The Continuing Anglican Churchman

Everyone please vote for my buddy Jeffrey Steel's blog, Meam Commemorationem (see link at bottom left), as being the "Most Theological" Anglican blog out there. If you read it you will see that it truly is the most theological! You vote at the "All Too Common" Anglican blog. Jeff is working on a Ph.D in the eucharistic theology of Lanceleot Andrewes over in Enlgand. I have a couple of funny college stories about him, but will keep them to myself! :-)

N.B. Sorry there are no links in the text of this post. I am on my wife's computer, and for some reason the link editing buttons are not popping up. I am too lazy right now to type in the html code myself!

I had lunch a couple weeks ago with a local evangelical Episcopal priest whom I met through a mutual friend. He has had a good ministry over the last 30+ years, and helped plant numerous churches all over the country. Although he identifies himself as an "evangelical", and I identify myself as an "anglo-catholic", we made a real connection over the essentials of the faith, the inspiration and authority of the scriptures, the need for evangelism and mercy ministry, and more. Hopefully he'll be able to attend my ordination this spring as a guest.

He didn't seem to know much about the APA or the continuing movement, so I filled him in as best I could. Actually, I was kind of surprised he he knew nothing about us, because he was at the Pittsburgh meeting a few months back where we also were. Anyway, when he asked where our parishes were in this area, I told him that we have three: mine in Harford county, and two outside of Annapolis. This really surprised him. He couldn't believe that we have been around as long as we have and still only have three churches in this area! It is quite shocking, I must admit. It was a little comforting to be able to tell him that our unity partners, the REC, which has been around 5 or 6 times as long as us only has 6 parishes in the area. So we, and the other anglo-catholic continuing churches are not the only ones who have not always been fervent evangelists over the years. Still, it is a situation that we must rectify.

If denominations and parishes are not growing, then they are dying. How do we evangelize? How do we grow parishes and start new ones? One of the things we talked about in relation to evangelism is empowering the laity to minister. He made the point that a parish where the priest does everything will eventually reach a certain size and then just stop growing, because the priest simply runs out of time and energy to do anything more. But if the priest can work to "equip the saints" for good works and ministry, as St. Paul talks about in Ephesians, then the laity can take the lead in some of these areas and help grow the larger Church and fulfill the Great Commission. This is, after all, part of their baptismal vocation. Laity who travel far to come to a traditional/continuing Anglican parish, for example, might be willing to help start a mission parish in their town. We need to think ahead and be proactive in these areas... otherwise we might just barely hold on for another 100+ years.

While honeymooning in Italy, my wife bought purses and I bought this nice, yet affordable cope (as well as a chasuble - not pictured). It was purchased in a store caddy-corner to where the pope gets his vestments made. Rome is a great place to buy vestments. Since there are lots of stores (competition), the prices are pretty good. That lovely lady standing next to me is my wife, of course.

I have just begun reading an absolutely fantastic little book called 'Merrily on High' by the Rev'd Colin Stephenson. He was a priest in the C of E, who came of age at the height of the anglo-catholic movement in 20's and 30's. Eventually he became the warden of the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. This book is his spiritual biography. Sadly, it is no longer in print, but I managed to procure a used copy through the Anglican Bibliopole. It was recommended to me by my spiritual director and confessor.

Stephenson has a real gift for writing. The book is full of all sorts of hilarious ancedotes about churchmanship, and the sometimes misguided effort of a hearty band of priests and laymen to rescue the C of E from the clutches of Protestantism, and to restore to its liturgy the color, sound, and smell of its Roman ancestor (from the introduction). It is a MUST read for every anglo-catholic... absolutely hilarious. Once I am finished with it I plan to lend it to my rector whom I know will enjoy it.

Every morning, one of the first things I do, after my Daily Office, is sit down at my computer and read the New Oxford Review online. I check out their news links and read about all of the crazy stuff going on in the Roman Catholic world (Legionaries of Christ and their scandels; the banking scandels; the supression of traditional liturgies; clergy murdering people; bishops involved in hit-and-run accidents; child sexual abuse scandels; etc.). They have this ongoing parody about "Fr. Flapdoodle" of St. Bozo's Catholic Community - a wishy-washy priest who is always embroiled in some sort of homosexual scandel, or trying out some weird new thing at the liturgy... it is quite funny.

These articles, as well as the history of Christianity general, show that the Roman Church is just as screwed up as any other church out there, despite all of their claims to the contrary. The Episcopal Church, and other western Anglican churches, are, without a doubt, completely wacko themselves (one could fill volumes with their antics: bishops divorced and remarried multiple times; acceptance of Mormon baptism; woman "priests" and "bishops"; syncrenistic rites; clergy that double as Wicca clergy; etc.). But I will say this for them: at least they are not outright hypocrites with a lot of this stuff like Rome - at least the American Church - is. The Episcopal Church may ordain practicing homosexual clergy, but at least they are following their collective conscience (however disordered that may be), whereas Rome speaks out of two sides of their mouth on the issue, saying publically that homosexual acts are disordered and evil, but privately turning a blind eye to the highly active gay subculture culture in their own church - a very well-documented culture (e.g. is anyone else following the Fr. Haley affair in the gloriously "traditional" Diocese of Arlington?).

Rome looks great on paper. But their (false) belief that the pontiff is infallible, and the "center of catholic unity", and the "Vicar of Christ on earth", is just a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to day-to-day Roman Catholic parish life. The authoritarian model of their governance, and their innovative "four-fold office", is not a foolproof system that absolutely prevents strange doctrines and practices from ever developing. In the long run, there is nothing doctrinally or morally more "safer" or "secure" about the Roman Church as compared to any other Church. The faith that some Roman Catholics have in the office of the pope is truly amazing. They truly believe that the pope and curia will never err (e.g. ordain women, or allow married clergy, etc.). They would do well to learn from history, and study the corrupt lives of some of the Renaissance popes, or perhaps revisit some of the controversies of the Reformation (treasury of merits, indulgences, etc.... oh, yeah, indulgences are still around , by the way.). Popes have erred in the past, so why would they not in the future? They are, after all, only human. Those who think "swimming the Tiber" will solve all of their problems, and answer all of their questions, and end the struggle with sin and heresy, should think twice. It won't.

My point, believe it or not, is not to sit and bash Rome. Continuing Anglican churches have their problems too, don't get me wrong. Any church will have its problems. I think, though, we have to choose our poison. Personally, I would rather be in a church that may have a problem with overlapping jurisdiction, too many people running around claiming to be bishops, and buildings that are not grand edifaces instead of being in a church where God is spoken of as "mother", and where so-called bishops and clergy routinely deny the core doctrines of Christian faith and morality and go undisciplined. And personally, I would rather be in a church that does justice to the scriptural and historical notion of a collegial episcopate (among other things) than one that does not. I do not condemn those who, following their conscience, belong to some other church (Roman, PCA, Episcopal, ELCA, etc.). But we should always be aware of the problems in our own commmunity before we criticize others' communities. Rome seems to be one of the only churches left out there that hasn't quite realized this just yet.

I am currently reading "Principles of Christian Theology" by John MacQuarrie. He is a recognized expert on Heidegger (he translated "Being and Time" years ago) and Bultmann, and taught at Union (NYC) for many years before going to Oxford where he currently teaches. He is Scottish, so he's obviously wonderful, as all Scottish people are, and a priest - I guess in the Scottish Episcopal Church. It is a very interesting book, and it reminds me of my seminary days when we were studying (in virtually ALL of the classes) the theology of Karl Rahner, who was also a student of Heidegger. When I am finished this book, I hope to zip through his book on the sacraments.

Other books I am reading right now include "Narcissus and Goldmund" (Hesse), the Thomas Cranmer biography by MacCulloch - which is very long and ponderous, and reading through the Copleston "History of Philosophy" series (I am currently on the Neo-Platonists). Like many of you, I have a backlog of books to read, and sometimes it overwhelms me. I want to read the monumental N.T. Wright series on Christian origins, maybe beginning this spring, as well as the "Stripping of the Altars" (Duffy), and the new biography on Mao. But will there ever be enough time?. There is just so much great stuff out there to read, but not enough time to read it all! Theology demands that you read in many different areas too, so I think we "theologians" (armchair or no armchair theologians) have a lot more to read than your average person. May God help us get it done! I will close with a prayer:

I consecrate my reading and study to Thee, O Lord, that thou wouldest use what I have learned and reflected on to help others come to a deeper knowledge and love of Thee, and that my own heart wouldest be pierced by Thy holy grace and mercy. AMEN.

This past Sunday I preached at all three services, so I preached on the Bible and Bible study. The Second Sunday in Advent is traditionally known as "Bible Sunday", because the collect - which dates from the Reformation - asks for God's grace that we might"...read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest..." the sacred scriptures. One of the great things about the Reformation was that its leaders sought to give the Bible to people. In England during the reign of Henry VIII, for example, Cranmer issued a decree that an English Bible should be placed in every parish church. Thus, from the beginning, study and knowledge of the scriptures was very important in our tradition. Just look at the Daily Offices: look at how much scripture we have to read compared with Roman Catholic "Liturgy of the Hours". We read a lot more. (Disclaimer: The Liturgy of the Hours has other merits, though.) Scripture study is still important for us today - perhaps more than ever before.

