A bit of liturgical Humor:

"Thank god at last we have a real pope," shouted Bill Barker, grand knight
of the local chapter of the Knights of St. Sepulcher. "Oh don't get me
wrong, Father. Pope John Paul was a good man, God rest his soul. But this
new Holy Father really knows his business." He paused to take a breath. The
force of his conviction caused the plume on his hat to shimmer and his sword
to clang against the folding chair.

"Take this New Missal, for instance. We'll finally get to pray the way that
Moses and the early Christians prayed. Why, these new prayers were
translated straight from Latin, the language Jesus spoke when he talked down
to the crowds and his disciples."

Fr. Dan Wiggins stared in silence at the paper tablecloth and idly rolled
the peas around his Styrofoam plate. He silently thanked God that he could
barely hear Barker over the roar of diners who had gathered in the parish
gymnasium for the Knights' annual fundraising dinner to stop the trafficking
in frozen embryos from China.

Barker nudged the priest to gain his attention and asked, "What do you
think, Father Dan? Don't you like these new prayers the Holy Father has
given us?"

Father Dan impulsively took the bait and said, "Well, Bill, it's easy enough
for you to applaud the changes. All you have to do is memorize a few
phrases. But like everything else that comes from Rome, we priests will have
to do all the heavy lifting. I don't mind the return to more traditional
language, but the new liturgy is too wordy. Some of the Eucharistic Prayers
are so long you could see them from outer space. The sentences run on
forever. Not even a long-winded priest could pray them out loud without
stopping to catch his breath. Why, even the best English teacher in the
world couldn't diagram some of these sentences."

Barker knew a potential wager when he heard one. He leaned over, put his arm
around his wife's shoulders and said, "You know, Father, my little Martha
has been teaching high school English for 30 years. I'll bet you $50 that
she can diagram any sentence you give her from the New Missal."

Martha looked over at the priest and smiled wanly, with a long-suffering
look in her eyes.

"You've got a bet," said Father Dan, as he rose from his chair and left the
crowded hall. Ten minutes later he returned with a copy of the New Missal,
two pencils and a small stack of typing paper. He set them down beside the
coconut pie in front of Martha Barker, handed her a pencil and pointed to a
sentence buried deep in Eucharistic Prayer One.

Martha straightened her shoulders, pushed up the sleeves of her cardigan
sweater and read the sentence: "To you, therefore, most Merciful Father, we
make humble prayer and petition that your Incarnate Son might deign to bless
these unworthy sinners, who have strayed from the eternal light of your love
bestowed upon your Holy Catholic Church . " the sentence ran on and on, like
one of those great rivers in India that starts high in the Himalayas,
meanders across wide, vast plains and cuts through crowded cities before
finally dumping into the Bay of Bengal.

Martha recited the sentence to herself several times. Then she took a deep
breath and sketched a first draft. Lines began to sprout in all directions
on the paper as adjectives branched off from nouns and reached out to
connect with dangling participles. Before long, a crowd gathered and stared
at the cat's cradle of loosely connected words and phrases. Somebody said it
looked like the skeleton of a pterodactyl. The president of the parish
council thought it resembled a street map of Paris. A small boy asked if it
was supposed to be a family of octopi on a picnic.

The diners soon grew bored and drifted away, accustomed as they were to
watching contact sports. Martha crumpled one sheet of paper after another
and tossed them into a nearby wastebasket. It wasn't long before she asked
for more paper. Later she called for Scotch tape and a yardstick. She sent
the parish secretary to find a copy of "Strunk and White." After an hour and
a half, she asked for hot tea and a Xanax.

Finally, her husband handed her $10 and said, "Honey, I'm calling it a
night. Call a cab when you're finished." By this time, the gym was nearly
empty as volunteers swept the floor and turned off most of the lights.
Afraid to disappoint her husband, Martha labored through the night. Around
two o'clock she lost herself in the sentence and couldn't find her way out,
like one of those hapless tourists who panics after getting trapped inside a
hedge maze. Her mind began to reel, her heart palpitated and her breath grew
shallow. Pious phrases swarmed in her head like the dark bats in "Fantasia,"
and the words took on a life of their own and seemed to taunt her as the
floated around the page. Eventually Martha lost all sense of time and began
to hallucinate.

A security guard found her the next morning hunched over a mountain of
crumpled paper, gripping a pencil with both hands and muttering to herself.
When he asked if she was alright, she told him to leave her alone and
explained that she was channeling Catherine of Siena.

The pastor called an ambulance. When Martha resisted the medics, they
suspected that she was having a bad acid trip and threatened to subdue her
with a Taser. Father Dan told them to back off and suggested that she might
be speaking in tongues. Bill Barker insisted that his wife was possessed by
a demon, and he signed the forms to have her carted away in a straitjacket.
As he heaved himself into the back of the ambulance behind the gurney, he
turned to the priest with a look of desperation. Convinced that only the
strongest spiritual medicine could save his wife, he asked, "Father, when
you anoint her, would you do it in Latin?"

[Isaac McDaniel is a Catholic priest who teaches at Bellarmine University
and Spalding University in Louisville, Ky.]

Bishop of Washington Elected on Second Ballot.

From the Lead: 


The Episcopal Diocese of Washington elected the Rev. Dr. Mariann Edgar Budde as its first female diocesan bishop on June 18, pending the required consents from a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees of the Episcopal Church.

