The Episcopal “Reform of the Reform”

The Episcopal Church is passing through a watershed era. I believe that as the Baby Boomers begin to fade out and Generations X and Y begin asserting our voices, yet more changes remain on the horizon. As these changes are coupled with the growth of information technology, emerging/evolving soical media, and widespread social changes, I think we’re only at the start of a larger, more complicated, more convoluted process than we may suspect.

The Roman Expression

As I read the runes, I believe that one of the coalescing centers that will have an impact on the Episcopal Church to come will be a burgeoning “Reform of the Reform” movement. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church that seeks to understand the Reforms of Vatican II within a “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than a “hermeneutic of rupture.” I.e., proponents argue that much of what occurred after the council was not in keeping with either the texts or intentions of the Council Fathers and that many of the changes (and resulting abuses) were beholden to the “Spirit of Vatican II” rather than the texts of the same. (Apparently the Spirit of Vatican II may be recognized by its penchant for felt banners, guitars, and a faux folksy style of presentation…)

One of the central public expressions of this movement is the New Liturgical Movement blog. From perusing that site one can easily be led to believe that this reform is primarily about embracing the Traditional Latin Mass and colorful processions with lots of brocade and lace. Something deeper and more substantial lies below this superficial surface, however.  As I’ve said many times before, liturgical change is fundamentally theological change. Chant, baroque vestments, and classical ceremonial point to a set of theological issues promoted by this movement which include but are not exhausted by the following items:

  • Reclaiming the liturgical heritage of the Western Church in terms of texts, music and ceremonial
  • Emphasizing the liturgy as a central locus of the faith experience and highlighting classical qualities of God-centeredness, reverence, and solemn beauty
  • Re-energizing the new liturgies promulgated by Vatican II by emphasizing the continuity with the Traditional Latin rite
  • Connecting an embrace of the liturgy with  the classic doctrines of the faith
  • Recapturing the spirituality of the Liturgical Year through the emphasis on the official chant propers that ground the Liturgical Year as a fundamentally one-year cycle despite a three-year lectionary in the Novus Ordo

The strongest parts of this movement are not (as sometimes found in the comboxes of the NLM) those who seek a roll-back of Vatican II but those who appreciate the genuine advances of the council yet seek to restrain some of the excess committed in its name.

The Episcopal Expression

I suggest that there is a “Spirit of ’79” that was born from and exists in parallel to the “Spirit of Vatican II.” That is, the 1979 BCP embodied wide-spread changes that were rooted in the scholarship of the Liturgical Renewal that was embodied in Vatican II’s Novus Ordo liturgies. Like the Spirit of Vatican II, the Spirit of ’79 has understood the generous freedoms and liberality of the ’79 BCP as a authorization of liturgical license in general rather than a provision of space for legitimate options. Furthermore, I believe that this Spirit was not simply introduced in the texts but as part of a socio-liturgical movement. It’s no secret that many current Episcopalians are former Roman Catholics. Many, especially some of the more outspoken clergy, swam the Channel because they believed Vatican II did not go far enough and that the journey further could be facilitated within the Episcopal Church.

The time has come to say “enough” to the Spirit of ’79.

As in the best expression of our Roman cousins, I believe that we need to re-assert a hermeneutic of continuity—and not rupture—and embrace the ’79 BCP within the context of classical Anglican liturgy and theology and within the historic expression of the Christian Faith which we understand to be rooted in the Canon of Scripture, the Creeds, the Apostolic Succession, and the Great Sacraments.

What I will not say is that such a movement needs to be started; it already exists albeit in a variety of fragmented forms.

Indeed, I think that an Episcopal Reform of the Reform is the true home for Anglo-Catholics who remain within the Episcopal Church; after all, they were Reform of the Reform before there was a Reform… The movement for more visible creedal orthodoxy on the part of the Episcopal Church is part of this. So is a return of 20-30 somethings who prefer their churches to look and sound like they remember church. So is a backlash against some of the more extreme expressions of liturgical license.