The guy that runs Prayer Works, which is a great little company that all traditional Anglican's should check out (they sell these snazzy little 1928 BCP desk calendars), writes that the traditional BCPs are two-thirds direct scripture, while the remaining third is scripture put into devotional form. Anyone who reads the BCP and the Bible will notice this. The various versicles and responses are direct quotes from the Bible. So, the 1928 BCP is 100% scripture, and if you know the BCP, you will know the scriptures.

Exciting news on Yahoo today about how Saddleback Community Church, a large non-denominational church in California, is starting a huge AIDS awareness and ministry program. I think this is fantastic.

AIDS is a horrible disease that we must strive to find a cure for. We need to pray that God would help us end this horrific disease. Most of the people who suffer from it are poor women and children in Africa. It is not only a "gay" disease. For too long, many of us conservative Christians have ignored minstering to people with this disease, and have not sought to do what we could to educate people about it, lobby congress for money to find a cure for it, and more. We cannot be Christians and ignore this disgusting disease and those who suffer from it. If we purport to care about the sick and diseased in the name of Jesus, then we should do all we can to help those people - even if they have a disease like AIDS, which we, rightly or wrongly, associate entirely with sexual deviancy.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us not only to speak prophetically, but to act prophetically. Here is an example of what I mean from the world of abortion: don't be pro-life, and then do nothing to support your local crisis pregnancy center with financial and other gifts. Don't be a pro-life guy, but then refuse to date a single mother because she has too much "baggage". Don't be pro-life, and then sleep around or have sexual relations outside of marriage. Yes, the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls us not only to speak prophetically, but to act prophetically.

Looks like Rome is planning on abolishing limbo. I wonder what will happen to all of the poor souls there? Limbo is just a "hypothesis", they say. They are right about that. It is not taught in Scripture, but is more the product of scholastic reasoning. They have been planning this for sometime now, as limbo is not even in the new catechism. What they will replace it with, if anything, is a mystery.

I find this interesting and am blogging about it because Anglicans (anglo-catholics especially) are often accused by Romanists of holding beliefs that certain Reformers and/or the Articles of Religion rejected. They seem to think that our whole position as a true branch of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is undermined because our beliefs about a doctrine may have changed, or developed, over time. Or they think that our change of opinion about, say, Benediction, indicates that there is some fundamental problem in our tradition as a whole. This is a very arrogant supposition, though. It assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that is allowed to change positions on certain matters of faith and practice over time. Why Rome and no one else? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

This is the title of an article that may be downloaded from the Christian Challenge from a recent conference about the Affirmation of St. Louis that a couple of jurisdictions participated in. While there are several articles from this conference that are worth downloading and reading, I thought that this was the best. Fr. Warren Tanghe, SSC (chaplain of All Saints' Convent - Catonsville, MD) exhorts orthodox Anglican parishes in various regions to enter into grassroots partnerships to foment a sort of "bottom-up" organic unity, rather than legislating a top-down merger, as those have been prone to fail in the past. Bp. Paul Hewitt, SSC of the Diocese of the Holy Cross has a response which includes nine suggestions for concrete action. Many of these steps are being taken right now, which is surely positive. It is a good article that is well worth reading, and may give each of us ideas as to what we can do in our part of the country to promote unity amongst orthodox Anglicans.

Jurisdictional chaos is a sad reality within the Church. It is not only continuing Anglicans that have the problem. Roman Catholics have overlapping jurisdiction, as do the Orthodox. And their jurisdictions overlap with each others' and ours! So don't let anyone tell you that it's just us. I think that the problem of multiplying jurisdictions within the continuing movement, though, comes in part from a defective understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which is viewed more so as something that an individual possesses rather than something that belongs to the Church. We have ultimately, I believe, Rome to thank for this. Their ridiculous condemnation of Anglican Orders, as many scholars have pointed out, has made some Anglicans think of orders as something that is limited to a pedigree, while other important items, such as orthodoxy and "communio", are conveniently left out of the equation. If holy orders is limited to a lineage, then any "bishop" can go start his own "apostolic" jurisdiction whenever he feels like it. In the end, such practice actually undermines the historic Catholic position on Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession, and destroys the unity of the Church.

One of the most important parts of my recent ordination was the theological examinations by the board of examining chaplains. My exams were a couple hours long, and we covered all sorts of areas: sacraments; church history; biblical studies; practical theological questions; christology; moral theology - you name it, we discussed it. Each topic was interwoven with others, as they all relate to each other in various ways. They were very similar to my comprehensive exams from seminary, actually. Each diocese has its own board, served by a group of priests who rotate on and off. The board reports to the bishop.

Now personally, between inquisitor and candidate, I think they - the board - have the harder job. The reason I say that is because they have to interview and question people who have done their theological training at vastly different seminaries... because there is no "continuing church seminary". They might interview someone like me, who went to a liberal Roman Catholic seminary, and then someone who went to a conservative Presbyterian seminary, and then someone who went to an ECUSA seminary, and so on. That requires lots of discernment and very specific questioning on the examiners' part. Would not someone who went to a conservative Presbyterian seminary and someone who went to a liberal UCC seminary answer a question about the sacraments in a very different way? What is the standard of judgment? It has to make questioning very difficult in some areas, and thus the job of examiner difficult at times. Indeed, they need our prayers and encouragement.

Their job would be a lot easier if there were a set of traditional Anglican seminaries around the country with the same standards of education and formation to send men to. That way, everyone would be coming at them from the same background. I hope that one day there will be a couple of places like this to send our men to. Anyone have a couple million bucks to get this thing off the ground?

The APA/REC signed a covenant of union with the Anglican Province of Nigeria last week. This is very exciting as it is the first concordat between a so-called "separated" Anglican body and a province of the "official" Anglican Communion (a HUGE province). Here is the link to the documents.

This is exciting to me, not because it gives some sort of "official seal of approval" to the APA/REC (and by extension, some of the other continuing bodies), but because it highlights positive and constructive changes in peoples' perception as to what Anglicanism really is. Anglicanism is no longer about being in some sort of official "club" with fancy buildings and paid choirs. That changed a long time ago. And don't get me wrong: I like fancy buildings and great choirs as much as the next guy. But that is not the core of the Christian faith. Sadly, those nice things often end up becoming idols for people.

At its heart, Anglicanism is about following Jesus Christ alone as Lord and Saviour, and bringing all of our thoughts, passions, and desires under His Lordship and rule. It is about proclaiming the unchanging "faith once delivered" to the saints, and about affirming the authority and inspiration of the sacred scriptures and the tradition which interprets them.

A friend of mine just gave me an altar version of the American Missal. I will use when, Lord willing, I am ordained to the priesthood. The binding is really beat up, as it is a first edition from 1931. The inside, though, is in great shape! Hopefully it will not cost too much to get it rebound. The Anglican Parishes Association has not carried the American Missal for some time, though I think they own the copywrite for it. I believe it used to be the only place where you could get one. But it obviously sold out some time ago. They still carry the Anglican Missal, but it is so much harder to use than the American, so I have been wanting to find an American. It would be funny if it cost as much or more to get this rebound as it would be to buy a new Anglican Missal and just get used to using that.

As promised, here is a picture of the magnificent new monstrance that a kind, older couple generously donated to our parish. The picture really doesn't do it justice - if you can believe it. It is even more amazing in person! Also in the picture is the rector of St. Alban's, Joppa, Fr. Ray Unterburger. This will add a lot to the eucharistic life of the parish.

The ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) has elected their Bishop of the South, Mark Haverland, Ph.D, to be their new metropolitan. Brother John-Charles retired due to health reasons, I guess. It will be interesting to see what direction he takes the ACC in over the next few years.

Like most continuing archbishops, he also still serves as the ordinary of his diocese. And to my knowledge he also still pastors a parish - again, like most continuing church bishops. It's got to be a lot of work, and require the wearing of many different hats, but I think it is good to have bishops serve a parish, as bishops are fundamentally the "pastor" of a diocese.

I know that ACC Deacon, A.R. Bayles, of St. James, Cleveland, has made comments on this blog before. Perhaps he could say a few words about this and give his thoughts and impressions if he is somehwere out there. Other ACCers are also welcome to give their thoughts and opinions. We are anxious to hear!

This month is the one year anniversary of this blog. Thanks to everyone out there who reads and comments. I feel that all of the remarks have been charitable and constructive, and that, overall, I think it is a very positive blog. I started it as a way to anonymously talk about being a continuing Anglican... never expecting anyone to actually read it, or make comments. Then somehow, people found it and started reading. So thanks for participating.