Budde, 52, rector of St. John’s, Minneapolis, Minn., was elected on the second ballot out of a field of five nominees. She received 102 votes of 163 cast in the lay order and 137 of 175 cast in the clergy order. An election on that ballot required 82 in the lay order and 88 in the clergy order.

May God bless her, the Diocese, and the Church.

We Have Brought This On Ourselves.

In Ferinheight 451 Professor Faber remarks, while holding a copy of a Bible saved from burning by Montag, that Jesus would be hard pressed recognizing himself in the Corporitist State Controlled media.  In the film version it is claimed by the banal figure of Beatty that books come to be banned so that the ideas they contained would no longer offend those unwilling to be educated. At the end, Montag meets a minister run out of his pulpit for what he preached. In all three of these we find the face of the enemy of the mind that in now romping free across the American landscape. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. I'm not going to try and unpack the complete problem, that is way outside my provence, but I am convinced that no small reason for the rise of the neo-Right is a lack of coherent thought beyond a general "thats not right" to oppose it. Far to often those of us who know better than the way religion, orthodox Christianity in particular, is put forward in the media come off looking like the Vicar in an Eddy Izzard sketch, unable to move other than in the shoulders, and incoherently unable to engage the scriptures at any meaningful level.

We allow those on the "conservative" side of the debate, if a scream followed by a half hearted whimper can be called a "debate," to dominate simply because we have bought into a set of assumptions. The first is the theology, by which I mean the hard work of dogmatics, is unimportant. The second is to play the game of the fundamentalists in so far as we accept Modernism as the determining framework, often by embracing a form of post-modernism that fails to engage. The third is to bow to pressure and be silent in the public square in order to not cause offense to fellow progressives who are of a more secular  bent. In all three cases we refuse to speak our truth before any form of power, all the while reveling in a far more specious "prophetic" ministry of meekly spinning our wheels. We need less of the resolutions at conventions and more of a dynamic claiming of our voice and stepping out in faith. 

We need to attack the Modernist reductionism of Fundamentalism, reject it's false teachings, and voice that it is not "conservative" Christianity at all, but a set of insidious heresies spewed out of fear and hate. We need to reject the false teachings of Objectivism and it blasphemous cousin the "Prosperity Gospel." We must reject and abjure easy power and comfortable social standing to be able to voice our truth. We must also be unashamed of our intellectual and spiritual heritage.  We must allow a Jesus who would recognize Himself to be seen in the world, or we have failed Him.

An Excellent Sermon.

Over at haligweorc we find the excellent sermon on the Trinity preached at my former parish of St Marks, Highland by the ever capable Rev. Mrs. Haligweorc. Most specifically, she takes on the fashionable Modalism we find so often preached by the Cool Kids.

Do be aware, this is serious theology being presented by a masterful theologian in a parish setting. Don't expect a whole lot of  vague talk of "discipleship." This is about God, not us.

Communion With Out Baptism.

I've said before, and will say again, that this topic is a none starter for me. I find it to be as interesting to write about as an essay cataloging and detailing every type of ship, sail, weapon, armor, horse, saddle, food, utensil, medical supply and name of every participant down to the lowliest peasant involved in the Norman Invasion in 1066 (including the Viking landing that occurred earlier).  It's really an irritant for me, a bur under the saddle. However, the rate at which people keep writing about this, and keep so desperately missing the points made I kinda feel the need to say SOMETHING.

Rather than just blasting the three of you who read this (hi April) with my general feeling that TEC is ill served by not training it's clergy in Systematics, or for the clericalism that cuts real, deep theological learning out of the hands of the laity, I'll try and stick to the topic. As I note, this is a sight full of ruminations. As such I will have to try and focus my scattered thoughts for a bit on the topic and come back. What I will leave you with is a few links I think might be of interest.

Derek Olsen has weighed in here most recently on this.

Charles Wingate has done a good job summing up another argument here.

Cooties Redux

This is a semi-continuation of posts that start here and continued here.)

My thoughts upon the Covenant and its inherent Donatist double bind have been interrupted by the most recent maneuvers’ of the GAFCON crowd. Namely they have begun their own meandering side steps which will (probably) lead to an attack on the Covenant as being to lenient. They are doing so, at least in part, by demanding another Primates meeting with neither the Primates of TEC nor the Anglican Church of Canada invited. (Examples of this can be found here)
Now, one of the things about Donatism is the fear of infection by association. When several of the Primates refused to sit in the same room as the Primate of TEC or to receive communion with her, they proved their Donatism. Now, to cut off communication because of a perceived sin, and to threaten to widen that shunning, is to follow right down the road paved in North Africa before the Council of Nicea.

This, sisters and brothers, is the conundrum we face. The fearful, hateful, and scornful are demanding that “gracious restraint” be one way, and that they are free, due to the inherent holiness of their own persons. We must all bow to their (ever shifting) demands or else face banishment from the Table they foolishly think of as theirs. That +++Rowan will, no doubt, bow once again to these bullies will again cause the fractures begun in 1998 with the creation of the AMiA to widen. The GAFCON crew has already shown that they are not particularly willing to be in communion on any but their terms.

I was working on a longer post, but the actions of the heserarchs of GAFCON have neatly proven my point. In the end this dissolves into an argument about cooties and purity of some over others. I have no patience with this as a childes game, let alone as a theological argument.

