The Ad Orientem Mass is the most intimate for both sexes.

East-facing celebrations of the Holy Eucharist have gotten a lot of grief for being uninviting and lacking in intimacy. After all, how inappropriate is it that the priest spends most of the time with his back to you? How rude! Yet research may indicate that this is actually far more intimate for both sexes than the celebration style in which the priest stands behind the altar facing the congregation.

In Love & Respect by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs, a Christian book on male/female relationships, Dr. Eggerichs cites a work, Gender & Discourse by Deborah Tannen and explains a study in that work as follows:

“Research studies confirm the male preference for shoulder-to-shoulder communication with little or no talking. In one study, researchers performed a series of tests on males and females from four age groups: second graders, sixth graders, tenth graders, and twenty-five-year-olds. Instructions for each pair of females and each pair of males were exactly the same: enter a room, sit down on two chairs, and talk, if you wish.

“As the test proceeded, every pair of females, no matter what their ages, reacted the same way. They turned their chairs toward each other, or at least they turned toward each other, so they could be face to face, lean forward, and talk. The males reacted differently. They did not turn toward each other in any way. They sat side by side, shoulder to shoulder, looking straight ahead except for an occasional glance at each other.

“Because the females turned toward each other or literally turned their chairs to face one another for direct, face-to-face contact, the researchers assumed they would have the most intimate conversations. Actually, the most open and transparent of all the pairs, male or female, were the tenth-grade boys.”

Now this is really amazing research and indicates that what has often been derided as silly, insecure “Wallflower” behavior in teenage boys is actually quite bonding, like lining up in para-military organizations or monasteries or among altar boys. It is intimate, more intimate than the comparable female communication preferences.

One might quickly turn this to the debate as to how the Mass should be celebrated. We were likely informed, with the same sort of prejudiced, overconfident, psychoanalytic bravado as those conducting the above research, that “obviously” the priest facing the people from behind the altar would be more intimate, forgetting one minor detail: there is a piece of furniture between the priest and congregation. At the same time, the same sort of folks were telling teachers and bosses that they shouldn’t have the desk between themselves and their students and employees. Why? Because it made them authoritarian and cut down on open and frank communication, or so I’ve gathered. So which is it? Is having a priest standing high up and turning his back to the congregation authoritarian and distant or is having a desk/table between him and the congregation authoritarian and distant, or should we just get rid of the holy table/altar altogether?

Certainly the final option, removing the altar altogether, would be the most favored by some, but let us analyze the East-facing position for its value at providing intimate and meaningful worship for both sexes. First of all, the traditional setting with altar boys either ranging along the chancel or sanctuary walls or facing the altar along with the priest provides young men, at that critical age of second to tenth grade, the opportunity for extremely intimate bonding, an esprit de corps. The same is provided when the priest is flanked at the altar by deacon and subdeacon at certain points of the traditional Western mass. Second of all, the priest will turn around at certain points of the mass providing the female congregation face-to-face communication, without, I might add, a piece of furniture in the way. The men in the nave do have the opportunity to feel intimate with the rest of the congregation simply by standing next to them, shoulder-to-shoulder.

Nobody could doubt this when observing traditional liturgies, even in congregations where there is an iconostasis or chancel screen obstructing part or all of the "view". Nobody who has seen the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, with young men, sometimes as young as four or five, joined in worship with older men shoulder-to-shoulder in the chancel could think this lacking intimacy. Nobody can doubt this when watching the liturgies of the Malankara Orthodox with similar young men standing facing East with the priest in para-military formation. But in all of these Eastern rites, the priest is sure to have several intimate face-to-face communications with those in the nave. He will make an appearance from time to time, either to come to the King’s Doors to give a blessing or facing towards the people in gentle exchanges or loving exhortations.  

Thus, despite what many have been spouting or assuming for years, the Ad Orientem celebration is, in fact, the most intimate possibility, providing the kind of communication styles for which both sexes desire and long. To place the priest behind the altar is to reduce the male-to-male bonding during the administration of the Eucharist and to place a barrier between the priest and the female congregation during open face-to-face communications, thus reducing the appeal for female worshipers as well. By this we can see that an East-facing celebration is the better used when trying to draw both sexes to the Holy Mass. 

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.

Photos from the Consecration of Bishop William Francis Burns (ACC)

The priest associate at my parish, Fr. Don Edelmann, is a first generation continuing Anglican priest. He recently gave me some photos that scanned of his bishop's consecration. The bishop is the Rt. Rev'd William Francis Burns of the ACC's Diocese of the Resurrection.

A friend told me that there is an old legend that a prominent "Episcopalian turned Continuing Church priest" who was expecting to be elevated to this position and was passed over decided at that point to go to Rome, where he is now a noted traditionalist convert who is featured on EWTN from time to time!

Anyway, I have attached the photos of the consecration of Bp. Burns here along with a later photo of some of the clergy of that diocese with Bishops Burns and Kleppinger. Enjoy!

