Historical and True Anglicanism

The Rev'd Dr. Percy Dearmer

“The English Church happens to base herself in a special manner upon history–she appeals to the Scriptures and primitive antiquity for her theology, [* Articles VI., VIII., etc.] to the ancient Fathers for her ritual, [* The Preface Concerning the Service of the Church, Article XXIV., etc.] to Catholic tradition for her ceremonial; [* The Preface Of Ceremonies, Canon 30 (1603), Canon & (1640), etc.] she refers us to the second year of Edward VI for her ornaments, [* The Ornaments Rubric] and to the later middle ages for the arrangement of her chancels. [* "And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past." (First inserted in 1552.)] [24/25] Her formularies, therefore, cannot be understood without a good deal of historical knowledge. Some people may object to this, and may ask–Why should they be bound by documents that are two or three hundred years old? But the fact remains that they are so bound, whether they like it or not; and that the whole intention of the Reformers, as shown from end to end of the Prayer Book, Articles, and Canons, was to bind them to principles that are nearer two thousand than two hundred years of age. Nor will they be released from this bondage to historic continuity till the same authority that imposed it shall have removed it,–which will not be for a long time to come. The attempts that have been hitherto made at throwing off this light yoke have not been so conspicuously successful in their results as to encourage us to proceed. Therefore I ask Churchmen to renounce those futile experiments of private judgment, and to throw themselves into the task of realising in its entirety that sound Catholic ideal which the defenders of the English Church preserved for us through the most troublous period of her history."

– The Rev'd Dr. Percy Dearmer

Loyalty to the Prayer Book

Why Anglican? By J I Packer

J.I. Packer:

I identify myself as a heritage Anglican, or a main stream Anglican, on the basis of that view of things. I adapt to state my Anglican identity, words from the great Pastor Duncan of the Free Church of Scotland, who something like 150 years ago, said in answer to a question about his identity as a minister of the church, “I’m first a Christian, second a Protestant, third a Calvinist, fourth a Paedo-baptist, and fifth a Presbyterian”. Well, I go with the first four; and then “fifth I’m an Anglican”. And if I’m asked to explain further what is the Anglicanism that I stand for, I reel off eight defining characteristics of my Anglicanism like this.

Anglicanism is first biblical and protestant in its stance, and second, evangelical and reformed in its doctrine. That’s a particular nuance within the Protestant constituency to which the Anglican church is committed – the 39 Articles show that. Ten, thirdly, Anglicanism is liturgical and traditional in its worship.

I go on to say, fourthly, Anglicanism is a form of Christianity that is pastoral and evangelistic in its style. I quote the ordinal for that and I point out that ever since the ordinal and the prayer book required the clergy to catechize the children, Anglicanism has been evangelistic, though the form of the evangelism has not been that of the travelling big tent – the form of the evangelism has been rather institutional and settled; the evangelism was part of the regular work of the parish clergyman and the community around him. But let nobody say that institutional parochial Anglicanism is not evangelistic and, today, I know the wisest folk here in England are recovering parochial evangelism in a significant way. Thank God they are.

And then I say, fifthly, that Anglicanism is a form of Christianity that is episcopal and parochial in its organization and, sixthly, it is rational and reflective in its temper. I make a point of that. I say that, in Anglican circles, any question can be asked and the Anglican ethic is to take the question seriously and discuss it responsibly. There are, of course, Protestant churches which, I think you have to say, are always running scared and as soon as a question of this kind – a real puzzle of our Christian truth, of the ways of God – is raised in their circles, they bring out the big stick. “Now you mustn’t talk like that, you shouldn’t be concerning yourself about that. Just stay with the ABC of the Gospel and Bible truth”. Theological reflection is discouraged rather than helped on its way. That makes, I believe, for real immaturity. So I celebrate the fact that Anglicanism, characteristically is rational and reflective and believes in the discipline of debate and sustained discussion, believing, you see, that like panning for gold, the gold of truth will be distilled out through the discussion and the dross of error will be panned away.