The issue, then, is one of connections—connecting these groups and individuals within the church to one another and helping us find a common voice.

The Common Voice

If there were a common voice for the Episcopal Reform of the Reform, what would it say? I shall offer a few points that I think I hear:

Main Points

  • Fidelity to the ’79 BCP as an authentic expression of the Historic Western Liturgy. The ’79 Book has some infelicities of sound and thought—some notably dated language in some places (yes, Prayer C, I’m looking at you)—but is nonetheless a book that stands within the Historic Western Liturgy and participates within the move ad fontes that restores both Eastern and Western elements to the liturgy. Thus, to paraphrase our Roman cousins, “Read the black; do the italics.”
  • Reorient towards the faith and practice as witnessed in the early days. I.e., reading and teaching the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. Furthermore, not just echoing their words, but learning from them how to think theologically. They used the best science of their day combined with reason directed by the Spirit and shaped by the virtues. The monastic elements of the BCP and the early Anglican attraction to pre-Scholastic monastic practices and teachings commend in my mind special attention to the thought of John Cassian and the Desert Fathers and Mothers.
  • Submission to the Rule of Life inherent in the BCP and the Liturgical Year. This means living it and searching out the riches in it rather than changing it because we fail to see its depths.

Minor Points proceeding from the Major

  • Continued use of both rites. Rite II gives us our prayer in our daily language. Rite I gives us our prayer in language that is apart from our daily language. Both are important vehicles of our Anglian spirituality and theological heritage.
  • Recover the proper place of the Daily Office. Early expressions of Anglicanism over-emphasized the Office to the detriment of the Mass. Our current American practice is an over-emphasis on the Mass to the detriment of the Office. The original intention in the early medieval period and in the Reformation attempts to recapture the early medieval scheme are a harmonious balance of the two.
  • Respect the Creeds. I.e., use them and explain them.
  • Respect the Sacraments. I.e., use them and explain them. Baptism, our inclusive sacrament, prepares us for Eucharist, our intimate sacrament.
  • Emphasize the dignity and God-wardness which is our heritage. Whether the congregation prays eastward (per the rubrics of the ’79 BCP) or facing the priest, let our common prayer be focused on God, not ourselves or the clown up front.
  • Restoring the proper place of both Anglican Chant and Plainchant.

What do you hear?

The BCP and Spiritual Adventurism

Following an interesting link at YF’s I found an interesting article. The topic is on Episcochameleonism but I’d like to pull something else out of it…

The author (a conservative Anglican priest) writes:

28 years ago when I noticed that the opening of the Eucharist was a takeoff on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I went out and ordered three sets of Greek Orthodox vestments. It was early in my Anglo-Catholic days, and I was playing one of the classic Anglo-Catholic games–more high-church than thou. Even in a diocese that described itself historically as Anglo-Catholic, I won hands down. A year or so later I discovered the born-again movement, and it was time to play some different games.

Not every Episcopal cleric plays games like I did. At the time I didn’t know it was a game, and I did not mean to play games with other people’s lives as, regrettably, I often did. The fact is I found myself playing church for a living, and I was shocked.

He identifies something here that is very important for the recent discussions on the prayer book. There is a large percentage of the current Episcopal clergy who I regard as “seekers”. That is to say, they are still looking and searching for the deep connection with God and the holy that their soul calls them too. I’d hazard a guess that many of them are clergy because it gives them an opportunity to be a full-time “religious/spiritual person” and still be able to draw a salary. Some, like the priest quoted above, do this while remaining within the prescribed boundaries of the church (canon, creed, sacraments a la Chicago-Lambeth); others, not so much…

Is this seeking or spiritual adventurism necessarily bad? Maybe not as long as an individual stays within the boundaries of the Church but definitely yes when it stops being an individual journey and is foisted on congregations.

The Book of Common Prayer is, among other things, a defense for laity against spiritual adventurism on the part of the clergy.

That having been said, it is no fail-safe. Even when the rite is followed as written, ceremonial, vestment, and other choices can still throw things off quite a bit—but let’s at least keep in place what safeguards we have!

