Consummatum Est

1943 Lectionary

I just finished reading "The American Lectionary" by Bayard H. Jones (1944). This book is a rationale for the 1943 American Book of Common Prayer lectionary. Jones, who was a professor at the St. Luke School of Theology, University of the South, was part of the committee responsible for developing the new lectionary. I'd been wanting to read it for a while since I have spent and continue to spend a good portion of my life using the 1943 lectionary! As far as reading the Bible, there is no better tool for the systematic studying and praying of the Scriptures than the Anglican model of Daily Offices and Holy Communion, and it is organized in a brilliant and systematic way in the 1943 Episcopal lectionary.

The most important aspect of the new lectionary is that it is thematic and entirely on the Church Year. The original 1928 lectionary (weekday lectionary) aimed to simply get readers through as much of the Bible as possible in a year, and was based on the Church Year only in certain seasons (such as Advent). Put another way, the old lectionary tended to follow the civil year whereas the newer one the ecclesiastical year. The old schema had a number of limitations and problems. Many of the lections were too long; Psalms that had an obvious connection with the morning often ended up being read in the evening; the civil scheme was constantly interrupted by movable Holy Days; many passages of Scripture were needlessly repeated at the expense of others; and more. The newer lectionary sought to remedy all of that, and to provide more flexibility and variation. I came away from reading the book with a new appreciation for the thought and time that went into developing our lectionary, which is vastly superior to just about everything else out there - particularly the old Roman breviary. And it can certainly hold its own with the lectionaries of today in terms of comprehensiveness.

But the most interesting part about the book was on page 151, where the author states that one of the purposes of the additional readings for Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays is that they be used as alternatives for the liturgical lectionary's Epistles and Gospels to provide a variation, particularly for weekday celebrations of the Holy Eucharist! In other words, it was a "proto-three-year lectionary." This is what churches and parishes that use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and lectionary should do today. In the APA we are allowed to use the RCL. I don't know how many of our parishes do it (I imagine it is very few). But using the additional readings from Morning and Evening Prayer is I think a much better way to go if one senses he must use a three-year lectionary. The reason is because all of the readings relate to the same theme and to the collect for the day. This also solves a built in problem with continuing churches - namely that since most of our parishes celebrate only Holy Communion on Sundays the people do not get to hear many important passages of Scripture because they are not part of the liturgical lectionary. They are in the lectionary, no doubt, only they are in Sunday Morning or Evening Prayer, which many clergy seem to want to stamp out of parish life. (especially on Sundays) If these additional Epistles and Gospels were allowed to be used as alternates to the liturgical lectionary, then more of the Scriptures would be covered, but the unity and integrity of the 1928 Prayer Book and lectionary, and all that goes with it, would be preserved intact.

30th Anniversary of St. Francis

This coming Sunday is the 30th Anniversary of the parish I serve, St. Francis in Blacksburg, VA. Pictured to the left is a photo from our first service held at a parishioner's home (who still attends and is very active). In the photo is (very young looking) Fr. Harry Scott and Bp. William Rutherfoord. The folk at St. Francis came out of Christ Episcopal Church which is right down the street from us. Interestingly, Fr. Scott's old parish in nearby Christiansburg, VA (St. Peter's ACC) is right down the street from the Episcopal parish that they came out of as well. In many ways St. Francis reflects so much what went right and also so much of what went wrong in the "continuing Anglican" church.