Seventhly, I tell people that Anglicanism as a form of Christianity is ecumenical and humble in spirit. Unlike some denominations, we do not claim that Anglicanism is self-sufficient. What we say, rather, is that the Anglican way is the way of a person with an unlimited charge card going through a large department store and being free to say of every valuable thing you see and would like to make your own: “That’s for me. Put it on charge”. Anglicans have always rejoiced to receive wisdom from outside their own circles. They have a vision of Christendom as a fragmented reality with flashes of truth and wisdom scattered all across the board. Our business as Anglicans, seeking the glory of God, is to pick up as much truth and wisdom (get as much help, I mean, from these scattered shards of truth and wisdom) as we possibly can. I am comfortable with that. I would be uncomfortable with anything else.

Then, eighthly, I tell people that Anglicanism characteristically is national and transformist in its outlook. By `national’ I mean that the Anglican way is to accept concern for the spiritual condition of the national group within which the gospel is being preached. By `transformist’ I mean that Anglicans seek, under Christ, to see the culture changed into a Christian mould as far as maybe. So Anglicans have always been concerned about education and educational institutions, and about a Christian voice being raised in Government and things of that kind. Please God, it will always be that way wherever Anglicans go.

All this sounds, I suppose, very triumphalist; but I do believe that Anglicanism embodies the richest, truest, wisest heritage in all Christendom. When people say “Those are fine words but everywhere in the west Anglicanism is sinking”, I have to admit – in Canada, yes, and in Britain, yes, and in the States, yes, and in Australasia, sure. It is true; but still, I think, we may stay our hearts by reminding ourselves what is going on under Anglican auspices in black Africa. There the church grows and the gospel advances by leaps and bounds.

Emerging Church PoMo Zone

South Carolina leads another Reformation?

Proposed Resolution R-2 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee

Subject: Response to Ecclesiastical Intrusions by the Presiding Bishop

RESOLVED, That this 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina affirms its legal and ecclesiastical authority as a sovereign diocese within the Episcopal Church, and be it further

RESOLVED, That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the Diocese of South Carolina demands that the Presiding Bishop drop the retainer of all such legal counsel in South Carolina as has been obtained contrary to the express will of this Diocese, which is The Episcopal Church within its borders.

This sounds curiously familiar. Wait...let me check my "historical documents."

Oh...there it is:

Article xxxviii.—"The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."

Something even an AngloCatholic can agree with!

Reply to KJS

St Basil on indifference to doctrine

The following words of Saint Basil the Great apply to all of us, but especially to clergywho are indifferent to matters of Faith, to the struggle for the Faith “once delivered.” One of the reasons I left the Presbyterian Church USA was that it had slid into functional congregationalism, such that I could no longer uphold my ordination vows. National standards for ordination were ignored in many churches so that they could "ordain" non-celibate LGBT folks as deacons & elders. And the conservatives (notice I didn't say evangelicals) were often so afraid of being pegged as mean or meddling that they would ignore problems of lapsed discipline & doctrine unless it showed up vociferously in their own presbytery or congregation. I opted for revived Anglicanism because there is still a healthy sense that the bishop is the defender of the faith and a sure link to the historic faith - and thus has to meddle when people tamper with catholic doctrine or practice. Similarly, all ordained persons are seen as clergy and held accountable to the bishop - so there's no hiding behind "he's just a deacon / elder" (in the mainline "reformed" churches, deacons & elders are often seen as little more than congregational officers). And because our sacramental unity is at stake, there's no problem with an Anglican - laic or cleric - raising concerns to their bishop / archbishop concerning the teaching of a particular individual.

Saint Basil was writing to men who were far less blinded by the god of this world, but who nonetheless exhibited indifference to the fate of churches outside their diocese. May we all take the Saint’s words to heart and lend a helping hand to all of our brethren who are outside of our diocese or local church but in urgent need of our support and encouragement.