Part Two: Old Sermons and Cooties

(A continuation from here)

I am aware that many of you are saying, “But that’s not what this is about!” We all “know” what the issue is. One of the problems though is that precipitous actions and reactions often have unforeseen and unintended after affects. That and my deeply suspicious nature when it comes to the motivations of many involved lead me to push upon this. I also lift up these little points to try and show that many of the cheerleaders for this dog and pony show called “the Windsor Process” may be inviting in more than they wanted.

Moving past the Melodramatic Transition let me get to the nut of this. The Covenant came about in the same manner as the Lambeth Conferences. To be exact, one Province has a Bishop that has caused people in other Provinces heartburn. Rather than Bishop Colenso going native, as it where, in Natal and acting as if the Africans he was teaching might have something to say or could even think, we have Bishop V. Gene Robinson of Vermont. The dirty little secret that most people don’t like to mention in the oh-so polite salons of Anglicanism is that the vaunted and much respected, venerable, almost sacrosanct Lambeth Conference was born of confusion over a Bishop who not only followed the prodding’s of his African students as to the mathematical probabilities of a literal reading of the Exodus, but who sided with them against the racism of the Colonial government of Natal and South Africa. A cursory glance at the newspapers of the day will show that the conference was called not only to deal with the doctrinal issues, but with the effrontery he presented to the Victorian worlds’ views of race. I drag this up to point out that we are not going about trying to save some institution that sprang Athena like from the brow of Christ. Rather, lying at the heart of one of the Instruments of Unity is a history of colonial and intellectual superiority. Anglicans may talk a good game about the radical historicity of the Faith, but we suffer from the collective Western amnesia, which makes things hard to keep in perspective. Remember folks what it is we are really talking about. We shouldn’t dissolve into paroxysms of despair, we should realize that crisis and distrust are a part of the process it seems and that it serves as the ground from which we grow a new thing, with Gods help. This was born over controversy about a Bishop, it seems that we will grow in a new direction because of controversy. Controversy in our ecclesial DNA, even more than some other branches of the Faith. It might even be fruitful to remember that the Nicene Creed came about out of controversy and dispute. So everybody take yourselves a good deep breath, pour yourself a cup of tea, or a glass of gin, or maybe even some fruit of the barley and we’ll move on.

Steaming past this digression into historical minutia, lets bring this back into the current we were in. The Articles of Religion, also called the XXXIX (that is 39 for those of you who lack the proper Classical Education to figure out that’s not a certification in the Motion Picture rating system) Articles, simply the Articles or “those things we read when the Sermon goes on to long” is my point of departure for a critique of the Anglican Covenant. Now in my last posting I gave a few examples as to why singing onto them is, at this point, tricky. I’ve got one more, before we get to the snapper of this issue.

XXXV, which I mention for almost recreational purposes at this point, is on pages 874 and 875 of the BCP (PECUSA, 1979).  The Second book of Homilies is a collection of sermons meant to help summarize the Christian Faith. They also were designed to fix the problem that +Richard Whatley would sum up almost two centuries later: “Anglican preaching aims at nothing and, generally, hits.”  These are almost precious little gems of rhetorical soporifics and “eat your peas” moralizing that suited a Queen who held preaching in low esteem. They come complete with footnotes that refer to the Greek text of the Bible and do make for fascinating reading, if you’re into that sort of thing. Being some one who is masochistic dedicated enough to wade into this stream of Tudor wisdom, I’ll try and give you the run down. These are not sermons to be set aside lightly. Or even tossed aside with great force. Rather they need to be evaluated carefully. And this careful evaluation needs to be done before we all blithely sign right up to abide by them. I also dare any clergy who read this to get up on a Sunday and read one of these to their congregation. Double points if you do number six. (The Homilies, unlike the Articles themselves, are allowed to be referred to in word form or Arabic numerals.) 

All of this has been simple ephemera, a mist of sarcasm in the face of them main event, as it were, to the inclusion the XXXIX Articles into the Covenant. The problem lies in the text of the Articles and the intent of the Covenant. They lie in open opposition to one another, and no amount of casuistry can make them agree. Article XXVI is a standard anti-Donatism, anti-Arminian, anti-Anabaptist statement. The Sixteenth century was swimming in theology born not of the longer tradition of Augustinian thought but rather of a hyper sensitive idea of holiness. This idea came, just as it did for Donatus and Pelagius from a fairly uncomplicated reading of the Holy Scriptures. Twisting them to feed the pride of those who had decided that they were on the “inside” as opposed to those outside. These were people who rejected Church history and much theology out of ignorance and pride of owning God’s word. They had the Bible, and didn’t need anything else. Into this mix came the most loathsome of all the early heresies: Donatism.

More on these sixteenth century perfectionists, and their twisting of the Gospel, later.

Why the Covenant is Fatally Flawed Part One

Let me at the outset state that I do not reject the concept of a Covenant per se. Quite the contrary, anything that is rooted in compromise, reaction and suspicion as the Communion is needs to have some sort of charter beyond the simple framework of documents such as the Quadrilateral, which was never intended to be anything more than a starting point for ecumenical conversations. The fact that it, along with the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are the only connective materials of weight becomes ever more distressing when one realizes that so many people really don’t know what they say. That there needs to be a clarification of purpose and direction is, in my opinion, unarguable. That the current document that sits as the “final form” of the Covenant is inadequate is as even less arguable a point.