Over the years our parish has had its ups and downs. The founders of our parish were very wise in immediately securing a decent building in a good location. But from the start they had trouble attracting a full time priest. In those days I guess there were not many to choose from. We had supply clergy for a couple of years until we got the Revd Stephen Head - a Nashotah grad and former Episcopal priest. He did not last very long - I believe he was here just two years or so. The parish was served for many years by the Revd Dr. James I. "Bud" Robertson, the famous Civil War historian. He was ordained a deacon in the ACC here at St. Francis and served as "deacon-in-charge" at different periods in time, and, when we had full time clergy, as an assisting deacon. Other clergy over the years when we were an ACC parish included such faithful and dedicated men as: Fr. Stephen Wallstadt (later of St. Mary's ACC fame), Canon Wallce Shields, Fr. Bill Crites, and Fr. Dennis Sossi. These men all served in different capacities. Besides these men the parish was assisted by dedicated priests, deacons, postulants, and lay readers at various times in its history, including a friend of mine when I was in seminary, Will Cohen. The longest serving of these men and rectors/priests-in-charge was Canon Wallace Shields who served as rector for about 10 years. Eventually the constant turnover of clergy - both before and after Canon Shields - made the parish hemorrhage people and money. At one point the parish voted to transfer into the APA and become a mission parish of All Saints' Anglican Church in Charlottesville, VA. For a few years the parish was faithfully served by two priests of the APA, the Rev'd Dr. Lawrence Adams and the Rev'd Dr. Clarence "Chip" Sills. Now, since August 2008, they have me. I hope to be here for a long, long, long time.

Today, 30 years into its history, we have just over 30 members. Only half attend regularly, the others not attending because they live out of town. Our ASA, though is about 26, and rising. This reflects our dedicated college students as well as folk who attend regularly but who hold membership elsewhere. We have new members (we received six a few weeks ago), and everything is on the up and up. Do I wish we were bigger? Yes. Do I wish we could grow faster? Yes. But what I will and what God wills are two different things. Our official membership levels - and we were never a large, wealthy parish - reflects, I think, the fact that we did not have full time leadership for so long. A parish without full time clerical leadership will go south, because little will get done, and visitors and families will not want to commit to a place where no one knows who will be there the next week. Most successful continuing parishes, and parishes of other traditions, seem to have full time leadership in place for a long time. It establishes continuity.

I remain hopeful about our future, and am excited to be working on building this church at this time in my life. And this 30 year anniversary we remember and are thankful for all of the dedicated clergy who served the parish, and for the extremely dedicated and loyal membership who ARE the parish, and who kept it afloat all these years.

"The Lost Art of Catechesis"

Every time I read an article from Christianity Today that has to do with Anglicanism it makes me cringe. These are always sent to me by other, well-meaning folk, and even though I know I will probably not care for it I try to make to sure and read them. One of the latest two that I received is called the "Lost Art of Catechesis", co-written by Dr. Gary Parrett, a professor at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, and the renowned English theologian J.I. Packer. The general thrust of the article is fine - we need more catechesis... pastors teaching their flocks. That is all fine and true. But the thing that puzzled me about the article is that while singing the praises of Luther's Larger Catechism and the Westminster Catechism it makes no reference to the Book of Common Prayer catechism! It is a strange omission, especially since one of the authors is an Anglican priest.

The 1928 Prayer Book catechism and Offices of Instruction, which expands the catechism and puts it into a liturgical format, are wonderful concise resources for discipleship and spiritual growth. I use them in preparing young people and adults for confirmation. The Prayer Book envisions these offices being lead by a minister, which is exactly what the authors of this article say ministers need to be doing. The only reason I can think of that he would exclude the Prayer Book catechism is because it avoids the glaring theological errors contained in other Reformation catechisms, which errors Packer has been committed to for many years now. That is probably why he rarely writes on the Prayer Book, or discusses its offices in his works. He does from time to time comment on the Articles of Religion, and gives them a curious Calvinistic spin, but the Articles are not (and never were) part of the Prayer Book, and so do not fall under the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi rule. The Book of Common Prayer, of which the catechism is a part, commits the English Church to a truly reformed Catholicism, and in my estimation that is just too much for Dr. Packer and company.

Science and Religion

I have been enjoying reading the book Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion by John Polkinghorne. Before being ordained an Anglican priest, he was for many years a professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge. The general thrust of his work is that science (specifically physics) and religion are looking for the same truth, and often go about it in similar and complementary ways. In this book he clarifies what science and religion can and cannot tell us, what the scientific method involves, what types of questions science asks (what we can do) vs. what type of questions religion asks (what we should do), and more. It is a very accessible and well-written book - quite readable, but it definitely raises some interesting questions, and brings together several fields such as theology, physics, biology, and philosophy. I want to read all of his books now.