“I had rather be a door-keeper…” (Psalm 84:10) – A Word on Ushers.

I often say to folks that if I could be paid full time with benefits just to be a thurifer, I would. But then, for some monks and for some gentlemen in bowler hats at Oxford and Cambridge their whole lives they spend as “porters”, doorkeepers. Doorkeeper is an ancient minor order, no less than a lay reader, or an acolyte. It is something that should be taken seriously and, for the most part is. But how can it be done better? I remember in high school going to the local Pentecostal mega-church. There was a closet not unlike where the acolyte robes are kept where every gentleman had in his size a maroon usher’s blazer. I was impressed. I have heard raving reviews of the ushers at St. Michael’s in Charleston. Again, what can we do to do a better job?

After all, it’s the first contact. “You never have a second chance to make a first impression.” It doesn’t just take skill to take up the collection (repressing the urge to check out how much is going in or who is giving). It takes far more skill to gauge the person coming into church, not simply to press a bulletin into his or her hand and mumble a greeting, but to figure out exactly what is needed, where they would like to be seated.

It takes prayer. Just as the priest prepares before going to the altar and hopefully the acolytes, just as the altar guild prays before their holy duties are engaged upon, perhaps even more so should the usher saturate himself with prayer, that is, if we are to take evangelism seriously. How are you, after all, to make sure the proper welcome is given, the bulletin is pressed, the nursery is pointed out, the best place for the hearing impaired is hinted at, or the warmest or coolest places for the chilly or warm looking, all in about 5 seconds?

The Usher should be well aware of the latest procedures concerning how evangelism is to take place. How important is your guest registry? Is there a place for email on it? How is your “email capture” as the sales world calls it? How do you point out where the Nursery is without making the young family think that you don’t welcome young people at the worship service? This takes tact indeed! And only prayer, I think, will pull it off. That and practice.

I was always impressed with the ushers growing up. They were serious, usually men of military experience, conscious of the importance of their task. Yet as they grow older, have they passed on their skills and the tricks of their trade to a younger generation? I wonder. Mentoring, too, is important if these traditions are to continue.

Finally, consider having a few of Our Prayer and Praise on hand to hand to young people. It may be out of print (I am not sure). It may be hiding somewhere in the parish library, but it is a fabulous version of the 1928 Prayer Book for children. There are other great resources like that. Whatever it is, it does no good just sitting in the parish library not being used and, perhaps if we start using them again, some continuing Anglican jurisdiction will think of republishing it. Have some kids inserts from the Traditional Anglican Resources available or some coloring books. Also, think about having a few of the large print 1928 BCPs on hand for those who look as if they might need them – and this, again, must be done with care after much prayer. The large print 1928 (for weakening eyes) is now available through the Anglican Province of America.

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.

Reflections on Parish Ministry

One thing that our suffragan bishop told me years ago that I have never forgotten was that it takes thick skin to make it in parish ministry. He was commenting on a priest he knew who excelled in academic gifts and personal holiness, but who, in his opinion, would probably never make it so well in parish ministry due to his thin skin and lack of worldly experience.

Parish ministry....

Curacies are pretty easy in my opinion. I have served two of them. The main thing about being a curate is knowing your place. The curate's job is support the rector who is his direct boss. The rector is the only person in the parish that the curate has to worry about keeping happy. And whenever anyone asks the curate of his opinion on some matter at the parish the curate's only response should be, "My opinion is that of the rector." The only problem a level-headed curate may have to deal with is a rector who is nuts or who is unfair and unethical. Thanks be to God, that is not a problem in the APA.

Being the rector or priest-in-charge is another ball game. The buck stops with you. Managing the personalities, eccentricities, and expectations of your people can be highly difficult... even annoying. One group people thinks the service is too long, others say it is fine, some say it is not long enough. Some people love incense, others like it sometimes, some hate sometimes, and others hate it all the time. One group loves chant, another hates it. Still others - lifelong Episcopalians - are not familiar with the word "chant." The same goes with music, sermon length, activities, politics, etc. While most Anglican parishes are small they are incredibly diverse, so managing that type of diversity, while keeping your eye on the prize of leading people to salvation in Jesus Christ, and keeping the place afloat, can be incredibly complex. Needless to say, not everyone is cut out to handle this.

Rectors need to develop a vision for their parish and have the guts to chart the course and make it happen, while keeping as many people on board as possible, and also, most importantly, maintaining fidelity to the words of the Ordinal. Some rectors are too heavy-handed, and their "my way or the highway" attitude ends up undermining them and hurting their parish and the ministry of the gospel. Others are too mamby-pamby and let cliques of people, or deep-pocketed parishioners run the show. He has to be focused on his mission and what is needed in his parish and chart the course and remain steady with it, despite criticism and even hatred and anger. That is what Jesus did in his ministry! So rectors, who minister in his person, must do the same.

Hardship and Inspiration

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.

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.

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.