Lets set aside the grammatical errors, the pedantic prose that reads like a power point presentation, and the bland language that is about as inspiring as an instructional manual for a standardized test. Also let us, for the time being, set to the other side the vagaries of Section Four. Rather, I would like to turn to the first section of this act of sophistry perpetrated by committee. In particular, I would like to submit for your perusal 1.1.2, which readeth thus:

(1.1.2) the catholic and apostolic faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation2. The historic formularies of the Church of England, forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, bear authentic witness to this faith.

The rub in this lies not with the text it’s self, but rather with the footnote that explains what “The historic formularies of the Church of England” are. For the purposes of the Covenant they are “The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” This raises a significant set of conundrums. I would wager that most people would not really know what the Articles of Religion are, let alone that there were Thirty-nine of them. Precious fewer of them even know what they say. I include in that latter group a majority of the Clergy in most Anglican Churches. To be precise they are a collection of quasi-confessional statements laid out in their current form (more or less) in 1563, during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I. They were not intended to completely define Anglicanism per se, but rather to serve as a description of the Church of England at that time and to serve as a seedbed for Elizabeth’s desire for a Reformed Catholic faith. As such, they refer to their time period almost exclusively, and to matters at hand in the second half of the sixteenth century. Eventually, they came to be appended to the Book of Common Prayer and eventually became the required “Test” for full membership into English civil society as members of the State Church. Arguments as to their meaning, depth and breadth have gone on for some time. Indeed it is one attempt at pushing the definitions to far, in the infamous Tract 90, that would lead John Henry Newman into swimming the Tiber and joining the Roman Communion.

At this point, I think it would be good to turn to the Articles themselves. It is a part of the oddity of these statements the convention of referring to them in their Roman numerals, rather than Arabic ones. While your humble author thinks this is an example of those uniquely Anglican traits of artful conceit and precious obscurantism, I shall endeavor to follow the form. Rather than trundle through the whole 39 XXXIX of them, I’ll turn to ones that in particular case me to pause. I will refer through out to the American version of the Articles found starting on page on page 867 of the 1979 Prayer Book, that being the authorized edition in The Episcopal Church. I say that because there is no complete agreement as to the currently binding text as several of the Constituent Churches of the Anglican Communion. For example, VIII Of the Creeds as adopted by the PECUSA in 1801 recognizes the Nicene and “that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed.” The 1571 version of VIII includes the Athanasian Creed. That is just one example of the differences that crop up between the Churches, and if we are to default to the 1571 text XXI, XXXVI, and XXXVII all put us in an uncomfortable position, as it were concerning “the Queens Majesty,” and her Parliament.

Moving right along, we come to the first not so abstract an issue but one that comes up. That is Article XXV. For the sake of bandwidth I will refrain from reproducing it. It occurs on page 872 of the ’79 Prayer Book. It opens with a clear numeration of the number of Sacraments. They are limited to the two Dominical Sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and Baptism. The other five commonly called Sacraments are labeled either “corrupt followings of the Apostles” (more than likely referring to Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Penitence) or “states of life allowed in scripture” but not sacraments (Holy Orders and Matrimony). While I think there are few who would argue that Extreme Unction (i.e.: the reservation of anointing the sick until they were dieing) wasn’t a distortion of the injunction found in James 5:14, many Anglicans would balk at not referring to a full list of Seven Sacraments. Even a Reformed Catholic like myself will refer to the two Sacraments and the five Sacramental Acts, which can be seen as growing out of the Article, but not within the text of the Article, its self.  The third paragraph is the most difficult to parse out for our common practice in TEC today. To whit, the practices of Benediction, adoration and even the reservation of the Sacrament are all forbidden in this one little sentence. The devotional practice of many Anglicans is expressly squelched here. I can think of at least five parishes where Benediction and adoration occur regularly and one that is seriously considering it, as well as processions with the Sacrament and other extra liturgical devotions. This is to leave unmentioned the fact that I can’t think of a parish that has no reserved sacrament, at least for the sick.

The next issue is the Article that happens to be my favorite, if only for its colorful turn of phrase. XXII is entitled “Purgatory,” but touches on the topics of the invocation of Saints and Images and Relics. As I sit here I have an icon of St Jerome (or Hierome as he’s called in VI), little statuettes of Our Lady of Mt Carmel, and Therese of Lisieux, my rosary on my workspace and am acutely aware of the Crucifix upstairs and the icon of the Good Sheppard in the next room. Also, the third class relic of the Holy Mother Teresa of Avila stuck in my Breviary rushes to mind. We have prayers for the dead in the very prayer book that contains this. I say the Angelus every day, and sing the Salve Regina after Compline. I am in flagrant violation of this little paragraph. So are a great many people, most of whom would hesitate at the idea of being called “Anglo Catholics.”

More Later.

Cry Havick!

Pay back is Hell.

I am in no mood to play nice. The objections to Mary Glasspool's election are, almost by their own argument, Donatism.

The supporting the Covenant is condoning Donatism.

On a fundamental level, on it's own merits, their argument is wrong. This "restraint" argument is wrong, again as a matter of unvarnished orthodoxy. The ACC communique is a monument to casuistry and sophistry in it's attempts to not sound Donatistic. +Howe, Harmon+, and the rest are arguing from a weak position. If they were more likely to turn to a hyper moralistic bigot like Pelagius it might make more sence. But they lay claim to Agustin of Hippo, the theologian who defined the doctrine of grace and expanded it to denounce the loathsome theology of Donatus and the rest.

The "inclusiveness" argument is the other half of this equation, or at least a continuation of the expansive ideas of Grace, but it doesn't directly push back, and that is why they continue to play word games claim some specious doctrinal high ground.

