Only WE Have Valid Orders

A while back I was invited by my Presbyterian father to join him on one of his "credentials committee" meetings for his presbytery (their equivalent to a diocese). At this meeting they were interviewing a guy was transferring in from another presbytery (diocese). It was more of a formality than anything, as this guy was already ordained in their denomination. But nonetheless they used the occasion to get into several intense and fascinating theological discussions. I was just listening and kept my mouth shut since I was a "guest".

The thing that I found so interesting was that they started talking about a hypothetical situation: that if a Roman Catholic priest wanted to join their church and be a minister how he would have to be absolutely ordained, because they do not recognize Roman Catholic ministers as being truly ordained (because they preach a false gospel in this church's mind)! I don't know why I was thinking about this again recently, but it's very interesting. It goes to show that most churches do not recognize ministers from another church. If those guys were to become RC or Anglican they'd have to be reordained, and maybe even if they were to become something else (like Lutheran). If I was to join them, or the Lutherans I would probably have to be re-ordained. It's just the way it is. I think that it is far more common for churches to not recognize ministers from another communion/denomination rather than the other way around.

Sometimes we Anglicans get all bent out of shape because Rome doesn't officially recognize our orders. But we forget that other people don't recognize ours either, and that we don't recognize other groups' orders, and that they don't recognize ours or Rome's! It's just the way it is.

Dangers and Difficulties

I am very fortunate to have a vocation that I love - being a priest. Most people hate what they do, or at least that is what an old Sulpician spiritual director once told me. If you do what you love, then fall on your knees and thank the living God, because there are millions of other out there who would love to be in your shoes!

But doing what you love does not come without dangers and difficulties. For example, one of the major dangers that comes with doing what you love is that you do not always take the right amount of leisure time. For me, it is very tempting to go home and continue working on church things, and read theology all night long. But doing that leads to burnout. No matter what you do, if you do it all the time, you will suffer from burnout. A priest needs other hobbies and activities - and a wife - to help prevent burnout.

One of the major difficulties that I face on a weekly basis as a continuing Anglican priest is the appalling lack of educational resources to do my job - specifically educational resources for young children. At my parish we have used some material from the Anglican Church of Canada, which was pretty nice. Other priests have suggested various items from TEC, or from other denominations. The trouble with a lot of that stuff, though, is that it doesn't exactly fit our situation. It is designed for use with another liturgy (not the 1928 BCP and the Missal), and sometimes has pictures of priestesses, and girl altarboys. The Kalendar is different, the language of the prayers are different, and - even worse - when you buy them you are supporting a heterodox organization (e.g. TEC). Besides children's stuff, there are allso a great many other resources that we are lacking. The problem is that the various continuing churches spent so long simply trying to survive (survive outside pressure and severe in-fighting) that there simply wasn't a lot of time to devote to developing educational materials and other much-needed resources.

So what I do in the meantime is make my own signs and art for educational purposes. Currently I am making a series of posters on the church year (the real church year - e.g. with the Pre-Lenten season, the Trinity season, etc.). They are based on My Book of the Church's Year by Enid Chadwick, who decorated the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in England. I also have some other projects in mind that will be for use with children in a traditional Anglican and anglo-catholic setting. I hope to make some of this stuff available for purchase down the road.

There is so much need... new books need to be written on various topics in theology, spirituality, and the Christian life. I know that many priests out there have written books for use in their parishes. Maybe one day they will publish them or make them available for wider use. Until we all start sharing resources by making what we have developed available to a wider audience, then each one of us will be constantly reinventing the wheel and using up valuable time. The good news about this is that it is a "good problem". It means that we are growing, which is a good problem to have!

Emerging Church Redux

A while back I wrote something about the so-called "emerging church" movement. In retrospect, I see that it was kind of a mean-spirited article, so for that I apologize. Well recently, the rector of St. Mark's gave me a copy of the latest issue of Christianity Today, which contains an article about this movement by one of its leaders and theologians. Also, my parents went to one of their church's denominational meetings a few weeks back, where a teaching elder spoke about this movement. We spoke at length about his presentation over the phone one evening. So now I find myself compelled to blog about it once again, but hopefully in a nicer and more charitable way.