Having hardly any background in science in general, and none in theoretical physics and things like that, I find all of this stuff fascinating. A background in philosophy can help a theologian in a conversation with a scientist (or philosopher of science), but knowing something about quarks, chaos theory, big bang theory, and the like is helpful. At the end of the book he talks about why he believes certain scientific theories - such as biological evolution, and the big bang... because they make sense of data and many aspects of human experience. But he also says the same thing about religion and belief in God. To Polkinghorne, the religious man who has no need for science is as bad as the scientific man who has no need for religion. They are complimentary fields, and they both seek the same thing: truth.

Palm Sunday and the Power of Music

We had a great Palm Sunday service at St. Francis today. One of the things that made it special was the music and special reading of the passion from St. Matthew. On the special Sundays and services interspersed throughout the year, there are additional readings and devotions appropriate to the season. Today it was the blessing of palms, and the Palm Sunday procession. In small parishes these additional prayers and devotions are often simply recited because it easy - the path of least resistance. But while the sentiment and language of the prayers is very powerful and beautiful in its own way, the simple fact that they are recited - along with much of the regular service - takes away from their significance and impact. Instead of glorying in the liturgy that day the people end up complaining about the long service. In other words, the profound words of the special rite for that day end up getting lost in the rest of the service. I have found, however, that if a little bit of time is taken in advance to learn some chants and work with the choir, and to choreograph a decent liturgy and procession (if one is called for), these additional devotions have the intense spiritual effect they were meant to have, and that even the lowest of low churchmen will shake your hand after the service and comment on its sublimity.

So what we did at St. Francis was chant instead of simply and boringly "recite" the Hosanna Filio David along with the Psalm verse and other related prayers and devotions. It took a few choir practices, but our choir of four amateurs nailed it to great effect! But we didn't leave it at that. We wanted to incorporate as much chant in the service as possible. And since Anglican chant is very hard for such a small untrained choir as ours, we focused on Gregorian chant... that is what we would do to ornament the liturgy for this special day! What to chant came next. Besides the "Hosanna Filio David" (which our untrained, tiny choir learned to read and sing in traditional Gregorian chant notation in one night), we took some of the 1940 Hymnal selections for Passiontide and sung the Gregorian chant tunes of them (e.g. #63, first tune). For the Palm Sunday procession we sang #64 - 1st Tune. Granted, it would have been easier to sing the second tune (Winchester New, I think it was...), but then again we always sing that tune. Why not work a little harder with the choir and congregation and have them learn a new tune that is more solemn and stirring for this special day? So that is what we did. And it sounded great, and made the service more special and solemn. The 1940 Hymnal has so many great but unused resources for the average parish church. We did a classical "pretzel" procession in the church, and our organist at exactly the right moment transposed from #64 into "All Glory Laud and Honor". Then we did some more Gregorian chant in the service, and we read the Holy Gospel in parts. It was all very powerful, different (for this parish), and beautiful.

All of this was (obviously) a lot of extra work, but it was well worth it. People remarked afterwards at how beautiful the service was. One person in the congregation was fending off tears while reading the peoples' part in the Gospel reading from St. Matthew. Why do I mention this? Because I think in our parishes there is often the temptation to accept too much the status quo, and to be content with how things are "always"done. But what we end up with in our services dullness and even deadness. There is the tendency to think that parishioners are too dumb to try a new tune, or the organist is too lazy to commit to an extra rehearsal for a special service, so we stick with the easiest way out, and the way we have always done things, and then wonder why people leave after a year or so. On the contrary, there is much flexibility and 2000+ year tradition to draw upon in ornamenting these important services. We clergy need to get creative and think of ways to use the 2,000 year old tradition of the Church in their parishes to better effect.