I'm tired of playing nice.
I'm sick of being apologetic.
I say we call them out for what they are.

The Anglican Rite in the Roman Church

Northern Michigan episcopal election fails to receive required consents

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on July 27 notified the standing committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan that the necessary consents to the ordination and consecration of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop were not received within the prescribed time period and therefore his election was "null and void."

In Thew Forrester's case, standing committees had until July 19 and bishops with jurisdiction had until July 25.

"I have been extraordinarily blessed and honored to walk with my friends from the Diocese of Northern Michigan over these past months as their bishop-elect. I treasure the support they have extended me and my family, as well as that I have received from Hong Kong to Holland and from Great Britain to New Zealand, and indeed from so many throughout The Episcopal Church. As we live and move and have our being in Christ, there is truly a Holy Wisdom in all that is unfolding, and as St. John of the Cross affirms, a grace in 'all that happens,'" said Thew Forrester in a statement.

Members of the standing committee couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Thew Forrester, chosen during a special convention on February 21 to succeed James Kelsey who died in June, 2007, had come under intense scrutiny since his election.

Read the rest here.

Ecumenism, the Eucharist and The "Cool Kids"

In the rash of bad decisions made in the final hours at General Convention this summer (along with cutting the Evangelism, Women's Ministries, Anti-Racism Training, and Education to the vanishing point) was a provision to have "Interim Eucharistic Sharing" with the United Methodist Church. Now I say "bad" not unadvisedly. I'm not going to launch into some screed about how the UMC isn't really a Christian Body and Church, or that it is invalid at some key level. Rather, I am pointing out that there is far to much work that needs to be done before we can even go there.

Methodism and Anglicanism have a common heritage, but the relationship is rocky. In the end, American Methodism was founded by a precipitous act by John Wesley to ordain two men to come to the new nation to act as superintendents, not Bishops, for the nacient Methodist meetings here. Coke and Asbury's names are today remembered in the Publishing Company of the UMC. There was an implicit rejection of the Historic Episcopacy (Not to mention the slightly different concept of Apostolic Succession) in this action. When the old Southern and Northern Methodist Churches, as well as the EUB, merged, they decided upon the tittle of "Bishop" for their District Superintendents but decidedly left out any idea of the Episcopacy that smacked to much of being "Catholic." To this day, if you really measure up the two services for Making Bishops in the Methodist Book of Worship and the Book of Common Prayer, you will note a few differences. In the BCP the idea is that there is a conferring of a separate Order of Ministry and that the recipient will share in the Office of the Apostles. The UMC service of "Consecration" is the elevation of a senior Presbyter, granted special authority and set aside in that role, but still a presbyter. In there lies the difference.

The reason that this becomes important is that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886 and 1888 defines the "inherent parts of [the] sacred deposit" that we Anglicans consider to be non negotiable. The Fourth Article of the Quadrilateral outlines that we hold the concept of the Historic Episcopacy to be essential to our understanding of the Church, and that we expect to meet it in some form in any other Church with whom we are to attempt parity with. In the Case of the ELCA we were willing to accept their Presbyteral Ordinations in the same spirit that similar ones were received in England after the Restoration. When there are no bishops available and the Church needs to survive, they are acceptable. Loss of the Historic Episcopate due to the forced merger of Reformed and Lutheran Bodies in Germany in the 18th century was, in part, the pretext for our embrace of them. We also have made it so that their Bishops will be in the Historic Episcopate and the Apostolic Succession and the agreement is such that all of their Pastors going forward will be ordained by their Bishops. We are working a type of union within both our and their categories and it's still fairly touch and go.

With the United Methodists, however, we have all of that touchy and unpleasant baggage. Wesley acted outside of our Anglican tradition, even as it was understood at the time, in order to tend to his groups in the United States. That rejection, and the continued rejection of the Historic Episcopate is a major issue that should be addressed.

Another part of this is, and this may sound odd, is that we don't see eye to eye about the nature of the Sacrament it's self. I'm serious. The first problem is the one many people see as being the silliest. You see that Lambeth Quadrilateral I mentioned before has as its third article a commitment to the two Dominical Sacraments using the "elements ordained by Him." At issue here is that the UMC has a doctrinal and social commitment to using pasteurized grape juice ala Welches, and not wine. As the UMC Book of Worship puts it:

"Although the historic and Ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by the United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late 19th century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation for children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence." (pg. 28)

We'll not stop for to long and ponder the implications of this pastoral concern. That the only one that seems to not be tied up with 19th century pietism and general Victorian prudishness about alcohol (in particular when dealing with children) is concern for those for whom alcohol is poison. The proper way to respond to the needs of alcoholics is one that needs to be discussed and dealt with. The TEC's insistence that reception of one species or the other makes for a full communion may be a part of the answer, but such theology seems to be missing in the formularies of the UMC. However, that all is beside the point if one is willing to ignore such a difference in the basic idea of the proper administration of the Sacrament and paper over it.

The other issue is one that, the well written and theologically sound This Holy Mystery aside, there is no real parity between what Anglicans think of the meaning of the Sacrament and that of the UMC. That a major part of the "method" for which Weslians are names was regular reception of the Eucharist is down played if not actively forgotten now. Any sort of theology that even dares approach even the lower end of the Anglican spectrum of the Real presence is shrugged off. There is a need for the UMC to find it's voice on the Eucharist more definitively so that we may know what it is, exactly that we are sharing. The Prayer Book, in almost all of it's iterations starting in 1549 taught some form of Presence. The brief Second Book of Edward VI had the lowest and the proposed Scottish Prayer Book one of the highest. It is a part of our theological heritage that has been a part of our distinctiveness for a long time. We have no one voice on the "how", but pretty strong on the "what," the UMC is still trying to reclaim both. It is not, however, the job of TEC to do that work for them.