Sincerely,
SJA

Our parish was recently given a monstrance, cope, and humeral veil by a devout couple. The rector showed it to me the other day, and I was blown away. It is huge and magnificent! I hope to be able to post a picture of it sometime soon. I have never seen a monstrance this nice in any continuing church. What a tremendous gift. The couple came to every Benediction that we had last year (we used to use a ciborium). I think the guy was raised Roman Catholic, so he really likes the devotion. His wife, who was raised Lutheran and never experienced it, has grown to love it as well. They are both regular communicants and devout churchmen.

In my opinion, interest in eucharistic devotion is a sign of a healthy, eucharist-focused parish. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church here in Baltimore, the parishes that have regular eucharistic devotions (not all of them have it) are much healthier than those who do not have them. I think the same can be said of many Anglican parishes I have seen. When eucharistic devotion is done correctly it augments Holy Communion and draws people out to receive the Precious Body and Blood ("I, when I am lifted up will draw all men to myself.").

This has been a blessed year for our small country church: new organ, new monstrance, new members, new postulants, new clergy.... everything new! Except the faith - that's not new. It is the same old unchanging Christian faith, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, and the same time-tested, living liturgy. And all of that is just fine with us! Thanks be to God!

I am on the mailing list for an organization from one of the mainline churches that takes kids just out of college and puts them together in houses 0f 4-10 around the country for one year, and has them volunteer at various institutions. The point of this organization is to "explore spirituality while working for social justice, living in intentional community, and simplifying their lifestyles." I'm on their mailing list because I know some people involved in the group, and went to a few meetings with them a few years back.

Social justice - properly understood - is a very real part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Lord challenged the conventions and assumptions of the religious establishment of His day, and He helped people physically and materially. The early Church did the same things, as know from reading the New Testament. The Incarnation is the basis of social ministry and social justice.

The problem I have with groups like this, though, is that they seem to be entirely focused upon meeting the temporal needs of people, but not their spiritual needs. One would expect a "Christian" organization to address both sides of the issue. Sadly, these groups do not; for they are based more on Marxism than the Sacred Scriptures and the teaching of the Church. Classical Marxism is an entirely materialistic system, where there is nothing transcendent, and most, if not all, of life is reduced to an economic struggle. These groups do not believe that man has any spiritual need. And if they do, it is just that: a vague sort of spiritual need - not a need for union with the Holy Trinity through Jesus Christ. Not a need for salvation from sin and alientation from God and others. Indeed, they do not even mention Jesus in any of their literature! How sad. It is especially sad when one considers that this group is named for one of the greatest reformers of the Church - a man who was especially concerned that people know and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

One person from this group writes in the latest newsletter: "When we view our year of service only as 'my good deed for others' or 'the way I am going to help people', then we do the people we work with a disservice because we have stopped viewing them as people and have begun seeing them as objects of charity. The beauty of service is then lost because you are no longer relating person to person as equals, but rather as one with power and one without."

Did you catch that last little bit that smacks of Nietzche and Marx? Since when is helping someone doing them a disservice or disrespecting them? What she says is true if everything is material, and there is nothing transcendant, and man is no different from anything else in creation. But as Christians we do not believe that everything is material, and we believe that man is made in God's image, and placed in a position of lordship over the creation. The beauty of service in the Christian tradition is that in serving others we are serving Jesus Christ. If we serve Jesus Christ, does that do Him a disservice? Of course not! We are being obedient to Him and worshipping Him in that act. The same thing is true when we serve others in His name.

The liberal mainline groups have completely undercut their social ministries by stripping them of their biblical and theological foundations. I hope that some day soon orthodox Anglicans can establish a social ministry group similar to these that is based on orthodox Christianity, and that addresses all of the needs of people: the social and spiritual.

Here is picture of the altar at our little country church. There's no missal or mass candles because it is set up for Evening Prayer. We're supposed to be getting a new tabernacle at some point - actually I think some people from the parish are going to make one. The painting around the altar was done by a guy from the church who specializes in this style of English decorative church painting. It was painstakingly done entirely by hand (no stencils). He has also done extensive painting at another area continuing church. He is involved in the tabernacle project, too, incidently.

I love the icons - they were hand "written" in Greece, I believe, and were specially ordered through the Icon and Book Service in Washington, DC. One is of the Theotokos, and the other is of Christ the Pantocrator. We also have a similarly made icon of St. Alban, our patron saint, above the credence table.

What would I like to change that would be easy to change? Well, it would be nice to have three steps on the altar, though I don't know how easy it is to raise an altar - especially when there's a painting on the wall behind it. I would like to rip out the red carpeting. I hate red carpeting in churches - even if it is an American church tradition. A corpus on the on the cross would be nice (Maryland is historically very low church, so it's hard to get by with that sometimes). Six individual candle stands would be nice too. And maybe two more santuary lamps. All in good time, though.

I think it is a very smart looking altar and sanctuary. Simple, yet elegant. It fits our setting and worship. The painted reredos really makes the whole thing pop out. It is literally "the work of the people" - everyone from the church chipped in in some way to make it what it is today. And it shows what can be done with a simple building, a couple of cans of paint, and some TLC.

The Virtue Online has an interesting article on a recent meeting of orthodox Anglicans that included representatives from several continuing churches, as FiFNa and AMiA. It is well worth reading. The organizer was Bp. Hewitt, of the Diocese of the Holy Cross, was at the APA/REC unity synod this past spring. The article made it seem like a very positive event. Indeed it seems like much progress towards unity has been made over the past couple years. I notice a big difference between the way things are now as compared to when I was in seminary only a few short years ago. That is good news. No doubt the various situations within ECUSA, the CofE, and other Anglican provinces has helped encourge more serious talk of unity. And much of this talk is actaully becoming action, like with the APA/REC merger, and fairly recent joint services of the ACC, ACA, and APCK. It is easy to have talks, but getting those talks to result in action is the real trick.

We orthodox Anglicans must unite for mission and ministry. The liberals unite based on their main beliefs - which is usually a belief in nothing; so we should unite based on our shared beliefs: the creeds, episcopate, sacraments, and BCP. There is a spiritual vacuum to be filled, and there are souls to be saved! What are we doing about it?

The liberal churches are dying. Their congregations are shrinking, and their money is going to support their every expanding bueracracies. They are becoming like the former communist states: huge governments with no people behind them because no one believes in them anymore. Their money, and precious, property goes simply to support themselves. In the end, they become like a huge monster that is eating itself alive... consuming its own vile flesh... until eventually it is no more. And out of these ashes, orthodox Christianity, with its message of salvation in Jesus Christ, will emerge triumphant, because "...the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church." The time for us to act is now. May God bless us as we seek to minister to this dying world in the name of His blessed son, Our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Here is a picture from my ordination to the deaconate back in September. Two of us were ordained: me and a gentleman named Chris. The liturgy was holy and dignified - a solemn high mass. We used the fourth communion service from the 1940 hymnal, which is my favorite. The Litany for Ordinations was masterfully chanted by the subdeacon, and we sung great hymns like "I Bind Unto Myself Today" and "Come Down, O Love Divine". The cathderal has a great pipe organ, organist, and choir, so the music for the liturgy was top-notch. Bishop Grundorf preached a marvelous and inspiring sermon. At the last minute, I was asked to chant the Gospel. No problem, but I had never done that before. Luckily the Master of Ceremonies, along with my rector, showed me how to do it. They asked Chris and myself to help adminster the chalice at the Holy Communion. I think I was getting carried away in euphoria, as I almost ran out of the Precious Blood (I always give the people too much). Bp. Grundorf gently reminded me not to be overly generous with it! Many diocesan clergy were there (maybe 20?), along with loads of laymen. Afterwards there was a reception.

So I suppose it was a fairly typical deaconate ordination. My prayer is that God will use my life and ministry to spread the reconcilling love of Jesus Christ with others, and to touch peoples' lives for His honor and glory. I pray that I approach my life and ministry with the same seriousness and joy that characterized the ordination service.

Well, my wife and I are back from our honeymoon. We went to Italy. It was lovely, but unseasonably cold, and I got sick part way through. No big deal, though. We still had a nice time. While there I saw Cardinal Bellarmine's birth house (in the city of Montepulciano), so I snapped a photo and sent it off to my old college buddy, Jeffrey Steel, who is doing a doctoral dissertation on him and Lancelot Andrewes (his blog is called Meam Commemorationem).

The wedding liturgy was very lovely. My uncle, an old school anglo-catholic and otherwsie very classy guy, said it was "top shelf." We had the Solemnization of Holy Matrimoney first, and then the mass. We used the classic American Missal. The ordinary of the mass was Byrd's "Mass for Three Voices", sung by a small schola. The entire liturgy was accapella, as the church organ was broken. While it would have been nice to have an organ, it was very special and cool to have the hymns sung in four-part harmony. Not only was it hauntingly beautiful, but it was a tip of the cap to my wife's tradition she grew up in (Mennonite), which does not use instruments in worship. The preacher was my mentor and good friend, a priest in the APA who is also a member of the SSC. He had a fantastic charge that was quite thought-provoking and very theological. The liturgy was executed flawlessly by the rector of my parish, who is very good up at the altar.

