Friar John's Ruminations

Being the thoughts of an Episcopalian Layman. In Search of and service to "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Order."

My Book Shop:

Please visit my online bookshop Friar John's Books of Interest.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Who?

You’re St. Melito of Sardis!
You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins.

Take the quiz here.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

New Favorite Christmas Poem

Christmas 

by John Betjeman

The bells of waiting Advent ring,
The Tortoise stove is lit again
And lamp-oil light across the night
Has caught the streaks of winter rain
In many a stained-glass window sheen
From Crimson Lake to Hookers Green.

The holly in the windy hedge
And round the Manor House the yew
Will soon be stripped to deck the ledge,
The altar, font and arch and pew,
So that the villagers can say
'The church looks nice' on Christmas Day.

Provincial Public Houses blaze,
Corporation tramcars clang,
On lighted tenements I gaze,
Where paper decorations hang,
And bunting in the red Town Hall
Says 'Merry Christmas to you all'.

And London shops on Christmas Eve
Are strung with silver bells and flowers
As hurrying clerks the City leave
To pigeon-haunted classic towers,
And marbled clouds go scudding by
The many-steepled London sky.

And girls in slacks remember Dad,
And oafish louts remember Mum,
And sleepless children's hearts are glad.
And Christmas-morning bells say 'Come!'
Even to shining ones who dwell
Safe in the Dorchester Hotel.

And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window's hue,
A Baby in an ox's stall ?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me ?

And is it true ? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant,

No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare -
That God was man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

New Statesman Interview with ABC

Over the course of a turbulent year the Archbishop of Canterbury had a series of meetings with James Macintyre during which he spoke about sharia law, capitalism, the disestablishment of the Church, and his love of The West Wing.

On a bleak afternoon in November, a delegation of senior religious leaders from Britain filed out of an exhibit room at Ausch witz in Poland. One man stopped, and stayed staring intently through the glass. Before him was a mass of human hair from those killed in the gas chambers. This man was Dr Rowan Williams and he was praying, silently.
Asked to write an inscription at the memorial, he chose words from Psalm 130: "Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord. Lord, hear my voice!" Dr Williams walked around the former Nazi extermination camp, a remote figure, keeping a ring of space around him. After the first round of exhibits, one of the party tried to speak to him. He merely shrugged and shook his head; there was nothing adequate to say.
Williams was on a trip to the site, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, with nine other faith leaders, including the Chief Rabbi, Jona than Sacks, with whom he talked intensely on the plane on the journey out from London while almost every other passenger slept. The two men have become good friends, and the Chief Rabbi compares their relationship to that of their predecessors, William Temple and Joseph H Hertz, who co-founded the Council of Christians and Jews in 1942. "I have the greatest respect for the Chief Rabbi - a public intellectual," the Archbishop said. "And because he has sometimes found his own community hard work . . . we do occasionally compare notes, dot dot dot."
That "dot dot dot" is something of a characteristic understatement. Several weeks later, we are in a private room at Lambeth Palace reflecting on what has been not just the most testing year in his term at Canterbury, but arguably one of the most difficult for Anglicanism since the Reformation.

Read the rest here.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

+++Rowans Christmas Message

Human beings, left to themselves, have imagined God in all sorts of shapes; but – although there were one or two instances, in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, of gods being pictured as boys – it took Christianity to introduce the world to the idea of God in the form of a baby: in the form of complete dependence and fragility, without power or control. If you stop to think about it, it is still shocking. And it is also deeply challenging.

God chose to show himself to us in a complete human life, telling us that every stage in human existence, from conception to maturity and even death, was in principle capable of telling us something about God. Although what we learn from Jesus Christ and what his life makes possible is unique, that life still means that we look differently at every other life. There is something in us that is capable of communicating what God has to say – the image of God in each of us, which is expressed in its perfection only in Jesus.

Hence the reverence which as Christians we ought to show to human beings in every condition, at every stage of existence. This is why we cannot regard unborn children as less than members of the human family, why those with disabilities or deprivations have no less claim upon us than anyone else, why we try to makes loving sense of human life even when it is near its end and we can hardly see any signs left of freedom or thought.

And hence the concern we need to have about the welfare of children. As we look around the world, there is plenty to prompt us to far more anger and protest about what happens to children than we often seem to feel or express. In the UK this year there have been several public debates about childhood, as research has underlined the lack of emotional security felt by many children here, the high cost of divorce and family breakdown, the disproportionate effect of poverty and debt on children, and many other problems. We look forward to the publication here in the New Year of a nationwide survey about what people think is a ‘good childhood’ – sponsored by the Children’s Society, with its long association with the Anglican Church.

Elsewhere we see far more horrendous sights – child soldiers still deployed in parts of Africa and in Sri Lanka, the burden laid on children in places where HIV and AIDS have wiped out a whole generation, leaving only the old and the young, the fate of children in areas of conflict like Congo and the Middle East and the insensitive treatment that is so often given to child refugees and asylum seekers in more prosperous countries.