Not that any of these considerations matter that much to many at General Convention. Such matters, like real evangelism and the need for a fully funded educational office, are matters anadiaphoron, a thing indifferent. Most matters of theological distinction are really rather unimportant to many in power in our Church. That may seem harsh, in particular those who I just accused of being indifferent may object, but the accusation stands. Trivialities and feel good affirmations as well as sociology and political aphorisms have replaced the hard work of theology. There is a long, low roar of impatience that crescendos into a high pitched whine when ever the topic comes up. It could be simply a matter that almost every seminary is really a school of social work with a few, often resented, theology classes tossed into the mix. Most of our clergy are simply untrained in dealing with complex issues of theology and the culture of the Church has become one that, essentially, down plays such issues as unimportant.

In my last post I mentioned that there is a group of men and women who could best be defined as "The Cool Kids." These are people whose opinions matter in TEC in a way that the rest of our do not. They are the ones who reacted to strongly to the rejection of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester's election, and couldn't quiet understand that theological scruples really existed in a strong enough form to cause "good Liberals" to not support him. They are the same ones who don;t quite yet grasp the point that it is not a failing on the part of younger people to not fit into the same categories of taste and interest; and to like traditional music, or worship and not go running whole hog after new liturgies or new expressions. A desire to experience and use the old is seen as an aberration that must be stopped. It is the same air of assuredness that leads to the echo chamber like atmosphere of Committees like the SCLM, and to weaken the resolve of those who are on the Legislative committee to ruefully send the mess forward to the Bishops because to send it back to the SCLM would have hurt their feelings and it unChristian to harsh on a mellow.

now that I have, in part, defined the "Cool Kid's" I'll stop this post and move onto one about Evangelism, and why our Church seems to hate it.

Holy Women, Holy Men

Blessed feasts of blessed martyrs,

holy women, holy men,

with affection’s recollections

greet we your return again.

Worthy deeds they wrought, and wonders,

worthy of the Name they bore;

we, with meetest praise and sweetest,

honor them for evermore.

12th-century Latin text,

translated John Mason Neale

#238, The Hymnal 1982

The 2006 General Convention, meeting in Columbus, voted to approve an "A" resolution from the Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music (SCLM) to substantially revise the Lesser Feats and Fasts book, the "sanctoral" or "Book of Saints" the Episcopal Church uses for it's, well Lesser Feasts. They then produced (as one member put it a tad condescendingly put it) what "General Convention wanted." They have proposed a massive reorganization of the Book, complete with a new name "Holy Women, Holy Men," based off of the lyric quoted above. It is comprised of 112 additions, several adjustments, but no subtractions. I was surprised by and then a bit turned off by the size of the change, but decided to focus my thoughts into one or two spots. I also kept many of my reflections to myself as I watched the discussion unfold on the blogosphere and the HoB/D list.

The response has been mixed. The Establishment Left of TEC has received this, predictably, with open arms. The Conservatives were equally predictable in their rejection. Apparently, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" has been amended to end with "in a predictably automatic way according to camp." The rest of us, many of whom you will note over at the side of your screen, were mixed in our reactions. I had several little things that stuck in my craw, some of that will be below. Other people had other issues. So, after a while, I went through and I googled a few of the names I was unfamiliar with. I was underwhelmed by most but one or two stood out as particularly good and others as bad. What kept coming to me was the question of why so many, and why some of the people chosen. Rather than indulge in to overly wrought a discursive essay, I'll simply list and briefly explain some of my problems.

1. Saint John of the Cross: This is the most complicated of my objections, so I list it first. I'll start with my general queasy feeling towards "San Juan de la Cruz" being listed in the book. If we were to take the time to list any other saint by their native name it wouldn't bother me as much. As it is, it is just a precious little addition to make the whole mess more "multi-cultural." Second, the date, November 24th, given on the Calendar for John is unexplained. Admittedly, back in the mists of time that was the date for John's commemoration. His death date is December 14th, that is his commemoration in the Roman Catholic and other Western Churches. In the 19th century his day interfered with the octave of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and so was moved to the day that he joined the Carmelites as John of St Mathias. In the 1950's Rome saw that as silly and moved him back to his first date of commemoration. Why then do we put him there? Even the Church of England commemorates him in December. I would guess that this date matches Ye Olde Kalendar in the Anglican Breviary, one of the many Anglo-Catholic books which has enshrined the 19th Century as the epitome of the Churchs' life and history. No doubt that was one of the reasons, but I'll not lay money on it. Now, there is a perfectly good person in HWHM, Henry Budd, one of the first Anglican Religious in the US, if not the Communion. My question would be though, why not commemorate him on a date of "event" and not put John in his place with the rest of the Church? This isn't just a question of being picky for it's own sake, but rather for the sake of continuity, or dare I say, Catholicity. (I'll also add that I think the collect is trite and precious.)

