A Thanksgiving Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would anyone attend a continuing church parish?

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

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

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

A Society of Catholic Priests?

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

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

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

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

PAG+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us pray.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Anglican Small Church Ministry Ideas: Youth Confirmation Classes

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

JGA+

YOUTH CONFIRMATION CLASSES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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