I want to focus on one important aspect of this movement, namely its rejection of systematic theologies. The movement loves ideas and theologies, but it doesn't believe in an airtight system or statement of faith, or a system that possibly "gets it all right". It doesn't have a systematic theology or theologian that characterizes it (e.g. Calvin, Aquinas, etc.). God revealed a story, not a theology. He reveals Himself through events, not propositions. According to McKnight, "...all theology [is] a conversation about the Truth who is God in Christ through the Spirit, and about God's story of redemption at work in the church." In other words, it is an ongoing dialogue, not a "set in stone for all time" system. It says, "This is what I believe, but I could be wrong: What do you think? Let's talk." (quotes from CT article) What people believe is not as important as how they live.

While I would certainly agree that systematic theologies, and theology in general, as a meta-language, is limited, and does not provide an Olympian view of God or the universe, and while I also would agree that God reveals Himself primarily through events rather than propositions (Moltmann), I would disagree that grand systems and systematic theologies are entirely irrelevent today, which is what some in these groups seem to suggest. It really depends a lot on the person. One of the great errors of our day is to assume that everyone approaches various phenomena in the same way that we do. Quite simply, there are still many people out there that still find grand, unifying narratives to be extremely helpful in sorting out the stories of the bible and the tradition of the Church. Yes, even today in this postmodern world!

And besides that, I would say that it is impossible to avoid forming at least a basic systematic theology. It is human nature to look for unifying themes in things, and to systematize disparate phenomena. We see this in something as simple as looking for pictures in clouds and stars. It is human nature to search for order, or to create order, out of disorder. Besides that, grand systems and basic, set assumptions are still used in this postmodern world in a multitude of other fields, so why would they be less important or irrelevent to people in their quest of knowing God? McKnight says that "truth" is important to emerging Christians and churches, and that they believe Jesus is the truth, and that the Bible is truth, the question is what does that mean? Why is Jesus the truth? What does it mean when it says no one comes to the Father except through Him? Asking all of these questions invariably leads to a theology that works together as a system. Not a perfect system, but a rational system nonetheless.

The problem lies more, I think, with how these systematic theologies have been appropriated in recent years, with certain people making them out to be systems that give an Olympian view of the universe. No theology is that way, though. And while some people do not find long systematic theologies and rational, unifying systems to be spiritually helpful, jettisoning them altogether, or downplaying dogma, is not the answer. In fact, I believe that in the long run, elevating "dialogue" over dogma will be extremely damaging to people spiritually. The two must always be held in a creative tension, which is not easy. Yes, Christianity is journey, and living in truth is a journey, but there is also "truth". The ancient Church, as decentralized and multicultural as that was, saw dogmatic truthes as being very important (e.g. the Christological controversies and the Creeds). What we believe is as important as what we do, and the two overlap and influence each other.

So many movements in the Church are reactionary. They suffer from breaking radically with the past, and denouncing it completely rather than growing from it. We see this in the catholic world with regard to the "hated" Middle Ages. The Middle Ages and everything Medieval seems to have been the whipping boy of the 20th century (and they're not putting down their whips yet!). This movement has a whipping boy too, and it is modernity. But I would be careful about rejecting all that modernity had to offer, especially unifying systems.

The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective

Recently I read The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective: Doctrine and Rite from Cranmer to Seabury, by Edward Echlin, SJ. It was written in 1968, back, I guess, when there was still hope for some sort of a reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. The book is a study of the development of the Anglican Eucharistic rite – specifically the canon of the mass – from the 1549 BCP to the American BCP of 1789. Fr. Echlin concludes that with the 1789 American BCP, all doctrinal requirements of the Roman Church with regard to the mass were fulfilled, and that the Anglican rite – in its American incarnation, anyway – has the right form, and so is a valid mass. He believes that the Eucharistic theology of each tradition has been steadily converging over the centuries, and at the end of the book he makes the radical suggestion that Roman priests should make use of the Anglican rite, and that Anglicans use the Roman rite as a way to show the unity in Eucharistic doctrine that the churches share. He also advocates concelebration of the Holy Eucharist as a further show of unity. Needless to say, the optimism of the late 1960’s gushes out of this book.