“We stand in the arena to fight for our common heritage, for the treasure of the sound faith, derived from our Fathers. Grieve with us, all you who love the brethren, at the shutting of the mouths of our men of true faith, and at the opening of the bold and blasphemous lips of all who utter unrighteousness against God. The pillars and foundation of the truth are scattered abroad. We, whose insignificance has allowed of our being overlooked, are deprived of our right and free speech. Enter into the struggle for the people’s sake. Do not think only of your being yourselves moored in a safe haven, where the grace of God gives you shelter from the tempest of the winds of wickedness. Reach out a helping hand to the churches that are being buffeted by the storm, lest if they are abandoned, they suffer complete shipwreck of the faith. Lament for us, in that the Only-Begotten is being blasphemed, and there is none to offer contradiction.”

--- Letter CCXLIII to the Bishops of Italy and Gaul

Today, there is hardly a church which is not being buffeted by the spirit of secularization. The faithful of the churches everywhere are being abandoned by thieves (John 10:1) to the wolves of this world and are in need of a helping hand, lest they suffer “complete shipwreck.” The Son of God and His Body are being blasphemed, so let us all “offer contradiction.”

Living Ecclesiology

“When the Church takes account of only the present, she does nothing but change; if she looks only to the future, she does nothing but dream; only when she is conscious of being the living tradition of Christ is she truly renewed.”

Anthony Burton, former bishop of Saskatchewan

Lord, give us eyes to see
both what we have been,
and what we shall be.

Bach to our regularly scheduled programming

I've been grossly negligent with the Worship Wednesday segment of this blog. Mea culpa. I hope this can begin to make up for it.






J.S. Bach - CD1 - Mass in B Minor by American Bach Soloists


By the way, today I meet with many of my brother-priests at the Forward in Faith North America Annual Assembly. We anticipate being received in orders, then proceeding to join the rest of the laity and clergy in the Anglican Church in North America!

Faith and Disorder - the Odd Couple

Okay, I'm about to make claims that the Anglican Communion is - as a branch of the catholic church - not able to futz around with faith and order. I know that it'll make Vicky Gene cry, but it's true.

This is from the most recent Anglican SPREAD communique. They (or, I should say, we) are the Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (‘as classically expressed in the Anglican Formularies: the Thirty-nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal’).

Rowan Williams own comments would have supported this perception. Only twelve months previously, on 22 July 2001, the London Sunday Telegraph, in a report entitled ‘Archbishop hits out at ban on gay clergy’ Dr Williams, then Archbishop of Wales, claimed that the 1991 ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ report’s bar on the ordination of active homosexuals was incoherent and “this unwillingness to come clean can’t last. It is a contradiction.”

However, on his translation to the See of Canterbury, Williams’ enthusiasm for ‘coming clean’ seemed to be much dampened. He minimised his commitments to the gay lobby and wrote to reassure the Anglican Primates, saying ‘I have to distinguish plainly between personal theories and interpretations and the majority conviction of my Church.’ He has continued to emphasise this distinction between his personal (and in fact widely disseminated) views on the one hand and his official responsibility on the other.

You think if he says that with a pretty enough grin, we'll just give him a pass on that?

Oooh! Nice try. No...this is the standard Kantian retreat from integrity. It might work in a philosophy class, maybe even politics. But do you really believe that creedal, confessional Christians can be held together by someone who does not have convictions as to the trustworthiness of the Church's truth claims?

Hold on to your hat, Archbishop. Somebody is going to call you on that.

Superficially, this may seem generous, even sacrificial, but the consequences for the Church’s commitment to truth are serious. As Gerald Bray has observed, ‘Not to believe the teachings he is expected to defend is not a sign of superior holiness, as some have alleged, but the very opposite – it is deceitfulness taken to a higher level of deception.’ (Churchman Vol.122 No.4 2008 p293)

DOH!!! Too late!