About 2/3 of the guests were not Anglican, so only my wife and I, and the altar party, communicated. No one seemed to be put off by that. The non-Anglican's seemed to be intrigued by the kneeling and sublime Elizabethan English of the liturgy. It was an ecumenical wedding in the best of ways: my best man is studying to be an ELCA minister; my rector and a PCA pastor gave me and my wife premarital counseling; and two former classmates from the Roman Catholic seminary I attended - one who will be priested this spring - were in attendance. Also in attendence were many traditional Presbyterian friends, most of my APA home parish, and of course my wife's huge Mennonite family.

It was beautiful, and I give thanks to almighty God for His many blessings. God works slowly and mysteriously at times, but He does work... and when He does - WOW! All I can say is "Thanks be to God!"

I have decided to continue the blog for the time being because there are just too many interesting things to comment on and talk about! Sorry for confusion, and thanks for the votes of confidence.

Pax,
SJA

For various reasons, I have decided to end this blog. It has been enjoyable interacting with everyone, and I wish you all the best. I will officially terminate it and send it to "blog heaven" on Friday the 30th. My e-mail address will still be available for sometime should annyone wish to get in touch with me.

All the Best,
SJA

My stand-in spiritual director made the comment last week that, in his opinion, priests who do not make their own confession have no business hearing others' confessions. What think ye of this? In general, I would agree.

From the stand point of experience it makes sense. Would a priest who never avails himself of the sacrament be a good confessor? There is more to the sacrament than absolution. There's counsel and guidence, assigning penances, and more. How is he supposed to know what to do, say, and assign if he never goes to confession himself? True, any catholic priest can hear confessions and absove sinners - even those who do not use the sacrament themselves. But should they? That is the question. I say probably not.

I wonder what many continuing priests do for confessors? Particularly if they are stationed way out in the sticks and do not have other colleagues around. Presumably, it would be good to go to confession with a priest of your own jurisdiction first, an intercommunion partner second, and a conservative and old school episcopalian priest third. Others may disagree with this order. But they should try to go somewhere.

Priests minister to each other in this regard. Thus, their gospel ministry is not only to laypeople and the unchurched, but also to each other. And if priests do not stick together and actively seek to minister to each other in this way, who else will do so?

This guy is great - but he is so burned out. He is retiring from full time parish ministry in a few months after serving as a priest in several ECUSA dioceses over a span of about 30 years. Many times our sessions turn into me listening to him blow off steam complaining about complacent churchmen, backstabbing bishops, and the misery of diocesan politics. He is so ready to retire, and I, for one, am happy for him.

Anyway, it seems that if a corrupt bishop or diocese doesn't do try to destroy a godly priest, there is always some layman out there who will try. I've seen and heard of this happening in the continuum too. Certain parishes in certain dioceses have a couple of nasty people in them who are wolves in sheep's clothing. They take over parishes, and chew up and spit out each priest that comes along. Many times their anger is directed towards the priest who is trying to grow the parish, and lead it beyond the status quo.

Don't get me wrong: parishioners should be vigiliant, and involved in the faith and life of their parish. But at the same time they need to be open to what their leaders - whom they themselves have called - suggest they do. They need to let their leader lead. Some parishes are full of people who just want to fight all the time. They want to fight ECUSA, or fight the bishop, or fight the priest, or fight the democrats (or republicans), or fight the homosexuals... in other words, they have nothing positive to offer the world. I am not saying that stands should not be taken on various issues, but only that a confrontational, bickering spirit can easily come to characterize a particular parish (or continuing church denomination), and many times it is just a few people who cause this cancer to grow and spread. What is the result of this? The same as with any cancer - eventual death. And of course, they take a few people with them... battered priests and clergy, lay people, and more.

I don't know what will become of the ECUSA (FiFNa) parish that my spiritual director leads once he retires. It seems to have been teetering on the edge for many years. It still has that sort of fighting, "angry-can" (certainly not anglican) air about it. It may very well die eventually. Who knows? A shame, since it is one of the flagship "historic" anglo-catholic parishes in the country. He has tried, in his 8 or so years there, to change the tenor of the place. But he's only half suceeded. He has fought the good fight. What will the people at the parish do? The choice is theirs.

At my wedding (about two weeks away), only me, my bride, the clergy, and servers will be receiving the Holy Communion. There are just too many people coming , about 3/4 of the crowd, who are not confirmed. The policy in my church is that only those who have been confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession may receive communion. While this is technically not "closed communion" - that would be only allowing confirmed members of the APA and those in official communion with us to receive - it is very close. I think it is a good compromise and the best option available considering how fragmented catholic Christendom is.

The Holy Communion implies a theological unity. It is a sign and symbol of unity. Open communion, in my judgement, belittles the sacrament if taken to an extreme. There is, of course, always the need for "economy", and the Eucharist can indeed help bring about unity. But in general I think it is best to "fence the table" (as Presbyterians like to say) as much as possible, so that Christ is not mocked.

This Catholic magazine is published by a bunch of ex-episcopalians who fled to Rome in the early 80's. One of their main contributers is Michael Rose, who has written interesting and thought-provoking books like: Goodbye Good Men, Uglier Than Sin, and more. It is a very conservative magazine. They basically do not want to see what happened to the western parts of the Anglican communion happen to Rome.

I like this magazine because it gives the beleaguered Anglican ammo to use against obnoxious, triumphalist Roman Catholic friends who are forever trying to get you to "convert", and who cannot see the problems within the Roman church. When they do not listen to, or cannot understand, theological arguments as to why you choose to be Anglican - despite the supposed "inherent problems" of Anglicanism, I have found that they will listen to real life stories that show how Rome is stuck with its own problems and and has its own share of weirdos... despite it's tight system of theology that has an answer for everything.

Listening to a local radio station the other day, I heard the DJ asking for listeners to send support money for Hurricane Katrina relief. His reason as to why we should donate money was to "get good karma"; in other words, if we do something nice for another person, then something nice will happen to us.

While this particular usage of "karma" is very common and relatively harmless, I still do not find it very satisfying intellectually. At best it is a vague sort of sentimentilism. At worse, it is the ethical egoism (i.e. we should be nice to others because it ultimately benefits us) of Ayn Rand resurrected.

The Christian faith has another reason as to why we should help others in times of need: we help others out of love for God. Our helping of others is an offering of worship and praise to God. In addition, it is an act of obedience to our heavenly Father. And finally, we help others out of love for them - as people made in the image of God.

I am happy if anyone wants to send aid to people in need. As far as I am concerned they can do it in the name Dr. Spock and the Starship Enterprise. But in my judgment it is the Christian faith and tradition which offers the most fully satisfying and consistent rationale for acts of charity.

Recently I received copies of Talking to Strangers and ARC - two feature length movies by acclaimed independent filmmaker and professor Rob Tregenza. They are part of a trilogy, the third being Inside/Out, which I hope to get sometime soon. Yesterday, my fiance and I viewed Talking to Strangers. It consists of 9 short vignettes on an a would-be artist who encounters all sorts of moral dilemas while passing through the city of Baltimore. It struck me as being similar in style to some of the "moral anxiety" films of Kieslowski. Overall it was extremely well done. The cinematography is especially interesting. This film, along with others he's done, appeared at Cannes, Toronto, Berlin, and all of the other big international film festivals. It also happens to be one of the all-time favorite films of the legendary French director Jean-Luc Godard.

So why do I mention this on a blog about continuing Anglicanism? Because Rob Tregenza is also Fr. Tregenza - a priest in the APA! He is the rector of Mt. Calvary Church in Lothian, MD. His parish is the only place I know of where the Sarum Rite, as it is presented by Percy Dearmer in the Parson's Handbook, is done. Most APA parishes are Latin Rite/Ritual Notes sorts of places. I have been fortunate enough to be able sit down and chat with him about art, culture, theology, and philosophy at length several times. I hope he does some more movies sometime in the near future.

It is nice to see traditional Anglicans contributing so much to the world - not only in the sphere of faith and religion, but also in the arts. This sort of ties into a thought I had in an earlier post: namely, that the Christian religion speaks to all areas of life and thought. When we think about postmodern life and culture in terms of faith in the Risen Christ, why not express that in some visual medium. There are plenty of great thinkers out there who writes books and essays dealing with such things, but what about artists? Tregenza is one of the people doing just that.

Do any of your parishes have a decent youth program? I mean a youth program that kids actually want to come to, and that can compete with the big "non-denominational church" youth programs?

We are trying to establish one at my parish. It is hard because our facilities are very limited, many of the parents do not bring their kids to church regularly, and the youth worker has a fulltime job already. But these are not insurmountable odds. Nothing is impossible with God. With much prayer and some good old fashioned TLC, I think we can get one off the ground and keep it going. We certainly have enough kids to do it, which is a blessing. We've been publicizing it, and have had a couple of small activities thus far. So far things appear to be on the right track. It takes TIME and DEDICATION to develop a good program.... that is the first lesson we are learning.