I am sympathetic to the spiritual adventurers, being one myself to a certain degree. I have always, however, had a conviction that my own personal spirituality not be placed onto a congregation and was perhaps the most significant reason that I left the ELCA’s ordination process. (I couldn’t live with the average ELCA parish’s attitudes towards the sacraments and would have felt compelled to change it; I can live with the average Episcopal parish’s sacramental sense…) I have enormous respect for the rector under whom M served as a deacon. He was an Anglican Missal guy but the way he adapted his use was such that the congregational text was always the BCP. He was a Missal guy—but no one else had to be just because he was.

On one-hand, I’m open to legitimate spiritual adventurism on the part of the clergy in so far as it reflects necessary growth and listening to the Spirit and transformation into the Mind of Christ. On the other hand, I believe that much of it reflects a failure of our discernment and formation processes. Yes, it’s fine to deepen, but I’m seeing a lot more wandering around than rooting down. Further liberalizing the already generous and liberal options of the prayer book to endorse these behaviors is entirely unwarranted. Rather, a re-focus of the issue placing it in terms of the obedience and stability necessary for conversion of life is the ticket.

On the Epiclesis in the Western Rite

This from the learned Fr. Hunwicke:

In the Eastern rites, and in the invented Eucharistic Prayers which were introduced into both Roman Catholic and Anglican worship in the 1970s and 1980s, the Epiclesis is treated as crucially important. The Holy Spirit is invoked to come and make the elements the Body and Blood of Christ. I am not a Byzantine and I have no interest in rubbishing their ancient and noble tradition. Nor would I stand for any ‘latinising’ of their tradition. The only criticism I have is of those Byzantines who encourage an Orthodox ‘Western Rite’ in which an epiclesis has been intruded into the Roman Canon. Because the epiclesis is not our tradition. And our tradition should not be Byzantinised.

At the beginning of the 20th century, liturgists commonly believed that the epiclesis was ‘primitive’ and must somehow have got ‘lost’ from the Roman Canon. If you have a copy of Fortescue, you will find an account by him of the various theories which were held about this; and the various ingenious attempts made to ‘reconstruct’ the ‘original Roman epiclesis’.

A succession of distinguished Anglican scholars disposed of this nonsense.

. . .

Where Easterners call upon the Spirit to come down upon the elements, our ancient Western, Roman tradition asks the Lord to take his Church’s offerings to the Altar on high.

Now I am a card-carrying liturgy geek (as you may have figured out by now) but I’m the first to admit that my academic focus has been more on the medieval, the monastic, and the Office rather than Mass Intricacies which is a field of study unto itself.

Anyone care to comment either way on this quote, the original post, and theo-liturgical contents?

More on the Spring Bank Liturgies

In response to the interest generated in their new psalter and antiphoner, Br. Stephen has given us a couple of PDF peeks at it. Additionally, he does indeed verify that the English version of the psalter is the translation done for the ’79 BCP also shared by the Vatican-authorized Anglican Use book.

I was amused in the context of the current discussion to read these lines:

Anglicans today may not be quite sure who’s in communion with whom or whether they have binding positions on a number of issues, but, with 450 years of practice, they still know how to write good English liturgical prose.

Let’s not forget how to write it either…

Messing with the Prayer Book

Fr Tobias has been talking about Prayer Book changes; the post has been picked up over at Creedal Christian as well.

In my own understanding of the Benedictine roots and expression of the Episcopal Church, sticking with the texts of the authorized BCP is a matter of both stability and obedience that (quite naturally in Benedict’s ascetical theology) lead into conversion of life. As a Prayer Book Catholic I am committed to using the ’79 BCP but I sometimes find my “catholic” warring with my “prayer book”. That having been said, I entirely subscribe to what Fr. Tobias and others are saying. The American ’79 BCP is the authorized book of our Province. It is the definition of Common Prayer for American Episcopalians and as such should be regarded as the foundation of our “lived experience” and the beginning of our pathway into life with the Triune God.