This ‘higher level of deception’ is serious because, as a principle, it has the potential to downgrade Christian truth across the board. If the Archbishop of Canterbury himself can publicly treat the upholding of the plain teaching of Scripture as a formal duty rather than a personal commitment, the door is open to a kind of institutionalised hypocrisy in which it is acceptable to observe the formalities of orthodoxy while at the same time dissolving the substance of orthodoxy by conceding its provisionality. It is not difficult to see where this is leading; for instance Richard Holloway, former Primus (Primate) of Scotland cheerfully described himself in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald as an agnostic and yet can see no reason why he should stop ministering in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

I have no idea where national churches think that they get the authority to change the catholic faith and trivialize such essentials as the resurrection (which Mr. Holloway denies as a member of the Westar Institute) yet still keep less catholic traditions (such as liturgies, ideas of ministry & order, etc) in play. And they of course claim some sort of ethical high ground (while defending the ‘right’ to kill babies). Nonsense! (John Spong, et al...I’m talking to you!)

And this is why the Anglican Covenant will not work. Its minimal doctrine and diluted disciplinary provisions are simply inadequate in a Communion where we can no longer be certain what people mean by the words they use and whether they believe the words they use. Dr Williams by no means bears sole responsibility for this culture, but he presides over it and has lent it respectability.

It is said that the partisan nature of his appointment contained the seeds of Speaker Martin’s downfall and this week he has suffered the sudden death of his political career. The partisan nature of Dr Williams’ appointment also contains the seeds of his downfall, but his is likely to be a slow death as the confusion he has sown theologically gradually manifests itself in practice, as most recently in Jamaica. And in this light, we can see that GAFCON’s great contribution to the Anglican Communion has been to begin the process of restoring confessional confidence so that, as one body, Anglicans can speak of God and the gospel truthfully and clearly.

WE ARE NOT AMUSED!!!

Read the rest here. I try to cut the poor guy some slack...after all, there are rumours that he's already looking for a way out of office.

Oh yeah...have a wonderful Feast of the Ascension!

Dr. Schori asks: “Is that the feast where everybody assents to our modifications of catholic faith and order?”

No...it’s where the whole Church remembers that Christ is King, he rules in his Church. We don't have the authority to change things that he instituted. And we acknowledge that he will grow his Church when we do his will.

Dr. Schori adds: “Hmmm....I wonder why we’re not growing?”

Yeah...keep telling yourself it’s that because of demographic shifts and your sterling education.

Nope...can’t possibly have anything to do with not disciplining heretical clergy or trying to consecrate Buddhists as bishops.

Have Thine Own Way

Naked Pastor hits another one out of the park!

More Gregorian than gregarious

Some people think that I'm not "nice" because I hold vowed officers of the church to the faith handed down by the apostles. Well, on this March 12, commemoration of Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Rome, I'm going to try to be more gregarious. . . or at least Gregorian.

Here's a little info on the sainted bishop.

Only two popes, Leo I and Gregory I, have been given the popular title of "the Great." Both served during difficult times of barbarian invasions in Italy; and during Gregory's term of office, Rome was also faced with famine and epidemics.

Gregory was born around 540, of a politically influential family, and in 573 he became Prefect of Rome; but shortly afterwards he resigned his office and began to live as a monk. In 579 he was made apocrisiarius (representative of the Pope to the Patriarch of Constantinople). Shortly after his return home, the Pope died of the plague, and in 590 Gregory was elected Pope.

Like Leo before him, he became practical governor of central Italy, because the job needed to be done and there was no one else to do it. When the Lombards invaded, he organized the defense of Rome against them, and the eventual signing of a treaty with them. When there was a shortage of food, he organized the importation and distribution of grain from Sicily.

His influence on the forms of public worship throughout Western Europe was enormous. He founded a school for the training of church musicians, and Gregorian chant (plainchant) is named for him. The schedule of Scripture readings for the various Sundays of the year, and the accompanying prayers (many of them written by him - and still sung!), in use throughout most of Western Christendom for the next thirteen centuries, is largely due to his passion for organization. His treatise, On Pastoral Care, while not a work of creative imagination, shows a dedication to duty, and an understanding of what is required of a minister in charge of a Christian congregation.