The Offices of Instruction

Our parish has been blessed to receive a number of new members over the past two years. Most come needing to be confirmed. This year we tried something new during Lent for these folk. We took two Sundays in Lent and in lieu of the sermon at Mass went through the "Offices of Instruction" (the 1st Office one Sunday, the 2nd another Sunday) complete with the hymns. The whole parish joined in the responses, and then me and my associate laid hands on each candidate and said the "Prayer for those about to be confirmed" from the Prayer Book for them. (We have them come forward and sit en masse in the front pew of the church.)

I understand other parishes do this sometimes (including our cathedral in Oviedo). This is good in so many ways. Not only does it get people using the whole Prayer Book - which is more than just the Communion service - it teaches the basics of Christian doctrine in areas such as ecclesiology, sacraments, morality, etc. It also helps the confirmands and those being received into the parish/church recognize that this is a serious commitment they are undertaking. The old-timers at the parish love it, as they like to be reminded of what they believe. And for everyone it helps break up the "monotony" of the usual Lenten services (which are usually very Spartan in most continuing Anglican parishes), and gives them a break from hearing a preacher drone on all the time.

Anglican Church Planting and Revitalization

I read with great interest about Abp. Bob Duncan's call to plant 1000 Anglican churches in five years. Detailed information - such as it is - on his/ACNA's plan is on this Anglican1000 site. In the resources section is a list of books, links to various church planting sites and sponsoring organizations, and more. Church revitalization, planting, and missions in a classical Anglican model is one of my big interests and passions, and someday I would like to plant a church from scratch.

One of the authors whose books the Anglican1000 site recommend is Ed Stetzer. His name jumped out at me because I read one of his books recently about church revitalization. In preparing to come to St. Francis I devoured a number of those types of books written from all sorts of perspectives, ranging from liberal Episcopalian to conservative Evangelical. Did I find them helpful? Well, marginally so. Most of these types of books (especially Stetzer's "Comeback Churches") assume that the minister has free reign with the structure of the service and can make radical changes with it at will so as to spur growth. Unfortunately this type of ecclesiastical free-styling typically does not jive with hierarchical churches that are governed by canons. In the APA, and in most other 1928 BCP jurisdictions, the canons dictate what music is allowed and what liturgical books are authorized - which books contain rubrics which govern the celebration of the liturgy. And while those rubrics are vague in certain areas, and thus allow for a certain amount of leeway, that freedom goes only so far. This is a good thing, as it keeps our worship Catholic, and free from heretical innovations that may mislead the faithful. On the other hand, it can be somewhat constricting and make planting new churches and revitalizing old ones a lot harder.

There still remains much work to be done on planting churches in the Anglican tradition. This site is a start, as are the various initiatives by some of the 1928 BCP jurisdictions (e.g. the DEUS of the APA has as part of its strategic plan church planting), but these are only starts. They are all, in my opinion, and based on what I have seen and studied about them, still somewhat lacking. The weakness of the ACNA plan is that it is more Methodist than Anglican (like ACNA itself). While they desire to plant Anglican churches, the churches are not very Anglican at all either liturgically or theologically, and they suggest using models (e.g. Presbyterian or Baptist) that are fundamentally at odds with the Anglican way and tradition. An Anglican church is not a church that simply has an icon on its homepage and where the minister wears a collar sometimes. The weakness of the APA plan from what I have seen of it thus far is that it is focused almost entirely on parish organization and structure, and is lacking in an overall outreach plan and strategy (e.g. there is no APA parish in town X... let's try to start one there.). Further, there seems to be no discussion as to how to reach out to and evangelize the unchurched with an antiquarian liturgy and tradition, or even a set liturgy to begin with. That is what we need to be discussing, and so far has not been given any meaningful discussion that I have seen.

There is no question in my mind that using an old liturgy and an obscure liturgical language (e.g. Ecclesiastical Latin, Old Church Slavonic, or Elizabethan English) is a good thing, and that it is no barrier whatsoever to church growth, missions, and evangelism. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to study the history of missions especially of the Roman Catholic Church. But we do have to have a passionate interest in church planting and missions (as some of these ACNA folk do), and then also think about how we do that and remain Anglican (as we continuers do). That is the real challenge.