‘Though an infant now we view him, He shall fill his Father’s throne’ says the Christmas hymn. If it is true that the child of Bethlehem is the same one who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, how shall we stand before him if we have allowed his image in the children of the world to be abused and defaced? In the week I write this, the British public is trying to cope with the revelation of the shocking killing of a very small child. Recently I accompanied a number of students and British faith leaders on a pilgrimage to the extermination camps at Auschwitz, where some of the most unforgettably horrifying images have to do with the wholesale slaughter of Jewish children – their toys and clothes still on display, looted by their killers from their dead bodies.

Christmas is a good time to think again about our attitudes to children and about what happens to children in our societies. Christians who recognise the infinite and all-powerful God in the vulnerability of a newborn baby have every reason to ask hard questions about the ways in which children come to be despised, exploited, even feared in our world. We all suspect that in a time of economic crisis worldwide, it will be the most vulnerable who are left to carry most of the human cost. The Holy Child of Bethlehem demands of us that we resist this with all our strength, for the sake of the one who, though he was rich, for our sake became poor, became helpless with the helpless so that he might exalt us all through his mercy and abundant grace.

With every blessing and best wish for Christmas and the New Year.

+Rowan Cantuar

Once Again: The Great O's are upon us.

O Sapientia,
quae ex ore Altissimi prodiisti,
attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter, 
suaviterque disponens omnia: 
veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiae.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Annunciation

The following is a sermon I preached at a friend of mines parish about three years ago. Since the Annunciation story is this Sunday's Gospel reading according to the RCL, I thought I would dust this off again and share it.  A not quite so clear version of the painting I refer to is here. 

When Tim asked me if I would like to preach this afternoon I agreed readily. I then, with out really thinking, asked what the texts are. When I got home and looked them up in the Prayer Book I was under whelmed. These are texts that have been handled so much that they have become slippery from their use. They’ve become so familiar that they’re like an ice cube: squeeze to hard and they shoot right out of our hand. Unable to get any in on the Gospel, I turned to look at art depicting the event. For the most part I was left cold. In general, the pictures were of a sheepish Angel Gabriel, often holding flowers standing at a distance from Mary who is sitting at a window reading an improbably illuminated Librium, often in Latin. I even saw one that depicts Our Lady holding a Rosary. Eastern Icons are often of the same idea: Gabriel paying homage to a pure Madonna. The emphasis is on the holy and transcendent. Then I stumbled upon the work of a Venetian artist named Jacopo Robusti, called Tintoretto. His depiction is very, very different.

 

First the setting is different. Far from a little room or a walled garden, we are presented with a room that can only be described as messy. The plaster has cracked, with the bricks behind showing through. There is a motley collection of broken furniture and there are signs of half completed carpentry. Instead of a window out of which Mary has been looking, or a prayer book Mary has been spinning. Out of the portal we see a man busily at work with a saw, presumably Joseph. You see “betrothed,” meant at this time that they may have been living together in a, presumably chaste, arrangement to see if she was acceptable to him.  They are both hard at work in a decaying house as the sun slides down into night. We see a couple laboring until they are unable to see any more. They are like Adam and Eve after the fall, laboring in a world of decay and death. Then something altogether unexpected happens. An angel of the Lord comes in.

 

Rather than a sheepishly coy angel, we have a Gabriel who swoops in, with an entourage of Cherubs. He’s looking a little apologetic. Mary is far from a passive presence. Her body is twisted to face the onrushing Angels and her face is a mixture of fear and marvel. The Holy Spirit is depicted in the traditional form of a Dove, but it’s far from some innocuous pidgin with a halo. The Holy Spirit manifests as a being of pure light. It illumines the air above the Virgin and the light casts the world in which she has lived in stark relief and rivals the dying light of the Sun. This very human Mary is confronted with God in the most direct way imaginable.

 

I emphasize that this is a human Mary because it is Tintoretto’s very Realist depiction of Mary and her condition that drew me to it. She is no plaster saint in this painting. She is an ordinary woman, a girl by today’s standards, confronted by the disconcerting God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And it is her humanity that is key in our celebration today. As the poet says:

 

            “Of Her Flesh, he took flesh.”

 

It is from Mary that Jesus gains his humanity. It is through Mary that he enters the world. Our humanity is what we have in common with Mary. It is in our common human condition, shared by both, that we come to have Mary as our sister and Jesus as our brother. To put it differently, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us it is from Mary that the Logos receives flesh, and the Incarnate Word first dwells in her. It is a long while until the child is born, and we are confronted with the idea of being with Mary as we contemplate the child growing with in her. There is no room here for a porcelain figure or alabaster statue. All through out the rest of her life she must live with and meditate upon the words of the Angel, even when they make no since. Life would not be easy for the Mother of God. She must live with a son given to terrific acts of power and who dies the death of a thief or bandit. She is one of the models of contemplation, not because we know that she is given to it, but because she is caught up in the Mysteries in a way that no one else is. She is an active participant in them. When she looks down at the child in the feeding trough she comes into the realization that “This is my body, this is my blood.” We do her, and ourselves, a disservice when we make her into a semi-divine Queen at the expense of her history and reality as a human being.