Doctrinally speaking, there is little of great interest. He is known to have defended the physical resurrection from a subtle attack by no less than the Patriarch of Constantinople himself! Eutychius speculated on our resurrection bodies being "more subtle than air" but there is a record of his having recanted before death. (Hey...maybe I'm gregorious in dealing with my own Eutychius after all! With him, I say Pro cuius amore in eius eloquio nec mihi parco - "For the love of whom (God) I do not spare myself from his Word.") Gregory's letters and sermons are still readable today, and it is not without reason that he is accounted (along with Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo) as one of the Four Latin Doctors (=Teachers) of the ancient Church. (Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom are the Four Greek Doctors.)

English-speaking Christians will remember Gregory for sending a party of missionaries headed by Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with the more famous Augustine of Hippo) to preach the Gospel to the pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes that had invaded England and largely conquered or displaced the Celtic Christians previously living there. He was moved when he saw some fair-haired, blue-eyed Angle boys being sold in a slave market and quipped: "Non Angli, sed Angeli!" (they are not Angles, but Angels!) Gregory had originally hoped to go to England as a missionary himself, but was pressed into service elsewhere, first as apocrisiarius and then as bishop of Rome. He accordingly sent others, but took an active interest in their work, writing numerous letters both to Augustine and his monks and to their English converts.

I here mention something that was not Gregory's doing, but is an important part of Church history. It was in Gregory's lifetime that Rome, and with it the Western Empire, with astonishing suddenness, and for no reason that I know of, went monolingual. For more than six centuries previously, Greek had been spoken at Rome along with Latin. Every Roman with pretensions to being educated could speak it. Everyone involved in shipping and commerce, from banker to stevedore, could speak it. The list of the early Bishops of Rome has a fair proportion of Greek names. When Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans, he wrote in Greek as a matter of course. But in Gregory's lifetime this changed. Gregory was ambassador to the Eastern Patriarch at Constantinople for six years, but he never bothered to learn Greek. And in his day (not, as far as I have any reason to believe, as a result of his example or influence) most other Latin-speakers did not trouble to learn Greek either. The already existing difficulties of communication between Latin and Greek theologians were greatly exacerbated by this development. Increasingly, Latins did not read the commentaries and other writings of Greek Christians, and vice versa. Thus differences between the two that dialogue might have resolved were left to accumulate, culminating in the formal split between Latin and Greek Christendom in 1054.

If I were to select a ground on which this devout Christian of great accomplishments might reasonably be censured, it would be that his Dialogues, a book on the Lives of the Saints, is full of accounts of dreams and visions that various persons were said to have had of souls in Purgatory. Gregory, a man of keen critical judgment on many matters, was completely uncritical in his acceptance of these stories. A general belief in Purgatory was standard among Christians when he wrote; but his reliance on "ghost stories" to fill in the imaginative details gave the doctrine as held thereafter in Latin Christendom both a prominence and a coloring that it had not previously had, with results that many Christians, including adherents of the Pope, have found regrettable - and a constant impediment to church union.

PRAYER (traditional language):

Almighty and merciful God, who didst raise up Gregory of Rome to Be a servant of the servants of God, and didst inspire him to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the English people: Preserve in thy Church the catholic and apostolic faith they taught, that thy people, being fruitful in every good work, may receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

PRAYER (contemporary language):

Almighty and merciful God, who raised up Gregory of Rome to Be a servant of the servants of God, and inspired him to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the English people: Preserve in your Church the catholic and apostolic faith they taught, that your people, being fruitful in every good work, may receive the crown of glory that never fades away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Presbypiscopal or Episcopresbyter?

I'm catching some flack from a numpty (not this numpty, but one of his devotees) about my having switched teams (left the PCUSA and joined the Anglican Communion). He's very upset that I "have decided to renounce not only the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, but the presbyterian form of government itself in favor of the papacy" and "ditching Westminster and the presbyterian form of church government."

I see. So broad swaths of the PCUSA can ditch Westminster as a whole (which it did in C-67) and let presbyterian government largely be undermined in favor of denominational lackeys (when it's not being ignored by "non-schismatic pastors" that choose to abandon constitutional restraint - acting as though their local congregations and presbyteries are able to act without waiting for GA to ratify constitutional ammendments) - but if I hold to the essence of the Reformed faith as put forward in Westminster and seek an ecclesial structure where the highest-ranking clergy seek the consent of their subordinate clergy and the laity, while acting in concert within a college of equals, then I'm apostate and abandoning biblical polity? (Excuse me...he actually lumps me with "orthodox schismatics" ilk.)