Lessons from the Fourth Crusade

I have always been fascinated by the Crusades, and the Fourth Crusade in particular. That was the one where Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders under the leadership of the Venetians. The city was held by the Crusaders for about 60 years, before being captured back by the Byzantines. The long term result of being sacked and occupied for so long was that the city and empire never again regained its power, and so it fell for good to the Turks in 1453.

There are lessons in this for parishes, and other organizations too, I guess. The main one is that it is possible for a church to be so weakened by years and years of stagnation, inept leadership, and plain bad luck that it is impossible to turn the situation around. A church can be so damaged by ongoing trouble that no matter who comes in or what happens recovery is a mere pipe dream. This is a very real possibility with my parish of St. Francis, one that I face every day. I truly hope that we will be able to turn things around here, and we are making some progress thanks be to God, but the progress has to come more quickly that the rot, or we could be in trouble.

This should serve as a warning to parishes that are just drifting along stagnating, and suffering with the status quo. Deal with the rot before it is too late!

Episcopal Non-Leadership

The Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a message to the General Synod of the CofE today where he addressed, among other things, keeping the Anglican Communion together, women bishops in the CofE, life issues, and homosexuals and the Church. From what I read of it it seemed like a lot of typical Anglican fudge. Someone on the inside who had access to the speech beforehand apparently described it as "brilliant". Personally I do not see what is brilliant about trying to reconcile two completely different views of Christianity, morality, anthropology, and more. I would say that it is "ballsy" for one to try to do this, but more compromise and "Rodney King theology" ("Why can't we all just get along?") hardly strikes me as brilliance.

As an outsider Rowan Williams strikes me as being a complete flop as an archbishop. He seems to be equally reviled by conservatives and liberals in the Church. Bishop Spong, of all people, publicly criticized Rowan Williams for putting unity before truth! I think the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church is a much better bishop and leader than Williams, even though I radically disagree with her. Why? Because she is very clear about where she stands on these important issues, and has the courage to stand up for what she believes to be true.

A bishop - especially a presiding bishop - besides being well-educated and having lots of ministry experience, must also have clear convictions on the nature and purpose of the Gospel and the Catholic Church. Nothing hurts a church more than when theological murkiness and ambiguity run amok.

Morning Prayer

It is the hardest thing in the world to get people to come out for Sunday Morning Prayer. The Sunday schedule at St. Francis is exactly the way it was when I got here: Morning Prayer (no sermon) at 9:15, Mass at 10:00. I think it is a great set-up because people can easily come to both and have a short break between. I have always loved Morning Prayer in part because the very first Anglican parish I ever attended had it as their 11:00 service (except once a month when it was Holy Communion). And when the parish got a very good organist and choir of men and boys it became an even better service. It was nothing to have a Vaughan Williams setting of Te Deum or one of the other morning canticles sung at a typical service. Hearing the Anglican chants sung with interesting new settings, and sung well by the type of choir that was supposed to sing them was great. So I have always loved Morning (and Evening) Prayer, especially when it is executed with beauty and dignity. And I am glad that we have it each Sunday at St. Francis.

Many Anglo-Catholics oppose Mass and the Offices and make it their effort to stamp the offices out of the Sunday schedule so people come to mass instead. But while Holy Communion is undoubtedly the more important service of the two, it is wrong to oppose them to each other. Almost every knows that Cranmer's original intention was for Offices, Litany, and (at least) the Ante-Communion to make up the Sunday service. Most the classic Anglo-Catholic parishes I have known always offer Matins on Sundays, even if it is early and simply "said".

While MP and Mass are two separate services, the Offices help prepare one for Holy Communion, and are an excellent prelude to Mass. How? For one, the Scripture readings help bring out the meaning of the Epistle and Gospel from the Mass even better (almost like that old Protestant adage... that Scripture is interpreted through Scripture). I always study the Scriptures appointed for the Sunday Offices when preparing a sermon because they bring greater insight into the Gospel reading for that Sunday!