 

My Carmelite bias may be showing. For us Mary is our sister. After all she appeared to St. Simon Stock in Aylesford wearing our Habit. It is her Humanity in which we first find our devotion to her. If our King reigns from a manger and cross, his Mother is just that, a mother. As the legend under the image of Our Lady of Mt Carmel at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception says, “Mary is more Mother than Queen.” In may ways several of the later Marian devotions and doctrines run counter to the Carmelite Spirit of her as our Mother and Sister. I would go so far as to say that dogmatic proclamations aimed at cleaning up our discomfort at Mary being a normal person with a body like ours, and the implications that holds for Jesus plays runs counter not only to the Spirit of Carmel, but of Anglicanism. She is our friend, and she prays for us. She is our Mother, and loves us. She is our Sister and supports us.

What I would leave us with today is a call to join with Mary in her pondering and meditation. As she felt the child grow within her womb, let us feel the risen Christ in our selves. Let us contemplate with her the words of the Angel and what they mean for us. Let us enter into the mysteries with her as a signpost and guide. Finally, let us commend ourselves to her in prayer, so that at the last she may show us the blessed fruit of her womb, Jesus.

 

Pray for us, Oh Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Terrorists?

Okay, so now we know exactly how desperate for ideas the loony Right are for arguments. Those of us who are opposed to Prop 8 in Califonria are, to quote Pat Boon of all people, "terrorists". Another example of this can be found at the Rev. Susan Russles blog.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen (and the rest of my readers), we in the West are now locked into a struggle with that well known axis of international evil that is the HRC and Al Qaeda. The evidence for this is a few incidents of violence or, more often, vandalism against a frew Churches in California. The threats and actual violence perpetrated against opponents during the campaign and after just slide right on by. Vandalism against MCC and other GLBT friendly churches is just to be expected.
Lat's face the facts here. The Right was unprepared for GLBT people and our friends to fight back. They were unprepared to deal with actual anger. The acts of violence and vandalism are deplorable, stupid and shortsighted. What they are not, however, is a systematic attempt at persecution. They are a backlash, but there is no organization doing it. Opposition is not oppression. That is particularly the case when you are the empowered, privileged and protected majority. It is not oppression to have to pay for crimes, even though you think the victim "deserves it." There is a legitimate Constitutional argument being made in California right now. The Right is terrified that it will be defeated. this specious argument has been developed to be a part of the spin and lies they will tell one another to help build up tot he next election. It is sort of like the rhetoric of the closing days of the presidential election: it was tossed out less to win and more to start the lies to be repeated. The task is for us to respond now and not let them in inch in the door with their mendacities.

Solemn rite or happy meal?


How we treat Holy Communion reflects our theology of Christ
By Douglas LeBlanc, December 09, 2008


News Item, October 21: The Diocese of Sydney's General Synod has voted again to allow laity to preside at celebrations of Holy Communion and to allow deacons (both men and women) to preside as well.

My reaction, once news of the synod's decision began circulating in U.S.--based weblogs: Wake me when the argument is over.

I have exaggerated my lack of outrage, but not outrageously. My longtime friend and colleague Terry Mattingly grew up Southern Baptist, spent more than 10 years as an Episcopalian and then became Eastern Orthodox.

He enjoys telling the story of attending Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where robed choir members processed with reverence down the center aisle and some bowed before sitting in their pews.

Terry asked about the significance of the bowing, and the answer he heard was remarkable: That's what you're supposed to do. Despite its stained-glass windows and the liturgical calendar it observed, this church had no concept of a Communion host being the body of Christ, in some form, and therefore worthy of brief reverence by choir members.

From that experience, Terry concluded that if a Southern Baptist congregation had a higher-than-average interest in liturgical symbols, its members likely had little understanding of the doctrine behind the symbols.

I wonder if, for many Episcopalians, this could be an accurate summary of what we understand about Holy Communion.

Consider how many priests now announce, week after week, that because the Holy Table belongs to God and not to anyone else, all people -- regardless of whether they are baptized -- are welcome to partake. I note only in passing the chutzpah of presuming that God's will for the Holy Table was thwarted, rather than honored, as far back as the Didache.
Read the rest here


Lay presidency is a non-starter for me. I think it shows a lack of understanding of what the Church is and what ministry is as well, but I don’t think it’s anything but an aberration born less of theology and more of a deeply born anti-intellectualism and resentment towards clergy.

Communicating the unbaptized, on the other hand, drives me nuts. I think that the writer is spot on that it is a misunderstanding of what the Eucharist is, and isn’t. It is the feast of the Church, and membership in the Church is achieved in Baptism. The normative text here is, I think, the story of Peter when he unilaterally baptized gentiles. He didn’t say “Well now the Spirit has come on you, so you’re now Christians.” Rather he baptized them (Acts 10:48). That would indicate to me a normative practice. We also place such an emphasis upon the Rite of Baptism in the Prayer Book, to then say that it isn’t all that important because you can be a member of the Eucharistic assembly with out it is a tad backwards.