Let's set the record straight. I know that there's a lot of history between the Presbyterian Church (i.e., the Reformed Church as it developed in English-speaking countries) and the Anglican Communion (i.e., the Protestant Church that continued some form of episcopal succession). It's generated no small amount of animosity. In fact, the Reformed Episcopal Church seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church precisely because the latter - taking on Anglo-catholic leanings - began impeding the cooperation that had marked Presbyterian and Episcopalian relationships for the preceding 150 years. But we should echo the cry of the Reformers - Ad fontes! - and go back to our sources if we are to see clearly the challenges of the present.

Presbyterianism is a creature of the supreme orthodoxy shown in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the rejection of monarchical claims (whether by kings or by bishops). Its political history is checkered with moments of assent to and dissent from an episcopal polity. John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer were corresponding about the restoration of the historic episcopate to the Church of Geneva. "Power-mad" Calvin declined episcopacy for himself, and his successors and the successors to the archepiscopacy of Canterbury lost touch in the ensuing decades of turmoil. Eventually, both parties hardened into positions that their founders eschewed. Calvin's objection was to a sacerdotal system* - not to rule by bishops. We should also note that Calvin was not objecting to a sacramental system - but insisted on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (cf. B. A. Gerrish's Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin).

Father of Presbyterianism, John Knox, gave assent to bishops in the Convention of Leith in 1572 (cf. Ian Haslett's The Reformation in Britain and Ireland for brief analysis). The Reformed (Presbyterian) Church in Hungary continues to be headed by synodical bishops who have a non-pressed but very real succession from the historic episcopate. The Reformed Church in France (Calvin's homeland) also uses bishops to maintain their synodical government - though they do not claim an unbroken succession. Similarly, the Churches of Sweden and Finland (Lutherans) maintain an unbroken episcopal succession - just as the Church of England did.

An excellent study of the many issues involved in church polity - from biblical, theological, historical, and practical perspectives - is given in a book called Who Runs the Church. Therein, representatives of episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems give their side and graciously critique the positions of the others. I'll let you decide who wins....

For what it's worth, I'm an Anglican because I think that it has the greatest chance of bringing about catholic unity - not by bridging the divide between Rome and the Protestants, but by reuniting every Christian Church with the past and the present (including the Eastern churches) in practice and polity, as well as in barebones orthodoxy (via the Nicene Creed) - without the dogmatism on developments after the first ecumenical councils. And I'm proud to stand next to defenders of the faith like these guys.

* Don't let the English word priest be confused with the sacrificing priest pictured in the Roman sacerdotal system. The word priest is just the Old English pronunciation of presbytĕrātus, the Latin transliteration of the Greek presbys (πρέσβῠς ). It refers to one holding the office of the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is emphatically not a translation of the Latin sacerdos or the Greek ἱερεύς!

iMonk on aspects of our traditions

Internet Monk has a great new segment called Liturgical Gangstas (featuring pastors from different traditions, including Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) and has them dialogue on a common question. This week's post is about strengths in the tradition that people miss, and weaknesses in the tradition that are easy to overlook.

It's a good read. And if you don't read it, Dr. Stephen Colbert may put you on notice.

H is for Hypocrisy

On Wednesdays, I try to blog on a worship topic. However, my seminary has decided that the worship of perverse sexual acts and child rape is appropriate, so I'm interrupting my regular schedule.

(Sort-of...they promote it with the title V is for Venite. And venite is a legitimate liturgical topic which I'll need to return to at some point.)

Q is for Questionable Judgment

Here's the link to their site discussing the upcoming campus-sponsored production of Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues.