Here I should mention that some think that the additional Scripture readings are the only redeeming value of the Offices, and so there is created a "mongrel" service consisting of the 1928 Prayer Book with additional readings thrown in. But that is contrary to spirit of the liturgies, and makes a liturgy that is too long. Plus it ignores the fact that the singing the great canticles of the Church and the Psalms, and reciting the prayers of the office - especially the beautiful General Thanksgiving - are also critical parts of the service.

But the problem clergy face is this idea that God can only have one hour or so on Sunday... or that one can only attend one service on Sunday. This despite the fact that statistics show that the average "Facebook" user spends one hour a day on FB! Attendance at our Sunday Morning Prayer is anywhere from 3-8, even though it is a short (20 minutes tops) service, and even though a good number of parishioners live very close by. I am hoping that by having the organist play the service, and by preaching and teaching on it that we can increase attendance, and the reason I want the attendance to go up for MP is because it is spiritually beneficial, and as the service grows and we can do more with it - with a choir, etc. - that will help the church grow and prosper since the Offices are a "signature" Anglican service.

St. Ignatius Reality Check

Many continuing Church leaders are fond of quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch's famous saying, "Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters," as a way to keep parishioners in line, and remind them of who is in charge (i.e. the bishop and/or rector). Some jurisdictions do this more than others... thankfully the APA is not one of them. It seems to be cited in most cases as a justification for micromanagement. That is fine as long as the bishop and/or presbyter know what he is doing and is a good and godly leader. But in the hands of an inept buffoon it can be a recipe for disaster. In the long run it can really hurt a parish and diocese, because it can create in peoples' minds this idea that they literally should do NOTHING without checking with the parish priest or bishop... even simple things like moving furniture, decorating, cleaning, etc. While some clergy may relish having such "power", others (like myself) find it bothersome to have to come up with plans for fellowship activities, renovations, long range planning, etc. All of that distracts a priest from the work of being a priest - ministry, preaching, exhorting, counseling, and celebrating the Sacraments.

The Murky State of Anglican Ecclesiology

I was recently informed that the Anglican Church in North America has a new website, so I checked it out and it looks really good! No surprise there. While perusing the site I came across the page that has the dioceses on it, and I must say that as an outsider I find it very confusing. It lists each separate member diocese/jurisdiction as a separate diocese along with links to that diocese/jurisdiction's website... which, if you follow, tells you how to become a member of the AMiA, CANA, REC, etc. But wait a minute... I thought they were part of ACNA? And some are part of the Anglican communion, which are in communion with the Episcopal Church, which they left, and/or with the Church of England, that they are out of communion with, but now want to be in communion with them and be recognized as a new province of the Anglican communion... huh?

Their ecclesiology is almost as confusing as continuing Anglican ecclesiology. Remember FACA? This federation includes the REC and the AMiA, which are ACNA members, and also the ACA, which as part of the Traditional Anglican Communion is seeking corporate unity with Rome... huh? And while I can't speak for the other jurisdictions of FACA, my own jurisdiction is or was in communion with the Church of Nigeria (in communion with those who accept WO), the AMiA (does accept WO), and FiFNa, which was not even a church and didn't even have a bishop! I do not understand how a Church effects communion with a para-church organization.

I have to be honest - none of this makes any sense to me. It seems like almost every Anglican group out there is "kissing cousins" to some other group that they virulently disagree with on important theological issues! Now I think that I understand the sentiment behind all of this inconsistent goodwill... i.e. that we all want to be in communion, and we all love the Lord Jesus Christ, and that it takes a few years to iron out details (didn't the Arian controversy lasted from around 325 - 381). All that is a given, and to some degree there is nothing wrong with it. But by the same token a "Rodney King" theology that is built entirely on the premise of "why can't we all just get along" (which is what some of this smacks of) is not satisfying at all to those of us who wish to think about our faith! It is certainly not Catholic. Although I consider myself a pragmatist, maybe I am not pragmatic enough to think this normal or acceptable! But what is the alternative?