And no, I don’t see the typical Evangelical slippery slope argument in here. What I do see is a legitimate criticism of two things that the author sees as connected. We have no real theology of the Church left to us if we now toss out Baptism in favor of some vague “come one come all” argument. There is a difference between saying “this is a bad idea and has implications of though and practice which are unacceptable” and the full on fallacy form of reductio ad absurdum that is the “slippery slope.” If he had gone onto say that this could lead to everybody might as well stay home on Sunday and become atheists I’d be rolling my eyes and trying to separate the issues he presents from one another. I’d say he’s being quite on target as it where for his points, with out going to far afield.

Tip of the hat to the Rev. Mthr. Kaeton.

Monday, December 08, 2008

THE DUMBEST GENERATION

The Kids Are Alright. But Their Parents ...By Neil HoweSunday, December 7, 2008; Page B01
It is the prerogative of every generation of graybeards to look down the age ladder and accuse today's young of sloth, greed, selfishness -- and stupidity. We hear daily jeremiads from baby boomers who wonder how kids who'd rather listen to Linkin Park and play "Grand Theft Auto III" than solve equations or read books can possibly grow up to become leaders of the world's superpower. The recent publication of "The Dumbest Generation" by Mark Bauerlein of Emory University epitomizes the genre. His subtitle -- "How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future" -- says it all.
Generational putdowns, Bauerlein's included, are typically long on attitude and short on facts. But the underlying question is worth pursuing: If the data are objectively assessed, which age-slice of today's working-age adults really does deserve to be called the dumbest generation?
The answer may surprise you. No, it's not today's college-age kids, nor even today's family-starting 30-somethings. And no, it's not the 60-year-olds who once grooved at Woodstock. Instead, it's Americans in their 40s, especially their late 40s -- those born from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. They straddle the boundary line between last-wave boomers and first-wave Generation Xers. The political consultant Jonathan Pontell labels them "Generation Jones.
Read the rest here.

I note that the writer, who is I think a Boomer, places these guys as "early Xers" so as to distance his own generation from his and cast a shadow on mine.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Typical

No Bethlehem wine for Christmas
Churches in the Holy Land and in Europe are facing a Christmas without their preferred Cremisan altar wine because Israeli soldiers are refusing to allow trucks transporting the wine from Bethlehem to enter Israel.
Middle East Online reports the wine is made by the Salesians of Don Bosco, at the Cremisan winery in Beit Jala, a suburb of Bethlehem.
The Salesians have been producing the wine for the past 125 years as a direct means of support for their pastoral and educational work among the poor of Bethlehem and to provide a livelihood for many local Palestinian families.
Now, for the first time in more than 100 years, the churches and religious establishments in Jerusalem, Nazareth and other parts of Israel are being deprived of Cremisan wine, Middle East Online says.
Christian hotels and pilgrim houses in Israel are now being forced to buy Israeli wine. Because wines for export are shipped through the Israeli port of Haifa, no export to the UK and Europe has been possible for several months. Read the rest here.
Hat tip to The Mad One.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Thank you all for your emails and comments here and on other blogs.

Today went well, a lot of people came from all over the area and beyond in horrid weather to pay their respects to my Grandfather. College roommates of my Mother, friends of her and my Uncle traveled several hours to be there. People came from all over the community to tell us how special he was to them.

He never met a stranger, welcomed all at his door and loved freely. He was a spare father and extra grandfather to many people, as well as confidant and friend to many more. One man said that he always knew that he had a home at the Leasure's. My Grandmother quipped that he could have the floor in her room at the nursing home if he ever got that desperate.

He was a man of deep and quiet faith. He loved How Great Thou Art, and Rock of Ages since they reflected his personal theology the best. He was raised a Methodist, he was quick to point out that he was never an EUB. He became a Presbyterian for my Grandmother and served as an Elder for decades. I was told today he was involved in the ordination of over one thousand people of at least 4 denominations. When controversy rocked the local Presbyterians, he drank out of a common cup with an African American woman who he later helped ordain to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. He had but one quibble with the RSV. His favorite passage was altered from "Many Mansions" to "Many Rooms." He had been in rooms alot. He wanted a Mansion in Heaven. I'm sure arrangments have been made.

She later told me that she figures that she and my Grandfather had been together for 68 years, 63 of those as man and wife.

Thank you for your prayers.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Some of my down right sharpness of late is due to the illness of my Grandfather.
He passed into larger life on Monday evening and I would ask, in your charity, that you pray for the repose of his soul. My Family also stands in the need of prayer as we begin that strange ritual called "visitation" tomorrow.
His funeral is on Monday, and we could use with prayers then as well.

