To let you know…

• The great Quick Reference sheet on the Office that was here is gone.
• The Anglican breviary site has moved from .com to .net.

Update your bookmarks accordingly.

There’s been discussion recently among the Anglo-Saxonists about the state of the field. Dr. Nokes has some thoughts that link to Dr. Drout’s two posts and Tiruncula’s comments; TheSwain has also mentioned posting on this… I started comments at several of these but never posted them. I occupy a weird outsider position when it comes to “the field.” On one hand, I’ve had more OE coursework and have done a lot more research in the literature, secondary lit, and period than most English majors. On the other hand, I’ll probably never been seen as anything but an outsider or maybe a “dabbler” in the field because I’m not only in Religion but in Biblical Studies (which obviously can’t have anything to do with OE). So, a few thoughts from my perspective.

1. It’s a well known “fact” among educated people and clergy that the Catholic Church (sic) suppressed all biblical texts but the Vulgate. Translations into the vernacular were all part of the Reformation and freedom from Catholic (sic) hegemony.
2. Of the surviving material in Old English, the grand majority is religious literature. Specifically, it’s sermons and homilies. From Æ1fric alone we have over 150 homilies/sermons and there’s a lot more anonymous stuff. How many homileticians and professors of preaching have ever heard his name before? Take a look at the only major work on the history of preaching to be released in recent decades. Check the Table of Contents and the Index. Is there any hint of OE homiletics, vernacular preaching in the Anglo-Saxon period or anything outside of Bede? No.
3. How about Church Historians? I’ll give you a hint—they read Latin, not OE.
4. One strand of Anglican theology relies on the notion of the Ecclesia Anglicana, that is, that the Anglican Church is a continuation of the belief of the English Church apart from Roman hegemony. One of the early proofs for this was a tract from the 1560’s entitled A testimonie of antiquitie : shewing the auncient fayth in the Church of England touching the sacrament of the body and bloude of the Lord here publikely preached, and also receaved in the Saxons tyme, aboue 600 yeares agoe. Sure enough, it presents one of Æ1fric’s sermons and is the first printing of any OE text. How many church historians know about it or follow its tracks back to the voluminous writings and sources on the Benedictine Revival in late Anglo-Saxon England? Precious few. Even among Episcopal profs of Church History and seminaries. Maybe the case is different in England—but I haven’t heard anything about it if it is…

My point here is pretty clear, I think. Whatever the internal state of the field, Old English Studies is not having the impact that it could have on related disciplines. Yes, “interdisciplinary” is the word of the day—but where is it? Let’s get real for a second—I know OE. I know the OE homily corpus pretty well and have read through the standard heroic poetry as well including the requisite Beowulf semester. I know my medieval liturgy, paleography, the basics of codicology, an history and have a strong background in classical, medieval, and modern grammar and rhetoric . Would I stand a chance of getting hired for an Old English position? I really doubt it. My (perhaps cynical) guess is that most universities would hire a English PhD with a dissertation on Shakespeare who had an Intro to OE course in grad school over me with a PhD in NT… (Not that I plan to apply for such positions but in today’s academic job market you weigh *all* your options…)

For what it’s worth, here are my recommendations:

1.      Stop being so darn Insular! Er…insular. Yes, great strides are being made towards interdisciplinarity but only in circumscribed areas. Things need to be cracked open. Look—I’m not unique here. There are other non-English, non-History people who could take advantage of the riches of the field. The reality of postmodern academia is that nobody can read everything any more. I can’t read all the biblical studies journals let alone the homiletics ones and the church history ones and the monastic ones and the Old English ones—especially the English journals that occasionally publish OE related things. What’s needed is a sound internet resource that ids in an easily accessible fashion both current publications and the major trends, states of the various questions, and core primary and secondary resources for the major sub-areas of the field. Actually, it’s not just you—we need it as well. If we as an academic community are going to take the “interdisciplinary” thing seriously, then the main guilds need to provide these resources for their areas. In my part of the world The Society of Biblical literature isn’t doing it; but Mark Goodacre is… The NT Gateway is a step in the right direction with static resources and an accompanying blog.  

2.      Promote the field both inside and outside the field! Dare to cross the threshold into the Div school… talk to the preaching professor… Or whatever other field outside English or History that you read the most or that you think your work should have a bearing on. When people realize there’s value in it, they’ll start reading it too.

I could probably say more here but these are just the main thoughts that float to the top of my head on this issue.