Affirming Youth in Traditional Anglican Churches

Everywhere I go folk are interested in how many "young people" we have at our parish. Having lots of youth and family is rightfully viewed as a major sign of the health of a church. Indeed both Anglicans and non-Anglicans are always surprised when I tell them that we here at St. Francis have a fair amount of young college age students, because there is a false idea that young people are not interested in beauty, solemnity, and tradition in worship. That stuff, so the conventional wisdom goes, appeals only "old" people.

One of the major criticisms leveled against continuing Anglicanism by its critics is that it appeals only to elderly people, and that our "dying" parishes are full of "gray heads". Well that is not 100% true. Some parishes, depending in part on their location, are indeed full of mostly older folk - this was the case when I was a curate in Florida. But let us remember that "old" does not mean stagnant or spiritually dead. Other continuing Anglican parishes are certainly not full of older people, as is the case here at St. Francis, and in other parishes that I have attended. Now I suppose if the median age of all of the parishes in a diocese or province were averaged out then one could get a truly accurate idea of how old or young a church is. But until that happens it is wrong, based on the rolls of individual parishes, to say that our continuing Anglican parishes have no young people in them. Yet still these rumors and innuendo persist.

To dispel these falsities, and to continue to try to attract more and more young people and families to our parishes, the different Anglican jurisdictions should strive to take concrete steps that will show that they have and value having young people in the Church. While this can be done in a number of ways, one of the best ways to do this is to, as much as possible, promote young people to positions of leadership on the parish, diocesan, and provincial levels. Not only would this contribute to the life and vitality of the larger church by including people of different generations in the decision making and leadership process, it would send the message that we are young and forward looking jurisdictions, and a form of "succession planning".

Many priests want youth in their churches just so they can say they have youth, or so they can have someone serve at the altar, but - perhaps because of pride (the sin that according to some the elderly struggle with the most) - they refuse to take any thoughts or suggestions that young people have seriously, and absolutely balk at the idea of having them in positions of leadership or authority. In other words, they want young people and youth, but only on their terms. This attitude can sometimes be found not only in parishes, but also entire dioceses and provinces, and it is this attitude which does drive young people from the church. Young people know when they are not being listened to or taken seriously.

Without a doubt our churches need more youthful leadership at all levels. This is not to say that we do not need older men and women involved in leading the church, because we do. What we need is leadership that represents the fullness of church - people of all ages. Our churches no doubt consist of people of all ages, so our leadership should reflect that diversity. Wouldn't it be great to have more young people on different committees in parishes and in the diocese? Wouldn't it be a great thing to have more young men serving as deacons, priests, and bishops? Definitely.

The Death of a Church

Whenever I am on vacation I jump at the chance to attend other churches so I can see what they are up, how they worship and promote themselves, etc. These are always valuable experiences, even if they are not Anglican churches. Recently while visiting my in-laws I was able to attend a church called "Our Savior Anglican Church". This is one of two 1928 BCP parishes in their hometown. Neither have buildings... the one meets in a Lutheran church at 8:30 a.m., and this parish that I attended meets at a Ramada Inn at 10:00. I chose this church because of the service time. It seems to me that if you are trying to grow a church that 8:30 a.m. is not a good time for your one and only service. Both churches have newspaper ads, which is how I found them. The one has a very bad website that does not come up on a google search, so they basically might as well not even have one... this place I attended does not have an internet presence.

Approaching the location there was no sign outside of the hotel indicating that a church meets there on Sundays. When I entered the lobby there was no sign in sight, so I had to ask a rather grumpy clerk where the Anglican church met. I walked into the conference room - one of those stuffy, windowless rooms that you can't wait to get out of - and saw an elderly priest and an elderly couple. The couple greeted me and told me where to get a BCP and a kneeler. There were no bulletins, no hymns, no literature, or anything. The service was one hour. I'd say it was typical continuing Anglican - 1928 BCP along with a healthy smattering of American Missal prayers and propers. There was no music, though the priest did spontaneously break into "Kyrie Eleison" sung to Merbecke for some reason. The sermon was a dry lecture, read from a piece of paper, replete with references to "what most commentators say" (a telltale sign that he probably read for orders). He made a joke at the beginning - something about "where two or three are gathered together...", and then mentioned that they were missing a number of people, as if to reassure me, the visitor, that they usually have more people. Though later he told me the ASA is around 5, and said that when people come to visit they see the small number of elderly folk they never come back. There was no coffee hour, so I stayed to talk to the people some and get more information about the church.