And Another Thing

Those of you who think that all is well for the neo-Donatist Arminian schismatics this little post from Katie Sherrod's blog should cause some pause.

It seems that those who wish to stay loyal to TEC are the only parishes who show real growth.
Due to the craven behavior of a few there will be no more anonymous replying allowed. Apparently, to be British and (presumably) Anglo-Catholic not only lets you ignore your own fault in asking for trouble, it also empowers cowardly and infantile ad hominem attacks.

Then again, it fits. They do lionize Newman.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

As Promised, a few weeks late.

The following is a second draft to a the opening part of a longer work. This is still very much a work in progress, and I'm unsure of where it is headed. Here it is though. I'll update with a bit about the terminology I'm using in a bit.


The story of the Oxford Movement is, in many ways, the story of friendship and loss. It has, at its center, four remarkable, but flawed men and their one grate devotion. They were, in order of age: John Keble, Edward Bouverie Pusey, John H. Newman, and Hurrel Froude. It is within the matrix of these four men that the other players moved and it is the focus of their love of and devotion to God’s One, Holy and Apostolic Church that will provide the reason and aims of the Movement. It is in their losses that all of these men will experience that will not only give it its character but will bring it to an end. It is the endurance of their remaining friendships and those of others that the Movement will give birth to a new and different life outside the bounds of the University.
The term, “Oxford Movement” is, actually, a bit slippery. Historians tend to be quite precise in their meaning, but others tend to use “Oxford Movement”, “Tracterian” and “Anglo-Catholic” as synonyms. To be precise the Oxford Movement was a renewal movement in the Church of England centered on the great University of Oxford. Its life span runs form July 14th 1833 with the preaching of John Keble’s National Apostasy sermon before His Majesties Assize Court in St Mary’s Church, to October 9th 1845 when the Passionist father Dominic received John H Newman into the Roman Church under the “sere and yellow leaves” of Littlemore. While the Tracts for the Times were a major and most public part of the Movement, not all members of the latter were directly involved with the former. As for the term “Anglo-Catholic” that is a term that has far too much baggage in its current usages to be of much use to us in this study. I’ll return to it later, but it is sufficed to say that much of what would come to be called “Anglo-Catholicism” has as much to do with the Cambridge Gothic Revival movement and the eccentricities of the Ecclesiastical Society as it dose the more staid, Oxfordian scholars.
Another issue is, as Georgette Basscomb puts it in her biography of Keble, that there was a Party before there was a movement. The roots of the party are to be found at a “reading party” John Keble hosted at the parsonage in Coln St Anwin in Gloucester during the Long vacation of 1823. In attendance were Hurrel Froude, Isaac Williams, and Robert Wilberforce (the son of the British emancipator of the slaves). During the several weeks of the party all three young men were moved from the somnambulant High Church, like Williams, or the rationalist and fashionable upper-class Evangelicalism of Wilberforce to the more lively High Church of Keble through his genial and unpretentious piety. Additionally, this would cement the friendship of Froude and Keble and mark the beginning of the intellectual spade work of the Party which would bring forth fruit in the publications of the Movement ten years later. One of the outcomes of this party was the introduction of Keble to Newman by Froude. This, Froude would claim at the end of his life, was the “one good thing” he could claim before the Judgment seat. Also, it would start to form the nucleolus of disaffected scholars and clergy that would later become the Movement in its full flower. It is because the Party existed before the Movement proper began; it has been labeled a “conspiracy.” Froude himself would describe it as such, with more than a little bit of humor and because there was a certain lack of terms to actually explain what it was. It should also be noted that the term “Oxford Movement” never seems to have been used by the participants during the Movement itself. Newman, for example, would call it the “Movement of 1833.”
For the purposes of this work I’ll refer to the “Oxford Party” to differentiate it from either the Tracterians or the later Anglo-Catholics. This party was quite hazy at this point, it could barley be differentiated from the more standard High Church position. It was mostly defined as a “we’re not that.” The other factions or schools of thought in the Church of England were as follows: The High Church, the Erastians, and the Evangelicals.
The term “Evangelical” is, like “Protestant”, “orthodox” or “Catholic,” a tricky one. The exact meaning shifts over time and its connotations tend to reflect the prejudices of the writer or speaker than they do the subject. Strictly speaking, the term comes from the very early days of the Reformation. It was a label applied by Johann von Staupitz to the embryonic Lutheran movement to define their vision of the Church and their school of thought. It derives from the Greek word that we translate “Gospel.” They used to emphasis their belief in the need for the Bible to be the true and proper measure of both belief and practice in the Church. They also made use of the Biblical Greek to provide a contrast to the perceived corruptions of the Latin Church. It would also serve as a watch word to point to the pre-Schism Church of the Councils.
