. They are true inspirations to me. Also inspirational to me are some of the many senior clergy in our diocese. If I could only tell some of these people's stories. Their dedication to our Lord and the ministry are a huge example and encouragement to me, and I am thankful to God for them, and lift them up in prayer. I know that there are other great churches and jurisdictions in the continuum and elsewhere, but I certainly feel blessed to be a priest in the APA serving among such fine men.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Is General Confession enough? - A Shrove Tuesday Reflection
Often enough I have heard the response to offers of (Private)
Confession that “It’s already in our service”. Is this strictly speaking the
case? What is the effectiveness of General Confession versus Private?
Reading Fr. Baring-Gould’s The Golden Gate on the subject of General versus Private Confession
opened up this subject in a new and enlightening way for me. (He is, on the
whole, fairly open to the basic usefulness and effectiveness of the Absolution
given in General Confession as many good and sound Anglican theologians are.)
To be fair, the Anglican Churchman can find plenty
of refuge in a classical Anglican approach to this matter and avoid the
confessional. He can find it, but is he the healthier for it? Is he the more
biblical for it? More startling, is he actually forgiven? This is where
Baring-Gould is helpful. He provides a “proof text” for Private Confession in
Ezra 10, where the men of Israel are called upon to give up their strange
wives. The confrontation begins,
And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have
transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.
Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his
pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the
strange [pagan/foreign] wives. Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud
voice, As thou hast said, so must we do. (verses 10-12)
Now here we have an
example of General Confession and, arguably, Covenant Renewal. Yet it does not
stop there. The Israelites continue,
But the people are many,
and it is a time of much rain, and we are not
able to stand without, neither is this a
work of one day or two: for we are many that have transgressed in this thing.
Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have
taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the
elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God
for this matter be turned from us. Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and
Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
(verses 13-15)
This is the really
intriguing part; the elders and the judges were brought in to hear “confession”,
whatever that means, and some Levites were also involved. What was it that they
were engaged in on an individual basis?
As one might
imagine, adjudicating hundreds of divorces, where children and property was involved
could not have been easy. Each case would be a bit different. Was the “General Confession”
itself effective? Yes, in a sense. However, there was a sense in which it was
incomplete if not individually adjudicated, for obvious reasons. It wasn’t so
much the individual person saying “I’m sorry” that made “Private Confession” in
this instance more effective, but rather the nitty-gritty of separating the
individual from “strange wives”.
So likewise we can
say of General versus Private Confession today. Is General Confession “valid”?
Maybe – that is a debate that can and does rage. Is it effective? That depends
on what is going on. Does it actually separate you from your sin, from your “strange
wives”? Do you need more, perhaps a “plan of action” for separating yourself
from your sins on a permanent basis? That’s what Advice and Penance are for. A divorce (Absolution) and “plan of action” (Advice & Penance) doesn’t mean that you won’t go back to your “strange wife”
– but nobody can take you seriously about leaving her if you don’t even have a
plan.
There was nothing
about the General Confession of Israel before Ezra that was invalid, per se,
but there was something about it that was plainly and ridiculously useless if
not followed up with a proper case-by-case assessment, adjudication and
reconciliation before Almighty God. Sin is like a bad marriage. It takes root.
It takes up residence in our hearts. It bears (bad) fruit/children. It takes
over our lives. It destroys the Faith and the life of Grace in the Soul. (Since Jewishness descends through the wife, a strange wife literally kills off the inheritance and seed of God, just as sin strangles out the life of Grace.) Overcoming this is not the “work of one day or two” but takes a
long time working with a counselor and spiritual surgeon to make permanent and
effective that separation.
So when we ask if “General Confession” is enough, we aren’t really asking the right question or asking it in the right way. This is because, at the end of the day when we realistically assess the glue that binds us to sin like a bad marriage and bears fruit, that we have to ask ourselves again in a fresh and honest way, “Is General Confession really enough?” Well, is it?
Fr. Peter Geromel is Assisting Priest at Church of the Incarnation and an adjunct professor of Philosophy at Northampton Community College. Educated at Virginia Military Institute, Hillsdale College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary and the University of Dallas, Fr. Peter has authored Sublime Duty: Its Emphasis in The Anglican Way, Christ & College: A Guide from The Anglican Way, and Frankincense & Mirth on High. He manages Traditional Anglican Resources.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Uninformed Christians
At two recent meals with some dear Christian friends it was driven home to me just how many intelligent, engaged, and well-meaning believers there are who actively attend church and are very involved in their parish communities and all the rest of it, and yet are significantly under informed about some of the most important religious and cultural issues of our day.