We have chosen a snazzy name and logo/motto. As for activities, we are trying to do a monthly "off-campus" activity and a weekly meeting that has study, prayer, and fellowship, and which coincides with the adult mid-week eucharist/bible study (that way families can come to church together mid-week). We also invite other area APA/REC parishes to join in the various activities so as to pool resources, work together, and build fellowship. Then, of course, we have a Sunday School class. So, keep the youth at my parish in your prayers. I will keep you all posted on how it goes. if you have any ideas please let me know!

We have said the Litany at parish maybe twice in the last two years. At the previous continuing parish I attended (which was more "cathedral style" Anglicanism than anglo-catholic) it was said or sang maybe three times a year. At all of the ECUSA parishes I have attended I have only seen the Litany done once.

I think that this is a rather sad state of affairs because the Litany is a big part of our liturgical heritage. In fact, page vii of the 1928 BCP clearly states that the Litany is one of the official and regular services of the church. Other services in the BCP kind of come and go, such as the Penitential Office, but the Litany was there from the beginning. Thus it should not be too easily forgotten.

Since it is not said in most parish churches, many of us are left to say it on our own. Have any of you ever tried to incorporate it into your own daily devotions? Sometimes I will add it to my reading of the Daily Office, but I must confess that saying something that long by myself - responding to myself - does not seem very proper. It was obviously meant for corporate worship.

I think that if the continuing churches want to keep using the 1928 BCP, and if we extol its virtues and profundity in comparison to other liturgies, then we should use more of it than we do. It is possible to get quite a bit of variation out of it if you read the rubrics and use your imagination. One way to do that is to say the Litany in church more frequently.

As I have many non-religious friends, I often find myself wondering just what it is about Christianity that I find so compelling. Why do I spend so much time and energy living the Christian life when other people do not? One of the main reasons is that Christianity - orthodox Christianity - offers a complete worldview that is both intellectually and existentially satisfying. It is a completely integrated system of thought and way of life. The faith of the Church profoundly influences every aspect of human existence for all people in all times and ages. Indeed friends and associates who do not share my faith might believe many of the samme things that I do about the moral life, or human existence. But the difference is that in the Christian religion those beliefs are parts of a greater whole, and are rooted in a transcendent norm. I find that very satisfying.

One of my typical friends or associates, may, for example, believe that the death penalty is generally wrong. And while I share that view, I feel like I have a complete, internally sound, system of thought that justifies my belief, whereas my friends often do not. They may have a certain belief in the dignity of humanity, but they have no transcendent norm that underlies that belief. They have no theological, or even philosophical, anthropology. And because they lack such a basic foundation, their views concerning other things of great importance, such as civil government and social work, are often completely at odds and philosophically out of whack with their other beliefs. In other words, they engage in all sorts of contradictory thought...

Take the the Rage Against the Machine concert I saw a few years ago where the guitar player had a Soviet "hammer and sickle" sticker on his guitar, and pictures of Che Guevara in the background.... yet all the songs they sang about had to do with personal "freedom" and "anarchy" (something the communist/Marxist worldview makes subservient to the state)! Everyone was cheering, and moshing, and dancing around celebrating anarchy and denouncing the United States (this was before 9/11 when the surge of patriotism wiped RATM off the map). Yet if they tried to do that in North Korea or China - whose symbols they were waving around - they would all be lined up and shot!

Biblical and traditional Christianity offers a completely integrated worldview that answers all of the questions that come up in life. But it even more than that: it is a personal encounter with the living God - with the creator of the universe. We can come to personally know this God who took on human flesh to save the world and bring us into greater knowledge and love of Himself. And most important, we can be united with Him for all eternity with all of His saints... and this unity begins now! Indeed, I can't see how someone could reject the Christian faith - reject Jesus Christ - and find life satisfying and fulfilling intellectually or otherwise.

I must confess that one of the things that worries me about the future of traditional Anglicanism is the ability to find organists to play our services. There is a shortage of organists in general, and the few out there who are well-trained and have some gusto and vision would probably chose to play in a huge downtown parish with a massive pipe organ rather than a small continuing parish that has an electronic organ. That leaves us with the grannies, or perhaps a convert from evangelicalism who would not, on principle, work at a mainline parish.

But then, in all cases, there is the problem of the organist not knowing Anglican music or liturgy. In other words, they have no idea how to make a nice "Choral Evensong" service; they have never heard of Anglican Chant before; and they do not know any mass setting other than Willan's.

Are there any new "Healy Willans" out there among our ranks? Are there any men (or women) who are committed to preserving the tradition of Anglican music and passing it on to the next generation? I think that the parish is the birthplace of organist vocations (just as it is for priestly vocations). Do any of our organists - even if they are lame - take pupils and try to pass on their trade? It seems to me this is something that must be addressed!

Those who read Morning Prayer with any regularity will recognize this canticle. (note: the BCP says Morning and Evening Prayer is to be daily; and because our liturgy is common prayer - meaning for laity and clergy, men and women, old and young alike - every Anglican should make an effort to read Morning and Evening Prayer every day)

It is the long canticle - the one we all probably say the least because of the big rush and hurry we Americans are always in. I must confess that I find myself saying this canticle (which comes from the Apocrypha) the least too. But I do make an effort to say it at least once a week, and everytime I do I am glad I said it! It speaks of all nature and creation praising God. It may be viewed, perhaps, as a primitive Natural Theology: all of creation testifies to God's Lordship, and through nature we can come to know God on a basic level. Nature is our "interface" with God - such as with the elements of Bread and Wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Last night the power went out, and I lay bed for 5 hours sweating... barely able to breathe because of the awful heat and humidity. Then this morning, when I said the Benedicite, I was reminded that the "...winter and summer..." is to bless the Lord, and praise and maginfy Him forever (BCP p.12). Even the oppresive, sweltering heat, which was crushing me and keeping me awake, must bend the knee to Almighty God.

So, if you do not read Morning and Evening Prayer regularly, start doing it. Then, when you do it, don't shy away from the longer canticles. They have much to teach us.

Last night I watched Hotel Rwanda. It is a very moving and disturbing film that documents the true life experience of a hotel manager in Kigali who used his influence and hotel to save over 1200 people from certain death. I recommend that everyone see this film at least once.

I remember when those massacres happened eleven years ago, and can recall how shocked I was that something like that could happen today. It shows the great evil that human beings are capable of - despite our education and technology. And once again, I was confronted with the indifference of the west. How could we let something like that happen? Over 1 million people died in just a few months during those massacres.

God created us with a free will, and endowed us with reason and intelligence. How do we use this? Because of the fall, and orginal sin, part of the human condition is to constantly struggle with abusing our freedom and reason - using it for supposed "self aggrandizement". But St. Paul tells us that in Christ we are "new creations". Indeed we need God's grace in Jesus Christ to purify us, and rescue and elevate our nature to what it was intended to be. This message needs to be brought to all the world so that such great evil will never happen again.

I'm getting married in the fall. To be honest, I sometimes thought that I would never meet the woman of my dreams and get married. My faith is very important to me, and equally important is the classical Anglican expression of the catholic faith. And obviously, emotional and physical attraction are also very important when looking for love.

Well, traditional Anglican parishes - at least the ones I have attended - for the most part are not exactly crawling with gorgeous and intelligent young women, so it is hard to meet women at them. Once in a while there was a visitor, or someone who came at Christmas and Easter, but I wanted to meet someone who was in love with the Lord Jesus Christ, not just a "nominal" Christian. So eventually I just sort of "gave up" looking and resigned myself to living by my principles and accepting what God apparently had for me. Accepting God's will for my life was actually very freeing. I was able to get a lot of great work done, and grow much more comfortable with myself.

But lo an behold, I happened to go to a Christmas party last year, and there I met my future wife. We hit it off, started e-mailing, and then started dating. She began coming to mass with me, and has not missed a Sunday since. She comes from a somewhat liberal Mennonite background - liberal enough to dress normally and date outside the Amish/Mennonite fold, but still conservative enough to be against abortion, and pro-traditional marriage, and such. Now she has adopted Anglicanism wholeheartedly. She crosses herself, bows at the cross, genuflects, prays the rosary and talks about Mary a lot, goes to Stations and Benediction, and even says Evening Prayer with me once in a while.... it is wonderful! She'll be confirmed, Lord willing, this fall or spring. She fits right in at church, and likes the small, close-knit atmosphere of our parish and our diocese. She is real Anglican trooper - a top notch gal, and the love of my life! We're getting married this fall with the 1928 BCP and American Missal. The mass setting will be the "Mass for Three Voices" by William Byrd.

I thank the Lord that I have found someone out there to share this part of my life - the very core of my life - with. I have to admit, I had my doubts at times. The traditional Anglican world is not for everyone... it is too beautiful, too mysterious, too contemplative. But the Lord blessed me, and did not leave me hanging. He sent me someone who also found that world beautiful. The night we met, I told her, and all of the other women I met at the party, all about me, and about my Anglicanism, thinking that if she or they were not interested in me that would be fine, and that I wouldn't want to meet someone who didn't care about the Lord anyway. And I was right about 99% of them. But she was the one who e-mailed me, so I took notice. Then on our first date, after eating and hanging our for a while, I just started talking to her about the Blessed Mother, and how devotion to her has been spiritually refreshing and helpful to me. She did not run, but rather was so affirmative, and into what I was saying. Now we talk about how Mary played a role in our romance. And now we are getting married at St. Mary's Church!