Is the language used by the prayer book outside of the normal vernacular? Does it need to be fiddled with again to make it more accessible? Not to my ears—for two reasons. First, it was last revised thirty years ago. The English language has not changed that much in 30 years. (No…just…no)

Second, as someone who works primarily with language, let me say that language matters and the ways that we choose to be sloppy or precise with our language says a lot about both our action and our thought. I could, for instance, use the word “book” and most of the time it’ll get the job done. words like “manuscript” and “folio” might be synonyms in some cases—in others they mean something quite specific.  It makes quite a lot of difference if I’ve found a liturgy in a “book” or a “manuscript”. Questions of provenance, accuracy, scribal tendencies, completeness suddenly jump to the fore with “manuscript” that simply don’t exist or to a much lesser degree if I say “book”.

Similarly, I see a desire to “translate” “churchy language” as, more often than not, not only as a dumbing down but a deliberate choice in favor of imprecision and loss of meaning. Yes, I can say I’ve made a “mistake”; but don’t be confused that this is the same as saying I’ve committed a “sin”. Different words mean different things. We—okay, I—don’t use “churchy language” for the sake of “being churchy”; I use it because it’s accurate. If “mistake” would work I’d use it—but it doesn’t, so I don’t… There is a distinctive Christian vocabulary that is necessary to transmit specifically Christian thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs. It shouldn’t be used to “exclude” but if we don’t use it then we’re not transmitting the faith that we have received.

Language is acquired primarily in two ways. First by definition, second by context. From Sunday School, to Youth Group, to seminary, to graduate work, many people have defined the word “sin” for me in different ways. But I’ve also heard and seen it in literally tens of thousands of contexts which teach me far more about the word’s true meaning. That’s how vocabulary gets acquired. What, therefore, does it do if we begin dropping such language from our liturgies? Unless you equally begin editing these “churchy” terms out of, oh say, the Bible and 99.9% of English language Christian literature than you are depriving the people to whom you give a dumbed-down liturgy the tools they need to understand the Scriptures and other Christian literature.

Enough… Here endeth the rant. For now.

RBOC: Mostly Ecclesiastical

  • The Episcopal Cafe is reporting that the Bishop-Elect of N. Michigan has received too many “No” votes from Standing Committees to be confirmed. I’ll draw your attention in particualr to Dr. Carroll’s comment: “In this case, I think history will remember this as the point when the Episcopal Church began to show some backbone about basic Christian doctrine. For too long, we have allowed our respect for difference to mean anything goes. There are boundaries. . . . The danger for us has not been witch hunts. It has been an amorphous Christianity that does not adhere to the standards it sets for itself. I could see us tilting too far in the opposite direction, but there is no present danger of that.”
  • Across the Tiber, a beautiful new thing has been born: the Cistercian monastery of Spring Bank has a newly-produced psalter and antiphonary. The news and shots come courtesy of Br. Stephen’s blog which is also well worth following if you’re not already. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: with modern computer technology, there’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have liturgical works that are simultaneously beautiful and functional; this work looks to be a case-in-point. However, as I understand it, there are no plans for mass-production/publication.
  • There are mass schedule changes at Smokey Mary’s. Due to likely upcoming staffing issues (i.e., the anticipated departure of Fr. Mead), daily evening low mass will no longer be offered. I have fond memories of this service; this service (along with preceding EP) was one of the things that helped keep me going when M and Lil’ G were in Philly and I was in NYC.  Even with these reductions, however, a full rota of Morning, Noon, and Evening Prayer and a daily mass will continue to be offered. This is the pattern our prayer book lays down for us; may Smokey Mary’s long be a beacon for catholic liturgy and spirituality in the Episcopal Church.
  • Speaking of solid catholic liturgy and spirituality, I’m still reading Martin Thornton’s Christian Proficiency. I understand less and less why Morehouse (now a division of Church Publishing) who holds the copyright has let this gem go out of print. What a shame.
  • Dissertation feedback is trickling in from my readers. Looks like some minor but no major changes will be required. Fr. Director is talking about a late August/Early September defense date.