One of the issues we discussed was the unrest in the Middle East, the scourge of ISIS, and other acts of terrorism committed by certain Moslems around the world. My friend suggested that the real problem that we in the modern, civilized world are facing in all of this is not Islam per se but rather fundamentalism. I think in an effort to be open-minded and charitable he was trying to draw a distinction between Moslems of the ISIS variety and those of, say, the CAIR variety. And at the same time I think he was proposing that Christian, Buddhist, or any other type of fundamentalism could be just as dangerous. But as our conversation progressed it became apparent to me that this person just did not know much about Islam and its history as it was warlike and imperialistic from the outset with Mohammed himself leading battles, authorizing raids, and so on. And recently some scholars have noted that, based on verifiable UN statistics and polls, most Moslems throughout the world are not moderate in any western sense, as they affirm that it is okay for husbands to beat their wives, parents to engage in honor killings of their children, and more. When I mentioned some of this my friend was genuinely surprised, and so I believe that he had never heard this before or considered studying the religion and its cultural and history.
With another friend I discussed homosexuality and the church. I was very much surprised that on such a hot-button and devise issue - both in the Church and the world - he was woefully uniformed about the major issues surrounding homosexual behavior, such as health concerns related to it, whether people are born with those inclinations (and whether that even matters), how problematic its underlying gnostic anthropological assumptions are for Christians and for anyone for that matter, and more. He was not even aware of what the Church really objects to in the whole debate (homosexual acts not “homosexuals”) and why (because that behavior is contrary to nature). That the findings of science usually affirm what the Church teaches in moral matters (e.g. abortion) seemed totally lost on my friend.
Both discussions were refreshing and eye-opening. The former because we were able to have a decent conversation without condemning each other or arguing, and the latter because I thought these people - both very intelligent, engaged, and active Christians - whether they agreed with me or not on these issues - would be much more familiar with the subject at hand and all of its nuances and related issues. But they were not, at least not in my opinion.
This is something that pastors should keep in mind. We sometimes think that our people know a lot more than they really do on a given subject and are much more informed about spiritual and moral matters than they really are. But not necessarily. Don't assume that the people in the pews understand even basic Christian doctrines or language, even if they've sat in pews their whole lives. I have met many people in continuing Anglican parishes whom I would basically describe as ethical Unitarians... not orthodox, Trinitarian Christians! It is important for us to know this, and to know them well and to be patient teachers and shepherds to them in spiritual matters… teaching, teaching again, and reteaching.
One of the issues we discussed was the unrest in the Middle East, the scourge of ISIS, and other acts of terrorism committed by certain Moslems around the world. My friend suggested that the real problem that we in the modern, civilized world are facing in all of this is not Islam per se but rather fundamentalism. I think in an effort to be open-minded and charitable he was trying to draw a distinction between Moslems of the ISIS variety and those of, say, the CAIR variety. And at the same time I think he was proposing that Christian, Buddhist, or any other type of fundamentalism could be just as dangerous. But as our conversation progressed it became apparent to me that this person just did not know much about Islam and its history as it was warlike and imperialistic from the outset with Mohammed himself leading battles, authorizing raids, and so on. And recently some scholars have noted that, based on verifiable UN statistics and polls, most Moslems throughout the world are not moderate in any western sense, as they affirm that it is okay for husbands to beat their wives, parents to engage in honor killings of their children, and more. When I mentioned some of this my friend was genuinely surprised, and so I believe that he had never heard this before or considered studying the religion and its cultural and history.
With another friend I discussed homosexuality and the church. I was very much surprised that on such a hot-button and devise issue - both in the Church and the world - he was woefully uniformed about the major issues surrounding homosexual behavior, such as health concerns related to it, whether people are born with those inclinations (and whether that even matters), how problematic its underlying gnostic anthropological assumptions are for Christians and for anyone for that matter, and more. He was not even aware of what the Church really objects to in the whole debate (homosexual acts not “homosexuals”) and why (because that behavior is contrary to nature). That the findings of science usually affirm what the Church teaches in moral matters (e.g. abortion) seemed totally lost on my friend.
Both discussions were refreshing and eye-opening. The former because we were able to have a decent conversation without condemning each other or arguing, and the latter because I thought these people - both very intelligent, engaged, and active Christians - whether they agreed with me or not on these issues - would be much more familiar with the subject at hand and all of its nuances and related issues. But they were not, at least not in my opinion.
This is something that pastors should keep in mind. We sometimes think that our people know a lot more than they really do on a given subject and are much more informed about spiritual and moral matters than they really are. But not necessarily. Don't assume that the people in the pews understand even basic Christian doctrines or language, even if they've sat in pews their whole lives. I have met many people in continuing Anglican parishes whom I would basically describe as ethical Unitarians... not orthodox, Trinitarian Christians! It is important for us to know this, and to know them well and to be patient teachers and shepherds to them in spiritual matters… teaching, teaching again, and reteaching.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
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!
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!
Thursday, November 27, 2014
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.”
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.
Friday, November 14, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)