At this point we need to clarify the term “Protestant” because of the subtly of meaning. After the rather disastrous second Diet of Speyer in 1529, a group of Lutheran Princes and Bishops appealed to the Emperor to continue the promised settlement of the First Diet. In particular they wished for the continued toleration of both Lutheran and Roman Churches in the Empire, and to keep the Calvinists and Anabaptists out of any form of recognition. Their “protest” lent it’s self to the Magisterial Reformation of the Lutherans who followed the leadership of Phillip Melanchthon. The two words are used almost interchangeably, with the so called “Old Lutherans” preferring the term Evangelical and the High Church Lutherans the term “Protestant.” Eventually the term came to be applied to those Lutherans who would object to the recognition of the Reformed Church’s legitimacy within the Empire and the toleration of Anabaptists. These “Protestants” would insist upon the use of the Tradition of the Church, most particularly the Patristic writers before Gregory I, in the interpretation of the Scriptures. They would also cling more or less tightly to the Apostolic succession and the liturgies of the Church. These Catholic and Evangelical Christians would establish themselves in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Russia and Poland. The Evangelicals would take shape in Southern Germany and Switzerland.
In England, it is this idea of Evangelical and Catholic would take root, with a significant shift. Due to the Platonic focus of the University of Cambridge, there are those who took a slightly more Calvinist approach to the Reformation and so could be said to be more Reformed and Catholic. That is a very fine academic distinction, and one that is outside the exact lines of the work, but it will work it’s self out in the long run. Broadly speaking, by the rein of Elizabeth I there were four competing camps: The Protestant High Church, the Puritan Zwinglian/Reformed, the Lutheran Evangelicals, and the recalcitrant Roman Catholics.
This state of affairs would be fairly much the status quoe until the English Civil War of 1642-1651. When both the hard line Puritans and the Episcopalians leave the Westminster conference, the remaining Presbyterians continue their work and eventually absorb the few remaining Lutherans into their ranks. This would lead to the general idea in the English speaking world of an equivalency between the Lutheran and Reformed theological positions. It would also lead to the weird usage that allows us to speak of a Calvinist Evangelical. These Evangelical hybrids would be the Party in the 19th century. They would set the default “Low Church” position for centuries and would be known less for their doctrinal purity as on it’s firm attestation of the Lutheran maxim of “per venia unus per fides unus propter Sarcalogos unus” (“by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone”) as well as an adaptation of some basic Lutheran piety. While it has been argued that the Evangelicals where, and are, distinctly anti-intellectual, that was not the case. While there was a bias towards an experiential and affective life of faith, the 18th and 19th century evangelicals derived a tremendous amount of satisfaction and use via an embrace of Aristotelian models of logic and rhetoric, while scorning the attending metaphysics and out right abhorring the scholastic theology of the middle ages derived from them.
The Evangelicals were also notable for being the only part of the church that had any real energy. William Wilberforce, the British emancipator of the slaves, was an evangelical. It should be noted that the Wesley brothers came from the evangelical tradition of the Church of England and, merged with a more fully Lutheran appreciation of the Sacraments as means of grace, would attempt to renew Anglicanism from the inside.
The label Protestant was still fiercely clung to by the “High Church” party. It had been the label with which Arch Bishop Lawd would defend himself against the Puritans in his trial before the Rump Parliament. Indeed, the High Churchmen were convinced that this Protestant identity was part of the English life and liberty and it was essential to not only those ideals, but to the propagation of God’s Kingdom as well. They felt that they were the continuance of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, while the Bishop of Rome with his detestable enormities was the leader of what was, at best, an erring sister. The High Church looked to Hooker and Lawd for their theological positions as well as to writers such as Jeremy Taylor or the community Nicholas Ferrar and his family formed at Little Gidding. The poetry of George Herbert and the prayers of Lancelot Andrews were sprinkled in their sermons and devotions. This was a tradition that looked askance at strong emotions and held the affective and passionate suspect.
Additionally, the High Church was the Tory party at Prayer. Where as the ideas of reform were always Evangelical, and thus Whig, the High Church was firmly in the camp that supported the status quoe. Indeed, the early devotion to the Stuart line expressed by the Tories would find ultimate expression in the exodus of the non-jurors after the glorious Revolution. Early on, the High Churchmen would find themselves wandering in the wilderness as the House of Orange and the later Hanover monarchs would always hold them suspect. That the cult of King Charles the Martyr was always very popular with the High Church would never make them very popular with the Dynasty that replaced his grandson on the thrown.
Starting with the rein of William II and Mary II, and the subsequent emptying of much of the Episcopal Bench, the desire of the Crown was for a more or less docile Church that would operate as a department of State. Tot hat end Bishops were chosen less for their spiritual attributes as for their proven political loyalties and academic abilities. More oft than not, favorite tutors or professors of Prime Ministers and Kings would make their way to the House of Lords as Bishop if for no other reason than he threw a good end of term supper. This gave rise and shape to the Erastians. Named for an obscure Swiss theologian named Thomas Erastus, the principal idea was that the Church was subordinate to the State. Indeed, sin, dissension, and even heresy were to be defined by the State and punished under civil laws.