2. John Muir: He was an agnostic if not an atheist. To be more exact he was raised in the Church of Scotland then in one of the Cambelite sects because his father didn't think that the CoS was keeping it real enough. Later in life he would reject the concept of God all together "as purely a manufactured article as any puppet of a half-penney theater." How is he an example to the Faithful? He is rammed rather uncomfortably in with Archdeacon Hudson Stuck who was an old time social reformer type and outdoors-man. He helped climb Mount McKinley and was active in passing labor laws and teaching discipleship as caring for one another. I haven't found much that identifies the good Archdeacon as an Environmentalist, but my research is incomplete. What I find objectionable is that a faithful Christian is given second billing to a man who had no such faith, no matter how admirable he may be otherwise.

3. Charles, King and Martyr: This is a reverse objection to the one above, but they are connected. Why, after all this time, do we not include him on our calendar? He is present as a feast on the calendars of many of the other Anglican Churches in the World, and he was a Christian faithful to the catholic faith he had received. He died, in no small part, because he refused to compromise on the good order of the Church and was executed by the Puritans because of it. That there is no room on our calendar for him, but there is for Muir is I indicative of part of the trouble. You see Muir is popular with the "cool kids" of the Establishment in TEC, but Charles II is not.

4. The Amazingly Elastic Standards: Here are the standards of inclusion on the Calendar as outlined in 2006. Here they are for the new book. Now, using the standards as given there why would, say Muir, a Cambelite Agnostic/Atheist get recognized when Charles II isn't? I'm being deadly serious here. Are we to assume that the Sierra Club is now a devotional society of TEC? Are we to discount the Anglican credentials of Charles and the fact that he has a devoted society that has lobbied for him, as well as a well defined devotion dedicated to his memory? This is just one example of the "cool kids" making a decision and roling with it. I could list Barth, Fannie Crosby, or Kierkegarrd as example of other faithful Christians who seem to not fill in all the criteria for the calendar but are there and people like Laud, Church, Charlotte Young, or Auber are not.

5. Those Who Have Left Us: HWHM adds three names that stood up and slapped me when I saw them. John Henry Newman, GK Chesterton, and Elizabeth Anne Seaton all left the Anglican faith for "greener pastures" in the Bark of Peter. I am deeply ambivalent about this, in particular with Chesterton who could be very sardonic about Anglicanism. Newman requires his own post.

A bit later I'll expand upon what i mean by "The Cool Kids" and my feelings about the elitism that runs around in our Church.

Episcopal "Reform of the Reform"

"The Episcopal Church is passing through a watershed era. I believe that as the Baby Boomers begin to fade out and Generations X and Y begin asserting our voices, yet more changes remain on the horizon. As these changes are coupled with the growth of information technology, emerging/evolving soical media, and widespread social changes, I think we’re only at the start of a larger, more complicated, more convoluted process than we may suspect."

Read the rest, here.

There are several things in this that I find to be very interesting. The first is the continued statement that those of us who come after the post WWII generation are different and have different needs and desires. One of the key things is that we have lost is any sense of history. We have stopped training clergy in many of our seminaries to be pastoral theologians and educators and turned them into a kind of Spiritual social worker. With the more heavy duty academic work also went an ability to be grounded in the continutity of the Church as a whole. The sloppy things that come out of clergies mouths should be a source of scandal for the Church. A generation of sloppy, amateurish theology and history from the pulpit is combined with a massive amount of bad "scholarship" about the History and life of the Church (Marcus Borg and his hip, yuppie Jesus for the new millennium being chief among them, but Pagels and her amazingly elastic Gnosticism comes in a close second) to make a messy situation.

Some of this is simply an inability of post-modernism to actually construct anything lasting or meaningful. The other part of this is that the post WWII generation tended to be disinterested in building in the Church as much as they were intent on destroying. Diogenies Allen said once that the birthright of the Church had been stolen and destroyed. Part of this destruction is so that those who came after could not return to the past to look for ideas. Rather, the past as drawn by the well meaning, but misguided, intermediate is all that is there, and this image is so incomplete that it is useless. Some of this is a function of a general disdain for History in general, and a substitution for "these are my thoughts on the subject" and a collection of caricatures designed to make the reader feel better about themselves.

What we need is a solid reclamation of our heritage and an insistence upon it as a starting point.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/thew_forrester_election_report.html


The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester cannot receive enough votes from standing committees in the Episcopal Church to be consecrated as bishop of Northern Michigan according to a tally kept by an Arkansas reporter who has been in contact with all of the Church's 110 dioceses as well as the Convocation in Europe.
The Diocese of Bethlehem's standing committee voted not to consent to Thew Forrester's election tonight, becoming the 56th diocese to withhold consent according to the reporting of Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who also reports online at Bible Belt Blogger. If his count is correct, Thew Forrester can only be confirmed if some standing committee's change their votes.
Fifty-six standing committees have withheld consent. Twenty-nine have given consent. Twenty-six have either not voted or not reported on their vote, according to Lockwood.
The Church does not announce the outcome of confirmation balloting until after the 120-day period in which consents may be received. Thew Forrester's consent period ends in late July.

Baptism, Eucharist, and the Hospitality of Jesus: On the Practice of "Open Communion"

Anglican Theological Review ,  Spring 2004   by Farwell, James

The opening of the eucharistic table to the unbaptized is a practice inspired by the radical hospitality of Jesus. Too often, however, the practice of open communion is adopted casually, without the systematic theological reflection called for by something so central to ecclesial identity and mission. Among the issues the practice raises are (1) its reliance on the claim that Jesus would not have shared a ritual meal with his disciples alone, (2) its departure from the paschal ecclesiology at the heart of contemporary liturgical renewal, which links baptism and eucharist to a post-Constantinian understanding of mission, (3) its failure both to appreciate the pastoral value of longing, and to avoid a modernist commitment to the immediate gratification of individual desire, (4) its naive assumption that boundaries are necessarily inhospitable, and (5) its taking the place of genuine evangelism and public ecclesial witness. This essay, while not an exhaustive argument against open communion, addresses these critical issues.