Anyway, sorry to get all sentimental. I just wanted to offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, and also give hope to those who think one could never find his or her true love while attending a small, continuing Anglican parish with a (formerly) crappy organ. There is always hope with God.

I recommend that all Anglicans interested in growing in deeper knowledge and love of God, and in holiness, seek out a spiritual director. A spiritual director may or may not be the same person as your confessor, but often they are the same. The spiritual director acts as sort of a 'coach' in the Christian life. He is someone who can help you develop and maintain a Rule of Life (Thornton), and he is someone to bounce ideas, hopes, and frustrations off of. It is not meant to be counseling in the psychological or emotional sense, though there may be some overlap once in a while.

My spiritual director also serves as my confessor. He is an SSC priest who resides here in my fair city. We get together once a month for confession and direction. He has been very helpful to me, and has helped me view my spiritual life more holistically. For instance, he talked about regular exercise as being part of a balanced Rule of Life... something I had never thought of. A few years ago, I went to a legendary, really old Sulpician priest (Fr. Vincent DePaul McMurry) for spiritual direction. He was not my confessor - only my director. He was great too. He would talk about how beautiful the catholic faith is, and we would reflect on that in all sorts of interesting ways.

I have found that you have to really look around for a good spiritual director. It is like finding the perfect "hang out". You have to ask others, and pray that God would send you to the right person. It can be hard at times. And sometimes you strike out a lot before finding the right one. Even Roman Catholics have trouble finding good spiritual directors sometimes. Once you find a good spiritual director, though, go to him regularly with an open mind and heart - even if you consider yourself to be fairly "advanced" spiritually. There is always something new to learn, and greater levels of holiness to attain.

This is not a post about my own wedding, which is coming up (but I am sure I will have something up about it sooner or later), but rather about a wedding at the ECUSA 'Cathedral of the Incarnation' (or "The Cathedral of the Reincarnation" as we call here in my town) that I attended the other day. It was bizarre, and made me very happy to be a continuing Anglican.

The lady who did the wedding didn't even follow the '79 BCP Order for Marriage. They used some other crazy text. The couple did their own vows, which were rather sentimental and shallow I thought. There were no hymns or anything... so even though the ceremony was done in the context of the Eucharist, it really did not feel like a community experience. They really cut back on the responses, I suppose because they thought most people wouldn't know them, so maybe that was why we all felt like we were watching a piece of weird performance art. There were no chasubles, no procession of clergy, no altar rail, no nothing. The acolyte, after the Holy Communion, then reserved the reaminder of the Precious Blood in an aumbry!

The whole thing was just very watered down. Of course they admitted everyone to the Holy Eucharist, and there was, as to be expected with Rite II, very little talk of sin and redemption. My fiancee, who is not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, thought the whole experience was not very worshipful or holy.

At the reception, some "priestess" got up and prayed for the food. She began to quote Scripture in her prayer, but came up with her own, weird translation of the passage in question. She said, "Oh God, you said it was not good for people to be alone, so let us make for them partners to be with...." or something like that. She was quoting (I use that term loosely) from Tobit.

So the whole thing was very strange indeed. The organ music was nice, though. Hard to mess up the "Wedding March".

Praise the Lord! Today our parish is getting a nice new Rogers electronic organ delivered! It will replace our 1949 creep show organ. The Lord enabled us to raise all of the money for the organ in about 5 months... that is 5 months ahead of schedule! Our old organ sounded so BAD. I am convinced that it has driven many potential new members away. Now we just need to get a new organist.

This past Sunday I was out of town visiting an old college friend. We visited her current church home, which is an "emerging church" in a large city in Tennessee. I thought I would comment on some of the things I noticed about the service. Warning: this is a long post. (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

First, there was no church building. Rather, they met in a large warehouse (owned by a contemporary christian musician). In fact, it looked like this goth/punk club I used to go to in Baltimore called the "Ottobar". The lighting was poor, despite a huge lighting rig that covered the ceiling. They use the room for christian rock concerts on other days, hence the rig, but apparently they do not use the rig for morning worship. There were no pews, only plastic folding chairs. As you came in, you grabbed a chair and sat down - usually with your coffee.... that's right, they serve coffee and bottled water that you are allowed to bring into the main space. There was no art on the walls, and up front, on the platform where the speaker stood, was one of those computer projectors with a million wires coming out from it. They used it to project the music lyrics up on a screen. There was no information bulletin... just a bi-fold piece of paper with a space for sermon notes on one side, and a couple of announcements on the other side. The crowd (about 200 people?) was mostly 20-30 somethings. The oldest people I saw looked to be in their sixties (they were just one couple, mind you). Out of all the people there, I'd say that 10 were 45 or older. Everyone was white.

As for the "liturgy", there was a confession of sin; a "declaration of absolution" (read by young woman in a short miniskirt); and several rock songs led by the house band - one of which was "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation". Then there was a long, rambling sermon lead by the youth pastor, followed by some announcements (that he kept messing up), and then some more rock songs. There was one, maybe two, brief prayers during the service.

There was no sacrament, no offering, no substantial prayer or prayer time, no responses, no kneeling, very little talk of sin and redemption, and no blessing (though the service ended with a wave and a hearty, "Ya'll have a great day... see ya next week.". The guy who was preaching spent so much time talking about a U2 concert he attended in Ireland that it was hard to focus on the spiritual truthes he was trying to draw out from that experience. On top of that, the people were nnot very friendly. I wouldn't say they were unfriendly, but they certainly did not come up and say hello, or even look at you, much less smile at you. My fiancee said that she thought the place was downright cold.

This experience confirmed my earlier suspicians that there is something seriously wrong with the "emerging church" model. One struggles to even call an experience like this "worship", for virtually nothing was being offered to God. It was wholly and entirely man-centered. The only thing that was being offered to God that I could see - the rock music and singing - was hardly the best that could be offered. And further, the people really didn't seem to take part in the singing at all. About half of them chatted and drank their coffee during the singing, despite the fact that they were very easy songs to sing (I picked up the tunes immediately, though I had only heard the hymn before).

True worship involves offering something to God which is pure and spotless. This is not our own "sincere hearts", or "warm fuzzy feelings", but something else - the Holy Eucharist. True worship is offering to God the spotless, most Holy Pascal Lamb - Jesus Christ. This highest and one true act of worship sanctifies our other acts of worship (singing, prayer, offering, etc.).

There was no chance to worship God with giving of tithes and offerings, despite the fact that that God commands us to give to His work. In an age when people are so irresponsible with their money, and so blatantly materialistic, to deny them the opportunity to give to the work of the Church during its corporate worship is an outrage and a slap in the face to God - who owns everything in the world. (BCP p. 9; and Psalm 24: BCP p. 368)

The worship was gnostic. That is to say, it was entirely cerebral. It was not incarnational and sacramental. The "message" - an imparting of "secret knowledge" of sorts - was the focus of the meeting. Besides there being no art, and no sacrament, and no august movements and/or ritual, the whole experience was just plain ugly. Thus, as an artist, I found the worship highly irrelevant to my life (to use one of that movement's favorite buzzwords).

One of the most troubling aspects was the fact that everyone was young. What about older folks? Is a place like this truly "for all people" when old people are nowhere to be seen? The absensce of the aged, and extremely aged seems to detract from the dogma that the Church is catholic - i.e. for all people in all times and places. (BCP p.291)

So why do people go to churches like this? I think they go to them because there is no commitment involved. There is no work to do on Sunday. You just passively sit there and sip on your coffee like you are watching TV. This type of service appeals to our basest desires. It is "worship of God" (I use that phrase lightly) on our terms as opposed to God's terms. In that sense, it is very similar to liberal Christianity. No doctrine, and God on my terms... Jesus "reconstituted" to fit my interests interests". I think people go because they can slip in and blend in with everyone else - who look, talk, and act just like me - and then they can just leave. It is "no pressure" religion.

Well, it may qualify as 'religion' in some broad sense of the word (even though there is no ritual), but it certainly does not qualify as authentic Christianity. A Christian is a follower of Christ, and followers of Christ suffer as their Lord does (indeed we participate in His suffering through the sacramental life). Followers of Christ worship God in spirit and truth, and accept inconveniences in order to be made more christlike. Most important, Christians offer to God true worship - the Sacrifice of the Mass. God in His grace raises us up to His level, and makes us holy - He makes us divine (theosis). We should not seek to drag God down to our level for the sake of convenience and the latest trends.

These can be really hard to find these days. What I recommend is contacting your local FiFNa parish, or other more traditional ECUSA parish and seeing if they have one they want to give away or sell. In my church restoration business travels I find mountains of those things on the shelves of church libraries. Just today I was in a parish that had about six of them in varying states that were just sitting on a shelf.