Theologically, they saw the authority of the Church as resting not upon scriptures, as the Evangelicals said, nor upon authority inherited by the Bishops from the Apostles, but upon the Crowns granting it. In other words, the authority in England to preach the Gospel and to celebrate the sacraments came from the king and Parliament. The questions of the proper order of the Church or upon theology were to be set by those authorities chiefly in accordance with the standards they saw fit. Some of the authority for this rested upon the idea of the Divine Right of Kings. Since God Himself had placed the monarch on the thrown the monarch had authority over God’s Church.
It was this Church and Nation that Keble addressed on that humid July afternoon in St Mary’s Church. She was rent by deep divisions and in some ways her members were more interested in refighting the theological and political battles of not so much the previous generation, but of the previous two centuries. She was also unable to face the world that was changing faster than anyone could have imagined. In its fundamental structure English life was pointed towards the agrarian population in the countryside. In theory, every village had a Parish Church and there would be an educated, married Priest in charge of each. In reality, many villages had to share a vicar and many more seldom, if ever, actually saw their clergy. An underpaid, over worked curate would tend to be the actual worker in the Parish, sending reports and the like to the holder of the living once month or so.
That term, “living,” may require some explanation. The term dates from the middle ages and refers to the moneys that existed to pay for the upkeep of the clergy in an area. Often these were very old endowments, dating back to the foundation of the parish church. More often than not, control of the appointment of the clergy to the local cure resided with the family or organization that had founded the parish Church, or some sort of heir. This meant that out of the roughly twelve thousand Church positions in the Kingdom, only about one thousand five hundred were under the direct purview of the local Bishops. In more than one place, in Wiltshire for example, there was a living, but neither church nor village. In cases such as this, a tent would be set up and the lucky clergyman would be inducted and say the office here, once as required by law, and would leave, never to visit that particular sheep pasture again. Families also had given livings to schools and colleges in order to fund their son’s ability to attend those institutions into posterity. Thee parishes would then be served by graduates of the school in question. The single largest holder of livings in the Kingdom was, much to people’s surprise, Eton. Old Etonian clergy could be found in every diocese and in many Cathedrals at least one cannon’s stall was owned by the school. There was neither rhyme nor reason to how anyone was paid as it depended upon the endowment, and the tithing, or taxation, of the locals. While non residency and the complications were bad enough in the country side, this paled in what they, and other issues, did in the growing cities.
The cities held, and in some ways still hold, a lesser place in the English mindset. The stereotype of the urban dweller was of a dirty, hurried person dishonest in his dealings and lazy. This was contrasted with the image of the honest, hard working Yeoman and peasant. Cities were alien and different. If one takes a careful look at the literature of the day, one discovers that cities are the settings for scenes of suffocating hypocrisy, vice and or deception. Additionally, there were very few parish Churches in any of the cities, in the industrial slums in particular. The parish churches of London, for example, were concentrated in and around the older and more established parts of the city. The newer tenements that grew up around these areas had no church unless they were in an area that already had a church when the neighborhood grew up. These Parishes were often unable to deal with the now overcrowded districts and were inadequate to deal with the influx of people. The rural bias of the Upper and middle classes, as well as the disproportionate power held by those in rural areas would ensure that there would be little attention paid to the conditions in the cities for several generations. While there was a small movement to provide livings for clergy in new parishes, the Bishops and local priests were resistant to dividing up the already scarce resources in the cities.
The entire Parish system was in need of repair, as was the entire vision of the Anglican Church as its self. The assumption was that if you were English you were a part of the Church of England. There was little to no reason for any sort of mission work since people would do their duty and go to the nearest Parish church just as their ancestors had done. This theory continued even in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. To many the Church of England had stopped having any meaning, in particular in areas where there was little to no pastoral care. Methodists, Quakers, Baptists and to a lesser extant Presbyterians and Roman Catholics were all seeing a surge of membership because they offered more than duty and were actually reaching out to the people.
And so we find the Church of England in the mid nineteenth century: divided within, hidebound, intellectually inadequate, and spiritually bereft of meaning. The time was ripe for a renewal, or even a full on reformation of the Anglican way of doing things. Most people would admit that much, but no one was sure what to do. As we shall see the Whigs in Parliament would initiate several reforms and actions with an eye towards repairing the Church, but there was no real theological or philosophical direction. No one within the Church knew what to do, or could draw upon a principal to change things. The ship was becalmed as it where and you cannot steer a ship that isn’t moving. The first breeze of change would be found on July 14th 1833 when John Keble steps into the pulpit of St Mary’s Church and lobs a boulder into the still, almost stagnant, pond of the Anglican Establishment.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Monday, October 13, 2008