I’m sorry to say that I don’t think he really succeeds (much as I want him to) in doing what he set out to do, primarily because he doesn’t explain what the Roman Catholic position is, or what constitutes a valid Eucharist in that tradition. Presumably a valid Roman Eucharist has something to do with sacrifice and Real Presence, as he examines in great detail what a number of Anglican divines thought about those particular topics. But he doesn’t address the issue of Transubstantiation, which is kind of the “main thing”. The only time he addresses that doctrine is with regard to Real Presence, and all but one of the Anglican divines he looks at outright reject Transubstantiation. He also says in the introduction that, in his mind, Roman Catholic Eucharistic thought has been slowly moving closer to the Anglican, just as the Anglican has been moving closer to that of the Romans, but again, he doesn’t really explain how this is the case.

The main value of the book is that it briefly and succinctly examines the theology of Eucharistic sacrifice and Real Presence of a number of important Anglican divines (e.g. Cranmer, Laud, Cosin, Wren, Johnson, Deacon, White, Seabury, Brett, Smith, Forbes, etc.). While they all nitpick and disagree about things like the role of Holy Spirit, whether or not an invocation and oblation is necessary, the nature of the sacrifice, and so on, the one thing that they all seem to agree on is their complete repudiation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Only John Cosin has a somewhat open mind towards it, when he states that while it is certainly possible through God’s omnipotence, “…none would believe that He would do it as long as it appears to our senses that the substance of the bread still remains whole and entire.” I would agree with Cosin. I personally have no objections to Transubstantiation rightly understood, but I do not subscribe to it. It is best to let mysteries be mysteries.

One of the things that reading this book made me think about that is rather timely is how Samuel Seabury and the American Church used the Scottish non-Juror’s Eucharistic canon of 1764. This was part of a deal that Seabury struck with the Scots for consecrating him when the English bishops would not. In some recent issues of Mandate, Peter Toon suggests that the 1662 BCP Eucharistic rite should be used as the new standard of Anglican liturgies from here on out. His reasons are that it is the most widely used version, and because it is more biblical, with the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper being on the Words of Institution. I think that it would be a betrayal of the Non-Juror bishops to do such a thing here in the United States. If we truly are continuing Anglicans, then we are continuing the work and ministry of the Episcopal Church, and part that includes honoring such commitments that were made by our forefathers. Seabury, interestingly enough, said of the 1662 canon: “To confess the truth, I hardly consider the form to be used as strictly amounting to a consecration.” I don’t know if I would say that myself, but I do believe that we have a strong obligation to continue using the traditional American canon.

St. Andrew's Academy, Lake Almanor, CA

Classical education has been a big trend in Christian schooling in recent years. Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and others have founded classical schools and classical home school alliances to provide children with a quality education based on time-proven classical and medieval models. Traditional Anglicans are also involved in this movement. Recently I had the great pleasure of interviewing the Rev. Brian Foos, founder and headmaster of St. Andrew’s Academy, a K-12 classical school located in Lake Almanor, CA. He told me all about the amazing things that St. Andrew’s is doing in California and beyond.


St. Andrew’s Academy is in its seventh year as a full time day school. Founded by Fr. Foos, and his wife, it was originally a supplemental program for home schooling parents. Education had been Fr. Foos’ passion and vocation since graduating from college with a degree in English literature and composition, though at the time he was neither ordained nor Anglican. It was while teaching at a small, private school that he learned about and became interested in the classical approach to education. Immediately he began applying those principles in his classroom. Parental concern over whether or not children should read Homer’s Odyssey (because of the violence it contained) lead to Brian writing and presenting a paper defending the arts and the study of the classics for Christians. A colleague who attended the presentation later told Brian that he agreed with everything he said. The two became fast friends, and it was this man who introduced Brian to Anglicanism. So for Fr. Brian, the journey into classical education and Anglicanism were parallel journeys. Later, Brian attended Cranmer House Theological Seminary, and was ordered deacon and priest. Now, in addition to his responsibilities as headmaster, Fr. Foos pastors two APA parishes: Christ the Redeemer Church (Greenville, CA) and St. Thomas Becket Church (Lake Almanor, CA).