When Lil’ H (10.5 months) summoned me from my repose at the top of her lungs at 3 o’clock this morning, I was greeted by the sight of her standing up holding onto the crib rail. It’s the first time I’d ever seen her stand up without one of us holding her. M has said that she’s been working on it over the past week or so but now it’s been fully achieved. I definitely need to drop the crib mattress again…

Lil’ G (3.5 yrs), on the other hand, played her first game of checkers last night. After her first few moves we were afraid we might have a budding strategic genius on our hands and M was concerned that she might be beaten by a three year old, but it became evident a few moves later that she hadn’t quite grasped the notion of “jumping” other pieces. Oh well—she’s got plenty of time to learn. My “proud papa” moment, though, was when she first sat down. She stared at the board, then reached into the second row and moved a checker straight forward a couple of rows. It was a perfect P-Q4 move!

Ok—to continue where we left off on Patristics, there have been a lot of comments about the lack of Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. That’s because I wouldn’t include it in a first pass—the Enchiridion gives a better sense of his basic approach to faith, I think. Instead I’d include it here… This is my short list for Patristic hermeneutics (rules/guides for reading Scripture).

Basic Texts

• Augustine, On Christian Doctrine
• Origen, Philocalia. This one may come as a surprise to some folks… This is an ancient set of extracts that the Cappadocian Fathers made out of Origen’s works that collect his principle thoughts on biblical interp. In my formal coursework they assigned us book 4 of De Principiis but this is a much better and more succinct work imo. You can find it by following the “More Ftahers” link off CCEL’s Fathers page. I am unclear on its connection to the other Philocalia—the great collection of Eastern spiritual wisdom.
• Bede, On Schemes and Tropes. Yeah, I know Bede falls outside of Andrewes’s official definition but he’s widely considered the last of the Western Fathers.

Examples—selections from…

• Cassiodorus on the Psalms. I’d recommend him above Augustine partly because he is still doing basic/remedial education as he presents his commentary.
• Augustine’s Tractates on John
• Chrysostom on Paul

I hate to give too many here because, to a degree, even creating a category like this reinforces modern genre biases. That is, some of the best hermeneutical bits in the Fathers are imbedded in what we modern types think of as “doctrinal” or “moral” treatises, not “biblical” ones.

Well, I’ve been putting this off for a while but the release of Microsoft Vista and Office 2007 is finally motivating me to do something I’ve been intending to do.

It’s time to set up a Linux box and go open source.

I’m not planning to change all of my units over immediately or even to use Linux for my primary home machines but it’s time to at least start experimenting with it.

The Panel of Reference—the group appointed by the ABC to deal with contentious bishop-parish oversight issues—has finally spoken on Fort Worth’s request for alternate oversight. [Correction: as Thinking Anglicans clarifies, this is the reponse to a different appliction. I hadn’t realized that FW had two items pending…] It focuses on what FW put up as the presenting issue: the election of a bishop who maintains +Iker’s theological agenda. The money section is the recommendations. Some are good. Others…not so much.

I haven’t the time nor energy to comment on it now except to say these things: 1. I’m struck again that most provinces simply don’t “get” the concept of diocese electing bishops rather than having them imposed on them. 2. I know there are people with well-thought out positions who cannot accept the validity of women clergy on theological grounds. I also know there are a lot more who oppose it on less-than-theological grounds. How do I know this and why do I say it? Because of the number of people (mostly older) who have told me how their minds were changed on this issue by seeing my wife celebrate and preach. Institutionalizing a no-women policy institutionalizes prejudice alongside theology. That is, a mandate of this sort allows the non-theological opposition to remain unchallenged, confirming it and giving it room to flourish under the guise of the status quo.

The famous dictum of the revered Lancelot Andrewes on the sources of Anglican theology goes like this: “One canon, two testaments, three creeds, four councils, and five centuries and the fathers who wrote therein.” Most modern Anglicans have encountered the first three—the last two we’re a bit sketchy on. Myself included. I’ve never had a course in Patristics and I’ve got not one but two seminary degrees. (Neither of them were Episcopal schools, for the record—but both schools also had Anglican Studies programs. Even those seemed to be light on what I would consider a decent Patristic foundation.) So—in light of this, where do you start if you’re an Anglican and want to start encountering the Fathers?

[An aside—yes, “Fathers” is male. Yes, the “Mothers” were important too—but we have very few writings from them. When we talk about early church practice it may well be best to say Mothers and Fathers but as for the texts that have survived and come down to us through centuries of male copyists—then “Fathers” is accurate despite what we might want to say. And don’t worry—I’ve provided for the Mothers below…]  

Here are my first thoughts towards a more-or-less organized plan of studying the writings from the first five centuries that ground both Christian theology and—potentially—Anglican identity. I’ve found these things helpful as I’ve stumbled around and tried to get a sense of things myself. I’ll warn you, this list reflects things I’m familiar with so is skewed towards the Monastic West. I’d love to see some other suggestions especially from those better read in the area than me…

Start with:

• John Cassian’s Institutes. This two part work gives first an overview of the lifestyle of Egyptian monastics, then teaches the grammar of the moral life—the eight vices and the virtues that overcome them.