R is for Risible

Here's my response (which may or may not be on the site...they moderate, and I was censored in public discourse throughout parts of my seminary career):

I'm personally saddened to see the Women's Center sponsoring this play. In a notorious section, "The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could," a woman recounts how as a 13 yr old girl she is given alcohol and then seduced by a 24 yr old woman. In the original form (which has been unsatisfactorily redacted to omit it and change the age from 13 to 16), she dismisses the substance abuse and statutory violation by saying: "Now people say it was a kind of rape.... Well, I say if it was rape, it was a good rape...." In another segment, a six year old is queried about her genitalia (smells, names, etc.). As the father of beautiful little girl, I would be hard pressed to stay in my seat through such a performance.

The rest of the play wavers between diatribes against men and male-female sex as inherently violent, or about sexual practices that really deserve to stay in the bedroom. How this play actually addresses violence against women (especially when it is celebrated in the above scene), or opens frank conversations about the role men - and women - have in the sexualization of children and women (objectification is a prologue to rape and oppression) is perhaps beyond the scope of Wimminwise to answer. But it would be helpful to reflect on why this play at this seminary - of all the venues and content available - is appropriate and effective.

O is for Objection

Beyond the politicization of a day that Christians should remember for martyrs, they overturn a divinely-ordained institution (heterosexual marriage). Worse, marriage is meant to be a mysterious - almost sacramental - expression of the union of Christ and His Church. What are we to make of this from a seminary?

B is for Bias

Why is homosexual rape given a pass by an event promoted as anti-violence-against-women?

H is for Hypocrisy

We have a mandate to reform the culture to the Scriptural norm (the norming norm), not let culture corrupt the message of the Scriptures.

E is for End!!!

U is for Update: They posted my response. It was the same old "You don't know what you're talking about." However, I have it from an eyewitness that the attendance at these events has been blissfully low. As some one once termed roughly 1/3 of the campus population: "middle-aged bitter divorcees and their dogs."

Sad, really. Men need to be molded by their interactions with the pain of women....this just stops with scolding.

The Gospel Recovered

Cindy Jacobs (whom I blogged about yesterday) calls her latest book Reformation Manifesto (the "new apostolic movement" often sees itself in line with a new Reformation - which is why they say the older churches oppose them).

But I'm giving a shout out to the REAL Reformation the Church continually needs.



Here's to 491 years of the Gospel recovered!

And here's "the classic"

BLESSED REFORMATION DAY!!!

Worship Wednesdays - The Collect

Something that helped me fall in love with the Anglican tradition was the didactic and liturgical use of the collect. The collect (opening prayer, pronunciation here) has four parts. The collect I believe is a key to liturgy. However, it is regularly abused - a few seconds of just another little prayer near the start of a service, even read together from a printed pew-sheet for the day (reducing it to merely one part).

The word “collect” in Latin is collecta - gathering together. A collect gathers a litany (list of petitions) together into a final, single prayer. Or a collect gathers silent (or even sung) prayer together into a single prayer. This is what the collect is in the Entrance Rite - the Gathering of the Community. As it gathers the silent (or sung) prayers of everyone it functions to gather the individuals into a praying community.

The bidding: The presider invites the community to prayer - “Let us pray”. Or in a more extended way, something like: “Let us pray in silence that God will make us one in mind and heart”.

The silence: This is the heart of the collect. This deep silent praying of the community is what the collect is collecting. If there is no silent prayer, it is not a collect because there is nothing to collect. Without this silence the “collect” is reduced to merely another little prayer cluttering the vestibule at the start of our service.

The collect:* After sufficient silent prayer the presider proclaims the collect, gathering the prayers of the community, and articulating the prayer of the church - the body of Christ. As Christ’s body the collect is addressed in Christ’s name, on Christ’s behalf, to God the Source of all Being, in the power and unity of the Holy Spirit.

Amen: The community makes the collect its own by a strong “Amen” - “so be it”.

The collect when well understood and aptly used can powerfully gather the community, deepen our prayerfulness, and profoundly express much at the heart of Christian spirituality.