On Prayer–Individual and Corporate

I’m currently reading Martin Thornton’s Christian Proficiency, a book much discussed here at various points. My spiritual director (yes, we found it mutually agreeable despite his forth-coming swimming expedition) lent me a copy and said that the place to begin was reading this book.This section from the opening chapters jumped out at me:

The second point is that the efficeincy of the work of [the Church’s] members, its hands and legs, eyes and lips—again interpreted either universally or locally—depends entirely upon the general health of the whole Body. The redemptive channel of grace flowing from Christ on to the world—or town or parish—is not the individual Christian but the Church. Really effective prayer is not so much that of the contemplative saint and the “sincerely devout” Christian, but the total prayer of the integral Body. Two further very practical and very modern pastoral points follow: all the prayer we offer, every act of corporate worship and every “private” prayer, is but a part of the total prayer of the Church. Neither the mystical heights of the contemplative saint nor the routine office of the dullest proficient have any great value in their own right, yet both have supreme value in that they add to the prayer of the Church; they are inter-dependent, the latter shares in the former, which in turn, depends on its support.

More on the Saints:HWHM

There’s more discussion emerging on the blogs about the proposed replacement for Lesser Feasts & Fasts—Holy Women, Holy Men.

Christopher’s latest post points to both Mark Harris and Dan Martins and their debate on the issue. I made some initial comments on it here. Too, I had this work much on my mind when I wrote my recent post on the saints for the Episcopal Cafe. In that post I talked two issues primarily. The first—on whether saints needed to be baptized and conscious followers of Jesus—was directed toward Donald Schell’s previous posts. The second—on the meaning of sanctity itself and the notion of eschatological power—was directed as much if not more to the issues raised by HWHM than to Donald.

I’ve been wrestling much with this issue. The that end, I’ll tak out some of my concerns as as we move forward.

First, what are the directly theological consequences?: I’m concerned about what this document says about how we consider the dead. Do we simply have the dead we remember, the dead we emuylate, or do we still believe in the Blessed Dead? The question is equal parts Christology, ecclesiaology and pneumatology. Are those who sleep in Christ still active on our behalf or can they function and assist us only as we remember them and their deeds? Out of curiosity, I looked at one of the “new” feasts—the re-inclusion of St Cecilia—and the collects appointed. The Tridentine and Anglican Missal collects are functionally the same:

O GOD, which makest us glad with the yearly
festival of blessed Cecilia thy Virgin and
Martyr : grant, we beseech thee ; that as we do
venerate her in our outward office, so we may follow
the example of her godly conversation. Through.

A few notes… First, despite some protestant concerns, the prayer is not directed to the saint but to God. However, it does note that we “venerate” her as well as “follow the example of her godly conversation (piae conversationis; ‘godly life’ works too…)” Furthermore, the collect offers two reasons why we venerate her: she was a virgin who dedicated her life to the service of God rather then men (literally); she was a martyr who took the faith seriously enough that she died for it.

Now the new collect:

Most gracious God, whose blessed martyr Cecilia didst sing in her heart to strengthen her
witness to thee: We thank thee for the makers of music whom thou hast gifted with
Pentecostal fire; and we pray that we may join with them in creation’s song of praise until
at the last, with Cecelia and all thy saints, we come to share in the song of those
redeemed by our Savior Jesus Christ; who with thee and the Holy Spirit livest and
reignest, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

A quite different collect with a different emphasis and theology. “Martyr” remained in (I’m pleasantly surprised…), “Virgin” did not (no surprise). The heart of the collect, though, is to use Cecilia as a particular example of a general group: “the makers of music”. The collect is really about these and not Cecilia. No veneration, no example, rather a hope that we join with makers of music now and “at the last”.

Skipping down a couple of days to St John of the Cross (I don’t understand Friar John’s compaint—this date is the Tridentine one) we see a similar thing. Here’s the old collect:

O GOD, who didst give to thy blessed Confessor
Saint John, grace to shew forth a singular
love of perfect self-denial and of carrying thy
Cross : grant, we beseech thee ; that we, cleaving
steadfastly to his pattern, may attain to everlasting
glory. Through.