Fr. Foos explains that St. Andrew’s Academy is much more than a “movement” school. While “movements” come and go, St. Andrew’s Academy is simply doing what the Church has always done. St. Andrew’s promotes and passes on, not an ideology, but a way of life. Daily life at the school revolves around prayer, study, and work – which is also the school’s motto. Central to the mission of the school is the idea that study must be done in the context of prayer and worship. When separated from worship, study and learning leads to arrogance and pride, but when combined with godly worship, it leads to humility and service to God and man. Nowhere is this approach more evident than in the daily offices of choral matins and evensong services that the school holds. Each student, as well as faculty and staff, participates in these services. They chant the psalms and canticles in Anglican chant and plainsong from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, thus preserving a great musical tradition. Part of the school from the beginning, the choir is now becoming well known in the Lake Almanor region. They are regularly asked to sing at local churches and venues, and recently sang a series of concerts with the Susanville Symphony Orchestra with over 200 people in attendance at each performance. Last year they sang all of the liturgical music for the APA provincial synod in Indiana, including some very difficult polyphonic pieces.


The curriculum of school is typical of classical schools, with children reading the great classics of western literature, and studying logic, Greek, and Latin. Some faculty members help in writing curriculum, and recently one of their first graduates has come back to teach at the school. St. Andrew’s has a travel program as well, and has taken trips to the British Isles and the East Coast. Plans are in the works for a trip to Italy. Fr. Foos believes that because education is incarnational, real world experiences and travel are an important part of the learning, and forming the whole person. The students come from all sorts of Christian backgrounds: Baptist, non-denominational, Nazarene, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and more. But the ethos and character of the school is thoroughly Anglican.

The biggest need of the school right now is money… money for scholarships, operating expenses, and expansion expenses. The school would like to buy 50 acres of land on which to set up permanent shop (they currently meet in an office park). Indeed, Father Foos hopes that one day St. Andrew’s Academy will be able to become a private boarding school, and for that to happen they need land. God has a definite plan for St. Andrew’s. Each year for the past couple years they have begun the year with a deficit, but the Lord has always provided the funding when they needed it. Prominent individuals, such as Dr. John David Seel, Dr. James Taylor, and General Josiah Bunting, serve on the school’s national advisory board. It is things like that which help confirm that the Lord’s blessing is upon this work.



Right now, I want everyone out there to look at the St. Andrew’s Academy website. Look at the site, and e-mail Fr. Foos if you want to find out more information about this great school and the work they are doing. Order the fantastic CD “A Hearty Rejoicing: Choral Evensong at St. Andrew’s Academy” directly from the school ($15.00) so you can hear for yourself some of they are doing. But more important, won’t you consider helping them meet their financial goals? Won’t you consider sending an offering to the school to help them preserve and hand on our classical Anglican heritage? Thanks be to God, they have gotten very far, and made some significant ground, but they need help to keep going, to expand, and to take it to the next level. Won’t you help? I know that Fr. Foos and his associates would be more than happy to talk to anyone who is interested in finding out more about this great work.

In recent years, it seems like the world has ruined the Church and its institutions and traditions in many ways. Well, Fr. Foos hopes that St. Andrew’s will help ruin the children for the world. Won’t you help them in this great endeavor?

Episcopal Missionary Church joins FACA

The Episcopal Missionary Church has recently voted to join the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (FACA). According to the articles, the federation has five tasks:

(1) Furthering mutual understanding of its member Provinces, Jurisdictions and Ministries with a view to eventual union when and if deemed practical;

(2) Propagating the truths of the gospel as articulated and practiced in the historic Anglican way;

(3) Taking appropriate public and private steps in common causes in order to speak with one voice and act in concert for the welfare and witness of member Provinces, Jurisdictions and parishes;

(4) Pursuing a communal and charitable relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion; and

(5) Planting mission parishes in the Americas

I think I speak for all the other members (if I may) in saying that we are thrilled to be working with our brothers and sisters in Christ in the EMC through the federation for the greater glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this spiritually destitute world. May the Lord continue to bring about goodwill, unity, and charity among all orthodox Anglicans both here and abroad.