*How to Write Your Own Collect
Examples taken from the Collect for Purity
(h/t St. Mary's Cadishead)

Step	Task	Collect for Purity
Step 1 - Address	Begin the prayer by addressing it to God.	Almighty God,
Step 2 - Amplification	Call to mind God's character - saying something about what God is like or what God has done. This serves as a mini-covenant renewal, reiterating the character of the Supreme covenant-keeping God to Himself and His people. Sometimes, a motive is used here - reminding God of His undending mercy.	unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid
Step 3 - Petition	Ask God to do something that only He can do.	Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy holy spirit,
Step 4 - Purpose	Continue by giving a reason for why you are asking, or what you want to happen.	that we may perfectly love thee,
Step 5 - Motive	Reiterate how this action is in accord with God's purposes and glory.	and worthily magnify thy holy name:
Step 6 - ending the prayer	End the prayer, perhaps using a traditional ending, preferably Trinitarian, and finish with ‘Amen’.	through Christ our Lord. Amen.

In essence, I see the Lord's Prayer as the basis of this beautiful form of praying.

SUBSTANTIAL THANKS to the good folks at Liturgy.co.nz!

Write your own collect and post it on your blog (or in the comments)!

This is just nuts

It looks like this sterling example of American citizenship got more than his fair share of the change we can believe in.

"Sometimes, they come up and bribe me with a cigarette, or they'll give me a dollar to sign up," said Freddie Johnson, 19, who filled out 72 separate voter-registration cards over an 18-month period at the behest of the left-leaning Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. (ACORN)

ACORN is under investigation in Ohio and at least eight other states - including Missouri, where the FBI said it's planning to look into potential voter fraud - for over-the-top efforts to get as many names as possible on the voter rolls regardless of whether a person is registered or eligible.

Aren't you heartened to see that Obama hasn't left his Chicago-political-machine roots behind? What would an Illinois candidacy mean without significant voter fraud? (Especially by the pros at ACORN.)*

Of course, I think citizens should bring their land of primary residence into the voting booth. That's why this coming Sunday's lectionary text from the Gospel is so important to read right now.

What is your true homeland? How are you going to carry that into the American political process?

*Speaking of voter fraud - check out this zombie-related post on dead voters.

The Revvin' Reverend

Did you hear about the Harley-ridin' holy-rollers in southern California? They became bikers to reach the Hell's Angels (and others). Only, when the real Hell's Angels showed up, the Christians forgot to turn the other cheek and a Bible-packin' biker-brawl broke out! Two Hell's Angels ended up getting stabbed.

(BTW, you have to love a church where the Hell's Angels pick a fight...and lose!)

The question I have is this:

Where does the church draw the line in accommodating cultural norms (contextualizing Christianity) in order to reach out to the lost?

We've done this poorly in the past, often by being too strict (think missionary position, or our deracination efforts on the American Indian). We've also been too accomodating to the culture - especially as early Christians reached into pagan Europe.

Apparently, we're not done yet.


Thoughts?

Paedobaptism and Pentecostal Presumptions

As I was going over the Order for Holy Baptism with an adult who has come to faith, I was struck at how presumptuous the service is for children. The covenant vows that are taken (resisting evil, seeking obedience to God's law, etc.) are big enough as it is. But afterward, we apply water in the name of the Triune Godhead.

THEN, we pray this prayer:

Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of grace. Sustain them, O Lord, in your Holy Spirit. Give them an inquiring and discerning heart, the courage to will and to persevere, a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy and wonder in all your works. Amen.

Now some people get their dander up about baptismal regeneration (which, as a good Reformed Evangelical Catholic, i.e., an Anglican, I WHOLLY REJECT). But think about what we're doing. We're claiming God's real promises before they break into reality.

I was struck by how this shares at least some similarity with the pentecostal faith of my childhood: Name It and Claim It!

Those of us who hold to covenant baptism believe that God will be faithful to himself and his promises, and so we speak and act as though those promises were as realized as they are real.

What think you? Have you claimed the Name of him who claimed you?

St. Francis Day Service

Have I mentioned that I love being a priest?

Needling Questions

Coming to a church near you?

Make sure your members know what you believe, and the pastor is equipping you to know why you believe it!