Move over, "Emerging Church" - it's time for "Deep Church 9"!

Just when I thought I was up on on the latest in church marketing lingo and slogans I found out about a new movement, or wanna-be movement called "Deep Church". What is "deep church"? It is some approach to churchmanship that is on the one hand not quite as traditional as "traditional church", and on the other hand not quite as postmodern as "emerging church". It has all of the accouterments that one expects from such wanna-be movements these days: a website, Facebook page, a Twitter page, beautiful trendy people, and a leader who is I guess on en route to becoming a "celebrity" pastor/writer like Brian Mclaren. I heard about this in (of course) Christianity Today, which ran an article on it.

I have four words to say: Are you kidding me? "Deep Church"? It is pretty sad that in some traditions the sacred liturgy of the Church and the Gospel and the Catholic faith which it expresses is treated as nothing more than a commodity to be re-imaged, repackaged, and twisted and contorted at will to serve the latest perceived cultural needs. It's in part because of this slogan/wanna-be-celebrity mentality that the church is so weak and anemic today. All of these trendy names, and hip "concepts" (e.g. "shalom") really make church much more difficult and confusing than it is. I know that we continuing Anglican parishes have their fair share of problems - there's NO doubt about that. But I am so glad that our parishes are free from this goofy "slogan" mentality. It frees us to do what we have always done which is proclaim the Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition.

Rise of Atheism

I find the rise of atheism in our culture troubling, both as a pastor and as one who tries to live a rational life. The common refrain I read in articles about the rise of atheism is that those who consider themselves atheists do so because they want to live a life based on reason and science. What they are suggesting is that the religious life and faith, are irrational and opposed to science. As one who enjoys the study of philosophy and (obviously) theology, I find that supposition to be absurd. In my study I find the religious life - particularly the Christian life and worldview - to be very rational, and to in no way conflict with reason or science. That some would suggest there is an inherent conflict between faith and reason makes me wonder what exposure these folk had to Christianity (was it the "Joel Osteen" version of religion), and what, if anything, they read. (We live in a new "dark ages" of course, where most people - even college students - no longer read, and where "universities" that do not even have libraries, such as the University of Phoenix, are accredited.)

The great Anglican theologian, Francis H. Hall, in his Dogmatic Theology, put it best when he stated that faith is a form of reason. If it is a form of reason, it cannot be opposed to reason as such. He writes, "Faith is not an independent faculty separate or separable from reason, but is reason itself insofar as reason is exercised on divine things and is assisted by supernatural grace. The act of faith is an act of reason, conforming strictly to the laws of human reason in general." The whole chapter on the relation between faith and reason in Vol.1 of his magnum opus is worth reading and rereading, and although written in 1912 still very much relevant to many of these arguments we face today.

It is essential that the Church not let these people speak for us, and suggest to the world that if one lives a life of faith - i.e. if one is a Christian - he is therefore by definition "opposed" to science and reason. Further, Christians would do well to learn to critically evaluate the arguments and ideas presented by atheists and others, so they can correct them when they say these inaccurate and false things.

1940 Hymnal Parish Study

I do a class on Sundays after mass, and my assistant does one during the week. My class just finished two back-to-back Bible studies. I decided to do something different, and so we are now doing the 1940 Hymnal. I've long realized that this needs to be done, as the format and layout of the hymnal is a bit confusing to the newbie (and even the oldbie). We study the Prayer Book and the Bible over and over... so why not the hymnal?

One of the reasons many of our churches are so moribund methinks is the music. The same old stuff is sung over and over again, and nothing creative or interesting is ever done musically in the service... this despite the fact that the hymnal has lots of variety in it (as does the Prayer Book). So we are studying the history of music in the church (listening to examples), a little bit of music theory, chanting, how to read and sing chants, what all of the notes, numbers, and tables mean, etc. I am supplementing my own material with the six excellent studies on the hymnal produced by Fr. Daniel McGrath which were printed in Mandate a couple of years ago (still available online).

The response to this class has been overwhelming! I never would have predicted that there would be so high a level of interest in this class. Even folk in the parish who are not musical are really excited about it, and want to learn more. The class was overflowing last week. People are really excited about raising the level of music in the parish, which is an essential element for us to grow. So if anyone is looking for a new class topic in your parish that will produce some very visible (or should I say "audible") results, try this.

Irregular Marriages and the Apostolic Constitution

Article 6.2 of the Apostolic Constitution states that those "...who are in irregular marriage situations may not be accepted for Holy Orders in the Ordinariate." While this may sound like it puts the kibosh on certain divorced and remarried Anglican clergy wishing to take part in this, I would not be so quick to make that judgement. While there are indeed divorced and remarried Anglican clergy, most have no doubt had annulments, which declares that a sacramental marriage never existed - hence they were never "married" before. The presumption of course is that those annulments were authentic and accurately done in the first place.

Interestingly, the same situation of divorced and remarried clergy exists in the Roman Church. When I was in seminary I had a classmate (a Roman Catholic seminarian) who was divorced. He said "divorced" - I think he meant that he was granted an annulment. He obviously had to be granted an annulment, because when one is ordained in a Roman Catholic priest he "marries" the Church, so he can't at the same time be married to another woman.