Newman's death uncovered

As we reported in The Sunday Times and on a previous blog, attempts to exhume Cardinal John Henry Newman have failed because there is no body there to exhume. Libby Purves is among those who welcomed the end they hoped this would bring to a 'ghoulish side-show'. All that remains of this great churchman are a few tassels from his cardinal's hat. This picture shows the sarcophagus that has been built in Italy and can no longer be used to house a non-existent body at the Birmingham Oratory, as had been intended. It has been built, it is in Italy and the Cause will announce next week what is to become of it.

Peter Jennings is the press officer for the cause and you can keep up to date with developments in the exclusive column he does for The Times faith page. He dug up the original report of the funeral from The Birmingham Post, the paper where I was indentured more than 25 years ago, which goes a little way towards explaining why the body had so completely decomposed:

The Post's report from Wednesday August 20 1890, ended: "When the rites had been achieved, the crowd without the gates was suffered to enter by batches and see the grave; and then the coffin was covered with mould of a softer texture than the marly stratum in which the grave is cut. "This was done in studious and affectionate fulfilment of a desire of Dr Newman's which some may deem fanciful, but which sprang from his reverence for the letter of the Divine Word; which, as he conceived, enjoins us to facilitate rather than impede the operation of the law 'Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return'."

At The Times, one of the senior editors Rose Wild has also been working on this in her role as online archivist. She has dug up, as it were, the original Times obituary on Cardinal Newman, and the report on his funeral which we carried. She has written about this on her new archive blog.
Read the rest here.



At least we know that his final wishes will not be violated, in particular since it is all a part of the move by B16 to help undermine the Anglicans. Newman was never treated well by Rome, the Cardinal's hat was a consolation prize. The callus calculation to bring his cause out of the ecclesial backwater it had been regulated to at this juncture only underlines the fact that Newman still only serves as a way to prick the souls of Anglicans than be a model of any real devotion. It now looks like God has denied the Papacy to include the desecration of Blessed Newman's grave to the many indignities heaped on him, or the list detestable mendacity's of Rome.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

"Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, if about little else,"

- Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

I'll have more on his unfortunate words at Lourdes later. This almost makes me forgive him for such a slip.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Watch this Spot!

I'll be posting my first essay on the Tracterians here within the next 24 hours!

Let the Recriminations begin!

HOB Thursday


House of Bishops Daily Account Thursday, September 18
The House of Bishops is meeting in special session in Salt Lake City, Utah
(Diocese of Utah) September 17 – 19, 2008.
Today, the House of Bishops by a vote of 88 yes, 35 no, 4 abstentions
consented to the removal from the ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church Bishop
Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, by authorizing the Presiding Bishop to “depose”
Bishop Duncan.
The House of Bishops voted after lengthy deliberations, reflections and
discussions in both the morning and afternoon business sessions. This followed an
open discussion session on Wednesday evening. Throughout the discussions,
the gathering was quiet, prayerful and respectful as the bishops listened to
one another. There was a great appreciation for the beliefs and viewpoints of
the bishops from all perspectives. Ample time was provided for all bishops to
speak. It was clear that the bishops were aware of the weightiness of their
decision.
The vote to depose was not based on speculation about what might occur at
Pittsburgh’s upcoming diocesan convention. Rather, it was based on the evidence
of Bishop Duncan’s record of actions and statements, and was the culmination
of a process that began in 2007.
The evidence that was presented pursuant to Title IV, Canon 9 of the Canons
of The Episcopal Church, which provides that “an open renunciation of the
Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church” constitutes “Abandonment of
the Communion of This Church.”
By the action of a majority of the House of Bishops, it was agreed that
Bishop Duncan was actively attempting to remove the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh from the Episcopal Church in violation of the Constitutions and Canons of
the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. The majority concluded that Bishop
Duncan’s actions constituted a renunciation of the Discipline of the Episcopal
Church.
Evidence of abandonment of communion was presented to a Church body known as
the Title IV Review Committee from clergy and laity of the Diocese of
Pittsburgh and the Presiding Bishop in November 2007. On December 17, 2007 the
Title IV Review Committee presented its report to the Presiding Bishop.
As a member of the House of Bishops, Bishop Duncan was expected to attend
this HOB meeting and had the opportunity to address the assertion that he had
abandoned the communion. However, he chose not to do so.
This daily account was prepared by bishops who cast their votes on different
sides. Their personal comments are noted here. Those available for media
interviews are noted.
Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina is available for phone
interviews. “This is one of the most somber, sober experiences I’ve had in the
House of Bishops. It is a time for all of us to be praying for each other—
especially for Bishop Duncan and the Episcopalians of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia is available for phone interviews.
Bishop Gary Lillibridge of West Texas
“As difficult as this decision is for me and many others in our Church, it
is important to realize that the decision in the House today was not based on
the theological convictions of Bishop Duncan, but rather on the evidence
presented regarding statements and actions concerning moves to take the Diocese
of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church.”.

Bishop James Mathes of San Diego
“Today’s decision was difficult and emotional but a necessary action to
care for the order of the Church, the people of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh, and the collegiality of the House of Bishops.”
Bishop Porter Taylor of Western North Carolina
“Our decisions today were very difficult and came out of our deep love for
our Church, a commitment to honor our ordination vows, and a desire to
strengthen the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.