And now the new:

Judge eternal, throned in splendor, who gavest Juan de la Cruz strength of purpose and
mystical faith that sustained him even through the dark night of the soul: Shed thy light
on all who love thee, in unity with Jesus Christ our Savior; who with thee and the Holy
Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Once again, Juan de la Cruz becomes a particular example of a general group (“all who love thee”) and neither his intercessions nor example are asked for us.

To summarize: In these collects selected at random there’s no intercession and even the idea of following the saint’s example is not explicit. Rather, the saints are particular instances of a general group upon whom we ask God’s favor. Thus, the saints are not isolated as examples but highlighted as specific instances of general groups.

Second, what is the direct liturgical effect of these additions?: The sanctoral cycle, its size and scope, has always been an issue in Christian liturgy. Saints continue to be made in every age. As a result, the ever-growing company constantly impacts our celebrations and meditations upon the temporal cycle. The Reformation answer was clear and reflected a backlash against the late medieval cult of the saints. In most places they were abolished entirely in others, cut back severely. However, moves like this had already been afoot in the Roman church. The principle of local kalendars had always ensured that local folks were venerated and certain unconnected foreigners were always dropped or lowered in rank. Too, at every major Roman liturgical change—starting at Trent— the sanctoral has been pruned back, most recently at Vatican II.

One of the ways that the growth of the Sanctorale was managed was by using ranks. Some saints were doubles having certain liturgical implications, others were semis or simples, having other and lesser liturgical implications. Practically, this meant that saints could be added or retained and the greater shape of the Temporale would be less severly impacted. That’s not the case in HWHM, however; we have egalitarian sanctity:

Other provinces of the Anglican Communion have gone to laddered options within their calendars – Red Letter days, Black Letter days, and collects referred to common propers. For nearly half a century our pattern has been one of more equality, with collects and propers for all. We did not presume to break this Church’s traditional pattern.

and also:

8. Levels of Commemoration: Principal Feasts, Sundays and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).

One of the reasons why Cranmer cut back the Sanctorale was because it so greatly complicated the praying of offices and masses. You had to work out the liturgical calculus as to what bits to use for which folks on which days—especially if there were occurrence or concurrence issues.

Well, with this multiplication of the Sanctorale those begin coming back, except without the range of options for handling them. How are we supposed to use and celebrate these saints? It’s not clear and the book doesn’t give us guidance. I’ve always argued that, following the Cranmerian path, the biblical lessons provided are to be used at masses, not offices. Anything else breaks too severely the Daily Office lectionary’s (already abbreviated) pattern. Using these as office readings would destroy it entirely. I argue, therefore, that the collects alone be used in the Office and sometimes even as commemorations as occasions warrant (i.e., an additional collect after the Collect of the Day).

Third, are we venerating those who we believe are in the Church Triumphant, the company of the Blessed Dead, or are we remembering famous (or “oughta-be” famous) Christians?: I won’t say much more on this but to refer you back to my Cafe post.

Fourth, where are the Martyrs?: As Christopher notes, “the major lay category is now ‘Prophetic Witness'”. This concerns me because historically the largest lay category has been the Martyrs. A church that honors and remembers the martyrs is a church that remembers that its faith is both serious and sacred. Our ancestors died for it. They gave themselves to the flames, the sword, and the lions rather than desert it or alter its essences. How seriously do we take it? How willing are we to change it and, if change it we do, do we hold trust with the blood that has been shed in its defense?

To put a finer point on it, what doe s it say about the aims and theologies of our church where “prophetic witnesses” are multiplied—that a central function of the church is to change society, especially through its external fabric (laws, policies, etc.).  I don’t disagree that this is a task of the church, to serve as the conscience of a society, but I see an insidious either/or that equates holy change with political action. To get all H. Richard Neibuhr on it, it would seem that the dominant paradigm is “Christ transforming culture” and that it occurs pre-eminently on the political level.