At the APA/REC synod there were several guests, such as Bp. Hewitt (Diocese of the Holy Cross). He heads up this group called the Anglican Fellowship of the Delaware Valley, which is a cooperative group of orthodox Anglican parishes from various jurisdictions up in Pennsylvannia. Apparently they work together on various initiatoves and ministries. There was Abp. Venebles (Primate of the Southern Cone), and also Bp. Lyons (Bishop of Bolivia) too. Canon Bill Atwood (head of Ekklesia) was there as well.

(This is in response to a comment I made before. I said I was going to e-mail Mr. Cameron about seminary, but thought I would just write it out for all to see as others might find it helpful.)

At synod I met APA and REC clergy who went to every sort of seminary one could imagine. There were people who went to RTS, Nashotah House, General Seminary, Trinity Seminary, Dallas Seminary, Duke Divinity School, Cranmer House, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Philadelphia Seminary, St. Mary's, Dominican House of Studies, and more. It was staggering. Obviously they all did additional reading and liturgical studies to get where they are today.

I think that no matter where you go today, though, you still have to do supplemental reading and train under a competant priest if you want to go into the traditional Anglican ministry. There is no seminary, for example, that can teach the manual acts that are to be done by the priest during the consecration. And very few - even moderate Roman Catholic seminaries - talk about the traditional Theological and Cardinal Virtues in their moral theology classes. Albeit, one might have to do more supplemental reading and study if he went to Bob Jones University seminary rather than Theological College (Washington), but this where having a good priest mentor comes in handy. He will be able to tell the postulant what additional books to read (e.g. Moss, Hall, Thornton, Moorman, etc.), as well as explain traditional Anglican theology as it relates to the liturgy and pastoral care (and more). Seminaries that do excel in one area (say, liturgics as they relate to us) may be lacking in other areas (say philosophy). So any way you slice it, there will need to be supplemental reading done if you want to be a traditional Anglican priest. This is not so big a deal, though, since the priestly life is a scholarly life. It is a life of constant study and learning, so seminary - even if you could go back in time and study at St. Stephen's House, Oxford during the 20's - is always just the beginning. Most places give the same basic foundation in Church History, Biblical Studies (e.g. higher critical method), and practical theology.

I will say that I think it is better to go to seminary - any seminary (maybe especially an accredited one) - and do supplemental reading and study rather than simply reading for orders. Seminary provides a unique environment to test and challenge your beliefs. Oftentimes we gain a clearer understanding of what we believe when we contrast it with something different. This is not to insult those who have read for orders, but simply to say that if you have the choice go to seminary and work with a good local priest. And if I had a choice (like if I lived in San Francisco, where there are is a cluster of schools) I would choose to go to a place that is incarnational and patristic in its emphasis, such as an Anglican, Roman, or Orthodox seminary. I'd probably go to one of these and make sure I hhad a good solid parish and rector before going to conservative evangelical seminary. But again, sometimes there is little choice... and either way, the golden rule is that there will have to be private study done on the side. Oh, and have a spiritual director too... the spiritual warfare that goes on in seminary is tremendous and potentially deadly.

Well, I am back from the synod. Over the next few days I will write several reflections on it since there was so much that happened. First the name: the REC and APA did not sit in any business meetings together. Rather, we had our meetings in the same location. The "unity" part happened at the various liturgies, at the evangelism seminar, at the meals, and during recreational time. It was an opportunity to mix and mingle. The bishops all know each other already, so this was more of an opportunity for the other clergy and laity to interact. And this is how true unity will develop. Only so much can be done from the "top down". There has to be a sense of fellowship and brotherhood coming from the grassroots, and it is simple things like this that make it happen.

The unity mass was concelebrated by Bp. Riches and Bp. Grundorf at St. Alban's Cathedral in Oviedo. The liturgy was very solemn and beautiful. It was a "straight '28" for all of you liturgy buffs out there (the cathedral normally uses the American Missal). The readers were Bp. Brewer (APA) and Bp. Sutton (REC). The preacher was Abp. Venebles, who is a very exciting speaker. He spoke on unity and orthodoxy. There was a massive processsion that 90% of the clergy took part in. There were APA priests in stoles, hoods, and berettas; and there were REC priests in (in some cases) Genevan gowns with stoles on over them! Overall, there was a great deal of diversity in unity. But it was a true, Christian diversity. It was a diversity that was centered on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the ancient apostolic faith "once delivered to the saints", and to be found in the Creeds and liturgy.

I will write more on this joyous event over the next few days and weeks. Thank you all for your prayers: they were felt.

Next week the APA and the REC are having their first unity synod down in Orlando. It should be very exciting. If the merger between the APA and REC can be pulled off smoothly that will be a great sign for the rest of traditional Anglicanism. The union is not without difficulty, however, since the two denominations have historically had very different takes on Anglicanism. But great strides have been made, and agreement has been reached on very important, formerly divisive, issues. It would be truly ironic if this merger were to work and last, and produce great fruit, when other mergers, and attempts at discussion, between continuing denominations having very similar theological beliefs, have failed.

We have wasted too much time bickering and being divided. We need to work towards organic unity, not as an end in itself, but that we may more effectively reach people for Jesus Christ. We have spent so much time infighting that we have by and large neglected the work God has given us to do. One thing I have noticed about many continuing Anglicans (clergy and laypeople) is that there does not seem to be any great urgency about evangelism. The best catholics (and the best evangelicals too) were all evangelists at heart, though. They were concerned for peoples' souls, and they went out to reach lost for Jesus Christ. They took the Great Commission seriously. That concern, quite frankly, doesn't seem to be too prevelant among many conservative (or even liberal) Anglicans today. We'd much rather fight, or prance around in fancy costumes, and give each other grand titles. We used to be great evangelists and preachers, but somewhere along the line we let that fade, and we became concerned with things that were quite silly. Can we revive it that evangelical-catholic spirit? With God's help, yes. Can we pool our resources and unite to do this more effectively? With God's help, yes.

There was an interesting series on Focus on the Family this week dealing with addictions and obsessive compulsive disorders. Today, the guest, Dr. Archibald something-or-other, was talking about how OCD can manifest itself in an unrelenting quest for new spiritual highs. OCD, he said, differs from addictions in that the former are rooted in some sort of insecurity or fear, whereas the latter are often rooted in biology and/or sinful desires. He spoke about how he has known some people who feel that if they do not have an ecstatic religious experience each week, they feel as though God has left them. These people, therefore, tend to bounce around from church to church, always looking for a greater high. Eventually, many of them leave the Church altogether.

I see elements of this religious OCDism more in Protestant lay people, though, than in catholic (small "c") lay people. Many of these huge mega churches have to constantly morph and adopt new tactics (such as use of special effects in worship) to keep people "interested" and "satiated". But to me, an older liturgy, like the Anglican liturgy, is more conducive to helping people grow spiritually in a measured, sober way. Sure, it is not always "exciting", but that is not what worship is supposed to be about. I think the repetative nature of it, done over years and years, helps people develop more of a deep, sober, "interior" life and spirituality. And the simplicity of it, especially the 1928 BCP, helps this happen without the people becoming obsessive compulsive or too weird in other ways.

One of the things we do in my area of the country to build community between the APA and REC parishes (as well as other continuing groups) is have joint Choral Evensongs once a quarter. We alternate parishes and preachers, and always have a reception afterwards so there is plenty of time to meet and greet, and have fellowship. It has been very successful thus far. We've been doing it for about a year.

And one of the neat things is that there is always some "new" priest or bishop coming from a weird jurisdiction you've never heard of.... some bishop with no flock, no building, no nothing. One time they'll be there, and then they just never show up again! It's sort of like sighting the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot....

The only thing I would complain about is that sometimes lay participation is a bit lower than what it should be. But I guess that's because people do not always feel like driving very far for a special service. Usually, however, it is pretty good. There's always more people to talk to than time available.

Anyway, I highly recommend this as a way to build unity and grassroots cooperation among continuing churches in your own area. It is a simple way to work towards a more organic unity.

I have been rereading for fun "What is Anglicanism" by Urban T. Holmes III, which is one of the books I read years ago when first exploring Anglicanism. It is actually a very good little book in many ways, but this morning I came across a passage in the section on "Liturgy" (pp. 45-46) that disturbed me.

He was talking about an Anglican historian named Ladd who was influential in developing the 1979 BCP. Ladd had a strong distaste for the American Missal, and did not want 17th century Roman liturgical forms to become normative for the Church during the Anglican liturgical reforms of the 20th century. Ladd (and Holmes) believed that the Church should have one authoritative liturgy. In other words, we should just use the BCP and not anything else, like the missal.

Well, I would say that the 1928 BCP and the American and Anglican Missals really do form one conhesive authoritative liturgy. Besides the simple fact that the BCP mass is contained in the missals, they are unified in their strict adhearance to catholic orthodoxy.

