Liturgical Reform

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.

Growing Anglican Parishes for Jesus' Glory

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.

Coarse Talk

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.

The Emerging Gimmick

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?

Two things I love....

...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.

Are we Angli-CANS, or are we Angli-CAN'TS?

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!

Anglican/Episcopal

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".

Continuing Celibacy

Anglicanism is one of the only traditions outside of Roman Catholicism and maybe Orthodoxy (don't know enough about it) that, in my opinion, seriously values celibacy. I have never seen a big stink develop in Anglican circles when people find out that Fr. so-and-so is "single". And I have heard of married folk talk about Anglican religious communities with the deepest of reverence and respect. All of the celibate continuing clergy I have known have been very pious and godly men. I suppose we have mostly the Oxford Movement and Ritualism to thank for this.

Celibacy is a good thing. It is just as good an option for a person as the married life. It allows one to devote his or her life entirely to the Lord and to others. It is biblical: Christ was celibate, and the St. Paul was too. In the ancient Church it was very highly regarded. But celibacy can be bad too, of course. Remaining celibate for purely self-centered reasons is certainly not conducive to growing in holiness, just as getting married for selfish reasons is not good. It really annoys me when people cannot see the spiritual value in remaining celibate.

I think that a good appreciation for the celibate life is something that we continuing Anglicans can bring to the proverbial table. I know of several celibate continuing priests and lay people who are very holy and devout. Contrary to what others may think, they seem to lead very fulfilling lives and seem to be very happy, well-adjusted people. I think that we can help other Christians see that celibacy is a good option, and that married clergy can co-exist with celibate clergy, just as married and celibate lay people can co-exist. The various religious communities that we have - though they be small - can be a witness to this. We can help our evangelical brethren see that celibacy is not only for Roman Catholics - it is a real option for everyone.