After the mass I learned more about the parish. They are a parish of the HCC-AR, at least 11 years old. The other parish in town is ACC, and this man was once their rector, but when the "Allentown schism" happened in the ACC this group came into being. The rector still seemed to carry a lot of bitterness toward the late Bishop John Cahoon of the ACC, whom he alleged secretly met with his vestry and fomented a schism in his parish. "Bishop Cahoon studied political science at Yale," he growled. Obviously this man was still scarred by the whole incident. The older couple - which live in a retirement community - remarked how destructive these types of schisms have been not only for their parish but for the continuing Church in general. They were happy to hear how well things are going at St. Francis, and that young people are coming to the church and learning the old Prayer Book, and so on, but at the same time I could tell they were despondent about the state of their own parish... and rightfully so. It is sad to say, but this church is dead in the water. Though the older couple and the priest are very dedicated, and their tenacity was quite inspiring, they do not have skills or energy to make this parish work. Like the old Townes Van Zandt song, they are just "Waitin' around to die."

I'd be willing to bet that the other parish in town - the rector's former parish - is not doing so well either. It's too bad that a struggling parish that never really got off the ground got wrapped up in a schism and ended up splitting into two weaker parishes. As a result there is no traditional Anglican witness in that city, though it is a large city and region, and so, one would think, there would be at least one viable congregation somewhere.

Contentment

I continue to get questions and inquiries from friends and acquaintances about the Vatican's recent offer to Anglicans and whether or not I am "interested" in it. My answer is, "No thank you, not at this time." And that is not meant in a spirit of bitterness and spite, but rather because my vocation is to serve as a priest in the continuing church in the Anglican Province of America. Until I get a very clear sign from God that I am supposed to be somewhere else, or doing something different this is where I plan to stay. This may sound silly to some, as the APA and indeed all of the continuing churches are small and lacking in resources and institutions. Past comments on this blog bear witness that being a "continuing Anglican churchman" (in the lay or ordained state) is not an easy vocation by any stretch of the imagination. I have been, and continue to be, frustrated by the state of our churches and our legacy or lack thereof. But by the same token I refuse to go on some never-ending search for greener "ecclesiastical pastures" or the perfect church. Having been down that road before I can tell you that it is a fool's errand if there ever was one.

Ultimately it is my commitment to the Anglican way - and the liturgy and theology of the Book of Common Prayer, the writings of the Anglican Reformers, etc. - that keep me where I am. In almost every case the people I know who have left the Anglican Church for Rome never really had much to do with our tradition to begin with. That is to say, theologically they were content to be part of a church full of priestesses and lady bishops that had long ago ceased to be Catholic. And liturgically they attended mass almost exclusively when celebrated according to the modern Roman rite, to one of the old missals, to a modernistic Anglican liturgy ("Common Worship"), or to the 1979 Episcopal Prayer Book... but they had hardly any exposure to a classical Prayer Book! And if they did, it was only to the rite of Holy Communion - not the Daily Offices (prayed daily), Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, etc. The Prayer Book, which contains the liturgy and theology of the Church, is a lot more than simply the rite of Holy Communion. Other services that such folk attend that may be beautiful and authorized by the Church (such as Benediction) are nice, devotional services, but are not Prayer Book services. So when you never use the Prayer Book (or you use a pale imitation) it is easy to criticize it and its theology, and it is easy to jump ship to some other church and some new liturgy. It's even easier when you don't read the history of the English church, or any Anglican theologians. But when you live and breathe the Prayer Book, and use it daily, and use all of it regularly for 10+ years, it is not so easy to casually toss aside and pronounce it wanting or anathema.