It has become commonplace, in some circles of the Episcopal Church, to argue that communion ought to be offered to the unbaptized in public worship as an expression of the radical hospitality of Jesus. A handful of high profile parishes, in conscientious defiance of the canons of the Episcopal Church that restrict communion to the baptized,1 have undertaken the practice and inspired a number of other parishes to do the same. While the actual practice of offering communion to the uiibaptized does not appear to be widespread, its profile is high enough to have warranted a resolution before the 74th General Convention asking for the appointment of a task force to consider the serious ecumenical and theological ramifications of this growing practice.2 The topic was recently on the agenda of Anglican liturgists who meet annually with the North American Academy of Liturgy. The Episcopal Church is not alone in reconsidering the traditional restriction of communion to the baptized. Recently, scholars and pastors of the Presbyterian Church (USA) devoted a vigorous session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion to this topic, and Methodists have long discussed whether Wesley meant by his claim that the Lord's Supper is a "converting ordinance" that the table should be open to all.

Read the rest here.

Comprehensiveness for the Sake of Truth

While I am not exactly sure of who wrote it, I commend to the attention of the about 6 or so of you who read this little corner of the internets the following sight: Comprehensiveness for the Sake of Truth. In particular, I suggest that you ponder this explanation of and expansion upon the Lambeth Quadrilateral and consider adding your signature to it, as I, and several others whom I respect deeply, have.

If we do, indeed, have a core doctrine, then we must make some effort of defining it. This is as good a start as any. Is this the end of the process? No, but this is a good starting point.

I am a major fan of my XM radio. I was less than pleased when they merged with Sirius.
They took away my Vox and a few other channels I was hooked on and didn't replace them with anything, as far as I could tell. After we moved to Baltimore all we had was the XM, and I stumbled onto The Catholic Channel. I have come to like it a great deal. It's so nice to have Christian programming that doesn't involve mullets and silly repetitive music.

In particular Lino Ruli's Catholic guy show has deepened my faith and many days kept my head from blowing off. More later, I just thought I give a shout out to a fine organization.

Beyond Words

The arrogant and, to be honest, devious and cowardly Donatist conspirators have been unmasked for the schismatic and mendacious villains they are. As is fitting for the subscribers to the, low rent, heresy of the schismatic and false Bishop of Carthage they have freely reinvented the history of the Church and now gone about trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Read the smoking guns of appallingly self serving treason against the Church that has been their home, and their utter disrespect and contempt for their fellow baptized at the following two links. The first is to a set of leaked emails these IRD sycophants have sent to one another, spelling out their plans to deceive and discount the Episcopal Church and the parishioners who are at their mercy in order to further their goals. 

The second is what has to be a presentable document that embodies their quasi Congregationalist excuses for their actions and rational for the institutional perpetuation of their infidelity and nonconformity to the Church Catholic. When I have calmed down, I will explain why these people, many of whom should know better, are so wrong.

Percy Dearmer On the Prayerbook:

Loyalty to the Prayer Book.

THERE was once a man who wanted to escape from a certain prison: he tried to loosen the window-bars, he tried to work out the stones of the wall, he tried the chimney, and he tried the floor. Then suddenly a happy thought struck him. He opened the door and walked out.

I think the historian of the future will say: There was once a Church that wanted to escape from a great mess. Somehow or other this Church had failed to retain her hold upon her members: the people of the country had for centuries been drifting away from her; half the religious folk had formed themselves into other denominations; the great majority of the people somehow had given up going to church at all; those who remained faithful were, in spite of a great Revival, still in singular ignorance as to the principles of their own religion: as a consequence, many of these were so sluggish as to be a source of weakness rather than strength; others were zealous, but their zeal was a source of division rather than of the unity which maketh force. So her enemies raged against her; her own children rushed hither and thither and were not satisfied; while the nation, through its Parliamentary representatives, became insolent, and proposed to refurbish the rusty weapons of religious persecution for the disciplining of her clergy.

[4] This Church was, in fact, in a mess. She had tried so many ways of escape! She had tried Geneva; she had tried Rome; she had essayed a mixture of the two in varying proportions, which was called Moderate; she had tried laissez faire, by which each man did what he found easy and thought nice; she had even tried (heroic and marvellous as it may seem) to establish a Cathedral type of Service in every village church. The one thing that she had never tried to do was to carry out her own laws, and to apply her own principles.

Then one day she had a happy thought. She would be true to her own self, to her own laws. She opened the door, and walked out.

We do not realize the extent of our failure. With everything human in our favour--learning, position, wealth, lofty traditions, the possession of the church buildings, the schools, the universities--we have gradually let our people slip away from us. Goodly was our heritage: if we had but kept what our forefathers had won for us, the whole Anglo-Saxon race would to-day be united in one Church, devotedly attached to it, and most diligent in worship as our ancestors were 1,000 years ago, as they were 400 years ago, as, indeed, a great majority still were, in spite of many losses, 200 years ago.

Read the rest here.