I’d remind us that the transformation of Roman society was not begun, supported nor achieved through primarily political means. The martyrs, their witness, their fidelity also transformed it profoundly. Tertullian is correct: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”.

Fifth, What is a Prayer Book Catholic to do?: I’m not happy. With all due respect to those assembled in this resource, I don’t believe that all of them are members of the Church Triumphant. Furthermore, I don’t believe that these collects direct us appropriately to the life in Christ as the Western Historical Liturgy has traditionally done.  My “Prayer Book” and my “Catholic” are in conflict. That is, as a “Prayer Book” Anglican I confess that our current authorized prayer book really does stand in continuity with and participates in an authentic and legitimate expression of the  Historic Liturgy  of the West. I have real doubts about this supplement, though, and its implementation of both the historic liturgy and the catholic faith. On one level, it’s really not a problem. Looking at the prayer book itself, all of these observances fall into kalendar section 5: “optional observances”. IOW, we’re allowed to pick and choose. This makes my “Prayer Book” happy. But it doesn’t make my “Catholic” happy.

I’m considering  retaining all official Prayer Book feasts and observing the Roman Universal kalendar as my category 5.

Clergy Education/Clergy Graduation

I was listening to NPR this morning and a segment ran on job availablity. Of course, the news is not good in an economy of this sort. What did prick up my ears was discussion technical/trade schools.  One of the scenario that cropped up was people going to technical school to gain marketable skills either before or during doing to college for a regular 4 year degree. I find this both fascinating and quite sound.

I’ve always had to work. My entire graduate school career has been self-supporting. I never undertook technical training but have coasted on an accident of history; my dad built our first computer in the basement when I was 5. I grew up with computers ahead of the curve of the Information Age and, as a result, have always been able to get decent computer work. Thus, I’ve had the skills.

I’ve also had the willingness to work even if it meant outside my training and below my skill set. In some of our rough patches when my day-to-day job wasn’t making ends meet I’ve done everything from tutoring Latin to working as a night-cashier in a grocery store. No job is “below me” if it’s going to keep food on our table and a roof over our heads.

At a meet-up over the weekened with some of our GTS-educated clergy friends, one had just returned from graduation in New York. She informed us that only half of the graduating students had jobs.

Half.

Will news like this become the new “normal” in our ever-emerging post-Constantinian state? How about if the economy stays the way it is—or gets worse? (btw, how’s the price of oil and gasoline been trending recently? yeah…) Will bivocational clergy like our colleague Fr. Bob become more common and more necessary especially as tanked/depressed stocks take their effect upon endowments?

It’s easy to say that this indicates that Commissions on Ministry are simply sending too many people to seminary. But that doesn’t quite work either. Seminaries need the influx of a certain critical mass who pays a certain rate of tuition or they go all Seabury-Western on us.

When that happens, we get deeper into a trend already on the rise:  less than half of Episcopal seminarians are attending Episcopal institutions. What does this mean for the maintenance of an “Anglican ethos” or “Episcopal formation”?

As an institution, the Episcopal Church needs to do some hard thinking about education for ministry. What is looks like now; what it will look like a decade from now. This is too important, though, to leave up to a nebulous “them.” We need to be thinking about it and talking about it. I do think we will eventually move to more local options (initial thoughts, more thoughts). And that simply underscores for me the need that we have for good, clear, effective catechesis on the local level. Formation can’t start in seminary; it must start in the parishes first.

On the Saints

I’ve got a piece up at the Cafe responding to Donald’s pieces on the saints. Clearly the saints are an topic where there is a lot of latitude with Anglicanism. I don’t think polemics are the way to go here and as a result my article takes an irenic tone and strives to show how the a proper theology of saints is rooted in Christology and ecclesiology.

Baptism is at issue here. There have been and are lots of wonderful people in the world worthy of emulation. But, as I’ve been taught it, being baptized and choosing to conform to Christ (rather than general principles of goodness) lie at the heart of Christian sanctity.