And do the liturgical reformers have just "one authoritative liturgy" anyway? I would say that the 1979 BCP, with its many Eucharistic Anaphoras, and Prayers of the People Forms, as well as the introduction of the Alternative Service Book, shows that the liturgical revisionists of the Episcopal Church really did not (and do not) care about having multiple prayers, rites, and ceremonies available for use. They didn't care... it didn't really bother them! What bothered them was something else: orthodoxy. They simply wanted to rework those orthodox liturgies that were in use for their own questionable purposes. In other words, they wanted to undermine the catholic unity of the traditional BCP and missals, and replace it with something that was close, but not quite the same thing.

I believe that the missals and BCP (1928) form a complete whole and contain no substantial disagreements about anything of great importance (remember, the Articles of Religion are not part of the BCP). And I believe that their emphasis on penitence is something that is good for us to hear, and that it is a vital part of the true gospel.

How do we as Anglicans evangelize? Is liturgy anti-evangelical? How do we grow our parishes and bring to people the reconciling love of Jesus in the Word and Sacraments? One of the best ways is to invite people to Church. Hopefully, our friends know that we are believers through our words and actions. And hopefully they see that we have something in our lives that they do not.... something that they want. I think that after we have reached a certain level of comfort with our friend and colleagues it is very natural to simply invite them to Church, and then let the Holy Ghost do the rest. We build relationships with people, and in doing so we share parts of our lives with them - particularly our faith.

I know of so many people who became Christians, or began the Christian journey, simply by being invited to Church. And this can happen even with continuing Anglican parishes. I went to graduate school with a friend who was raised as a non-observant Jew. He had no exposure to any religion and was basically a secularist. Well, one day he befriended a continuing Anglican friend of mine. They would talk about the faith and other things. They became close friends, and eventually the conversations about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith pierced his heart. Eventually, he converted and was baptized and confirmed. And he became a very active member in his parish. This was all in a small "continuing" parish with an overworked priest who had a secular job, and the parish had awful music. It is possible for us to reach peoples' lives, even though at times we may think that we are hopelessly out of touch with the way people live and think today. It starts by building relationships.

I was at a party last night, and met a friend's new girlfriend. He was raised Missouri-Synod Lutheran, but now worships in the ELCA; she is a cradle Roman Catholic. Both are somewhat liberal in their outlook. They asked me help with a theological question: should he receive communion at her RC parish? I said, "According to the Code of Canon Law, no... unless there are very specific circumstances (which I later explained)." She agreed with me, but he balked at that, and said that he had the right to do whatever he wanted since he's a Christian as much as a Catholic is. So we went on to talk about what communion implies about doctrinal agreement, unity, and so on. But underneath all of this I was thinking about something more interesting: the whole time during our conversation, this "Catholic" woman kept using coarse - perhaps even blasphemous phrases - to describe the Blessed Sacrament and things of the Church. She used phrases like, "Jesus Cookie", and other awful words. I thought later on, "No wonder her boyfriend doesn't take the sacrament seriously." Who would when it is joked about and referred to in such silly ways?

When I was younger I, regretfully, used such language at times. Now I see how spiritually damaging it is. It is very wrong to make light of the sacred things of the Church. The sacraments, clergy, doctrines, liturgy - all of it - should be taken and discussed with the utmost seriousness at all times. This is what the Church at Corinth did, and why so many were sick and weak among them. The Church is the living Body of Jesus Christ, and is the Sacrament of Salvation (to use Vatican II language), so everything about it should be taken very seriously. And seriousness does not imply "stiffness" or "somberness". We can be reverent in our speech and actions, but still experience warmth, openness, and joy.

There is this new phenomenon that is sweeping through the evangelical world - it is called the "Emerging Church". It is some amorphous sort of movement headed by megachurch pastors and other gurus, such as Brian McLaren. It opposes grand meta-narratives in the name of postmodernism, and is characterized by taking snippets of this, and a dash of that, and rolling it all together into a customized "church" experience." It is very anti-dogmatic, and tolerates multiple, even contradictory, views of Scripture and Tradition. The worship at these churches may include the use of icons and rock bands, eucharist and dance. They are lead by "teams", and the head guru usually has no degree in theology.

It sounds like a bunch of bunk to me. Another marketing ploy by some writer, such as the guy listed above, who makes money selling his books on the subject to everyone gets caught up in it. It is the ultimate form of Protestantism, where each person is his own pope. I think these evangelical groups have to come up with stuff like this every couple of years because their religion is so vapid and anti-incarnational to begin with. So they need to find new ways to keep people interested and coming, as it were. They have no apostolic orders, and could care less about such things. But because of that there is no grace in their sacraments (except baptism, I guess - if they use the right form). So, again, they have to keep coming up with new slogans like this to keep peoples' attention. All of these "churches" are trying to be "relevant" to people today. They even use the phrase in their literature. But me, and many of my associates, find them hopelessly irrelevant. Their goofy music, and aping of everything that the world does is shallow and empty. If that is "relevant", then I am glad to be hopelessly "irrelevant" as an continuing anglo-catholic.

I oppose this movement. I oppose anti-dogma. I oppose hyper-protestantism. I oppose personality cults. What sort of spiritual wreckage will these people leave behind them in a few years? I know of folk whose lives were torn up by the megachurch culture, so what is this movement going to do to people?

...about the Anglican Rite in the old BCPs that we continuing churchpeople use is the Decalogue and the Gloria "post communion". At my parish, we say the decalogue once a month to fulfill the rubric. I like saying them because they form the basis of western law and the Judeo-Christian ethic, so connecting with them, and forming those words with my lips, makes me feel like I am connecting with a very primitive tradition. Plus, so many people do not know the Ten Commandments - even devout Christians! Thus, inserting them in the liturgy once in a while is a good way to teach them and absrob them into our hearts.

The post-communion Gloria was an innovation by Cranmer. Traditionally, it is supposed to be at the beginning of the liturgy. I think it fits well in either place, as R. Mammanna observed once in a paper he wrote on the subject. Personally, I have never gotten used to the Gloria being in its original place. I like it, and am used to it, at the end of mass. I see it as that last great act of thanksgiving after communicating. It is a refreshing way to end the liturgy. I always thought that masses without the Gloria put on the end were so anti-climactic. But that's just my opinion.

Something hit me when I wrote the pervious post. I was eating with a friend the other day - a really liberal ELCA Lutheran - and he was telling me about his sister and her hubby up in Philadelphia. He said, "They are Presbyterian. They go to this really conservative church. Did you know that there are two Presbyterian Churches? There's like the main one, and then there's this really conservative one called the PCA?" Of course I knew since I love studying American Christianity.

I thought that was so great. The PCA has made such an impact for orthodox Christianity in the "Reformed" world that even this friend who does not study religion took notice of it and their message. I pray that we can do that too one day. I pray that one day our jurisdictions will unite with the orthodox portions of the Anglican Communion so that we can "Lift High the Cross" of Jesus Christ so people take notice. And I pray that we can establish new institutions that will glorify God by serving others. If we are faithful to the orthodox faith and living out our baptismal covenants, this will happen.

Again, are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS? May God help us be Angli-CANS!

One of the more frustrating parts of being a continuing Anglican can be deciding how to describe our tradition to Christians of other traditions. First there is the problem of "Episcopal" vs. "Anglican". Why can't people understand that the terms are interchangeable, but do not mean the same thing? It is like saying "Kleenex" and "Tissue". They mean different things, but they refer to the same phenomenon. Our tradition is ""Episcopal" because we are governed by bishops, and we are "Anglican" because we derive from "England". For some reason this confuses people. Usually I tell people that we refer to ourselves as "Anglicans" to differentiate ourselves from the mainline Episcopal Church, and that we wish to do so because of strong differences in certain beliefs. I then explain that it is technically okay for a member of ECUSA to refer to himself as Anglican, as well as for a member of the ACA to refer to himself as an Episcopalian. Again, am I explaining this in a confusing way? Are we Anglicans just so used to understanding all of this that we cannot fathom an outsider not understanding?

That's usually the biggest hurdle. Once that is cleared, I just go on and talk about being an Anglican. If they make some comment because they think I am in ECUSA I say, "Oh, I am not in the mainline Episcopal Church. I'm in a smaller, more traditional Anglican denomination called the APA. We are a completely different Church with our own heirarchy and structures." And if they ask I will explain some of the differences of belief, such as in the areas of ordination, BCP, sexual ethics, and so on. If I am talking with a conservative Presbyterian I say, "APA is to ECUSA as PCA is to PCUSA". Or, "APA is to ECUSA as LCMS is to ELCA." That usually lets people know that I am in a different Church than ECUSA. And then, of course, I tell them that there are numerous small, conservative Anglican denominations... just like there are numerous small conservative Presbyterian denominations. I don't like to have to resort to all of the denominationalism - I do not even like the word - but it does help simplify things a bit.

I think that it is important to differentiate ourselves from ECUSA when necessary. It is also important to remember that we can use the term "Episcopalian" and not be afraid. ECUSA does not own the rights to that word anymore than Ford owns the rights to the term "sedan". Americans know what "Episcopalian" is, so we should reclaim that term if we want to. But we are also free to use the term "Anglican".