Have on hand:

• John Cassian’s Conferences
• Jerome’s Letters

Read these two intermittently sprinkled through the rest of the reading, especially if you feel things getting kind of dry. Cassian’s Conferences should be read again and again and not necessarily in order—read what you need… Jerome’s letters are like spiritual cheese: they’re sharp, pungent, and give some great local flavor. That is, he often talks about the realities and details of life in the early church. Often his correspondents were women so here we get the best view I know of into how women lived and practiced Christianity during this time.(Here are your Mothers…)

Then go to:

• Augustine’s Enchiridion (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love)
• Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catechesis
• Ambrose’s On the Mysteries
• Vincent of Lerins’s Commonitory

Then branch out from there—especially to things like the sermons of Leo, Gregory, and Chrysostom. All of these things can be had for free from New Advent and CCEL.

Why these writings? Well, when you study literature or writings you have two options—read a survey about them, or read the works themselves. I don’t know a good introductory survey so here are the works themselves. Specifically, though, these works were intended by their authors to be introductory. Most of them are catechetical and therefore were addressed to regular Christians—often the newly baptized—not the religious professionals.

So—that’s my list. What are your thoughts?

This just in from ENS…

Alaska bishop named Canadian National Indigenous Bishop

MacDonald will remain assisting bishop in Navajoland

. . .

Mark L. MacDonald, the seventh Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Alaska, hopes that his new ministry as the Anglican Church of Canada’s first National Indigenous Bishop will both transform the way people think about the church and move Anglicans into deeper communion with each other.

Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, announced his appointment of MacDonald at a news conference in the Church’s headquarters in Toronto January 4.

. . .

As well as crossing Canadian diocesan jurisdictions, MacDonald, in his new position, will straddle national and ecclesiastical boundaries as well. Although he has resigned as Bishop of Alaska, he is due to remain assisting bishop of Navajoland Area Mission with the Episcopal Church.

"It’s important to remember that we elect bishops for the church," Hutchison said at the news conference. "We don’t elect bishops for national jurisdictions."

I’m really confused now… An Episcopal bishop serving the Canadian Anglican Church? In my eyes this is a move by TEC to *legitimize* the odd bishoping practices of AMiA, CANA, TAC et al. If this is the way we are going to play the game, then what reason can we offer why Frs. Minns and Moyer shouldn’t be bishops in American dioceses? The only difference that I see is that the heads of both provinces are ok with this jurisdiction-straddling—but over all it doesn’t help the polity debates.

Musically, it’s a Garden of Arcane Delights kind of morning.

Liturgically, I’m wondering about canticles… M suggested—wisely—that periodically we do the Offices from Rite II just to maintain currency with that way of doing things. My basic principle is that when I do Rite I, I follow the rubrics as interpreted through the 1662 book; when I do Rite II, I follow the intentions of the editors of the ’79 book. Thus, for MP, I use the table in the Additional Directions section (I just can’t bring myself to use it for EP, though…).

Anyway, in reading through it the past few mornings, I’ve been wondering why we have the canticles that we do. As you recall, the original intention of MP is that it is Cranmer’s collation of the Night Office (Matins + Lauds) + Prime—so, the first three Hours. Matins on Sundays and feast days always ends with the Te Deum; Lauds always incorporates the Benedictus. Hence, these are the master canticles for MP. The 1662 rubrics direct the use of the Te Deum outside of penitential seasons for the first reading and the Benedictus daily. Thus, this is fully in line with the original intention. During penitential seasons, though, the Benedicite is utilized. Now—where did this come from? In the old system, an OT canticle was said daily at Lauds slipped in between the fourth and fifth (and final) psalm. The Benedicite was the canticle for Sundays. So, the canticles retained in the 1662 book for MP mirrored certain selected elements of Sunday practice.

To complicate things a little, there were, in the old system, two forms of the Lauds office—one for penitential days and one for non-penitential days. The Benedicite was (if I remember right) the Sunday canticle in the non-penitiential; the one in the penitential version was the Benedictus es. Flip to Rite I for a second…yep, there they are… So, even the ’79 book through the influence of earlier books retains the elements of the old system.

Now, the major difference between Rite II and all predecessor rites is the great multiplication of options. Clearly this appears in the canticle options. I understand the desire to include more biblical materials and I have no problem with that. But…why not go back to the original source? Why not bring in the canticles from  Lauds 1 and 2 in the old system? Hatchett (the main commentator on the ’79 book) gives no insight here.

I’m really not against liturgical change—but if we are going to change something and there’s a good historical precedent that accomplishes what we’re trying to do, why not use it?