AskThePriest.org

Lent Madness - An Ecumenical Junta?

This reporter has come across disconcerting news after intercepting personal correspondence to Scott Gunn, President of Forward Movement.  Lent Madness, supposedly a tool for learning about the saints during the time of Lent, is actually a front for a startling ecumenical power grab!  A Methodist pastor in Waukesha, WI narrowly avoided bodily harm from a booby-trapped Lent Madness mug!  To quote the Rev. Kris Androsky of First United Methodist Church:

"However, when my mug arrived, I was appalled that my ecumenical sense of duty was not reciprocated.  I simply could not believe that you, personally, would do such damage to a new and budding ecumenical relationship!  The mug was wrapped in approximately 25 layers of bubble wrap, yet the handle was still broken off of the mug.  I've attached a photo for you to see that I am telling the complete and utter  truth.  It is very clear to me that you, personally, chose to send me a mug that obviously had an explosive device planted on it.  I cannot think of any other possibility considering all the bubble wrap yet damaged goods.  I can only thank God that the mug did not explode after I had opened the box as a shard might have flown into my eye and made me blind, like Lucy."

It is apparent to this reporter that Lent Madness is nothing but a front for an Ecumenical Junta, with the Supreme Executive Committee as the evil puppet masters!  The Crusty Old Dean was right!  Ecumenical colleages, DO NOT OPEN YOUR LENT MADNESS SHIPMENTS!

Here we have an exclusive photo of the evil masterminds of the Supreme Executive Committee of Lent Madness in their secluded lair plotting to bring the Methodist Church back into the Anglican fold by their infernal mug-based Coup de Main.

Tim Schenk is staring into a lucite replica of Asbury's skull (It's transparent, so you can't see it - but he's clearly holding it), representing the nefarious plan.  Scott Gunn is saying "Word!" which is the keyphrase which touches off hypnotic suggestions planted in Forward Movement employees to start shipping explosive mugs by their tens of thousands.

(I have also learned that it was extremely difficult to keep everyone at Forward Movement Publications from using the term "Word" and accidentally setting the terrible plot in motion early.  Fortunately for their evil schemes, Scott holds that kind of mind-bending power.)

Related articles

Lent Madness is Coming!

Marriage, Matrimony, and Same Sex Blessings

One of the questions everyone is asking about the approval of a provisional rite for same-sex blessings is how it changes our understanding of marriage. It's a complex question, and I'll start with defining "Marriage" and "Matrimony. " These are often used interchangeably in both the culture and the church, but I'm going to define these just for use within this post.

"Marriage" is a civil affair binding two individuals together legally. This is the ancient definition of marriage which predates Christianity.

"Matrimony" is a sacrament, or sacramental rite, or has no religious status at all, depending on your time period and which strain of Christianity you belong to. It's important to note that matrimony can be seen as kind of a "Junior Sacrament" due to its relative newness.

Jesus spoke of the of the permanence of marriage, but not the moral goods. Paul saw marriage as a poor second to celibacy, as did most early Christians. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 385 or so) was one of the first to see a possibility of divine work within marriage equal to that of celibacy, in that it trained people in impermanence.

The role of the church in marriage only began to pick up when it became the established religion of the Roman Empire. As ministers became civil officials, they took on civil roles, including solemnizing marriages. The church slowly began to develop a sacramental theology of matrimony. By the early Middle Ages, marriages begin to be celebrated in churches. By the late Middle Ages, marriage and matrimony combined as the church took over many of the civil functions of the defunct empire and became the sole purveyor of marriages.

This is the confused understanding of marriage and matrimony that we inherit - one born of a confusion of religion and civil government. Clergy in the United States that perform marriages function simultaneously as religious and civil officials. It's important to note that the center group of one of our most cherished American myths, the puritans fleeing religious persecution, believed that marriage was a purely civil affair and rejected any sacramentality around it.

In the modern situation, we face our old confusion. While Europe has separated civil marriage from religious matrimony, The United States continues to conflate the two. This gets especially difficult as the civil authorities redefine (or one could say refuse to define in specific gender terms) what marriage is. In many states, same-sex marriage is legal, while in others same-gender unions are legal, while in others constitutional amendments make such civil recognition impossible.

It is into this morass that the Episcopal Church wades. There is a cultural expectation that when you celebrate the sacramental rite of matrimony in church, you are married in the eyes of the state. Our canons state that matrimony is between one man and one woman. So what exactly is happening in a same-sex blessing? Is it matrimony or not? Is it marriage or not?

The response of the church with a proposed rite allows us to address the varied situation in the United States. It seems to me that the rites are clearly NOT matrimony. For them to be so, we would have had to alter the canons. There are those that say, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck." This line of reasoning points out that since there are vows and an exchange of rings, it looks too much like matrimony to be anything else. But this completely disregards a regular part of our religious life in the Episcopal Church, namely that of monastic vows. Those rites within the various religious orders of the Episcopal Church also have vows and sometimes include a ring but almost always include some token of the vows. While matrimonial language is sometimes employed metaphorically (I.e. "Bride of Christ") no one would claim that such vows are the sacramental rite of matrimony. Saying that liturgical similarity implies sacramental correspondence ignores this important part of our tradition. Saying that monastic rites are not sacramental just because they are not matrimony would be a rather startling assertion. The same could be said of same-sex blessing rites. Just because they don't fit the category of one of the sacramental rites does not mean they are not sacramental in nature.

What the rites definitely are is a recognition of a covenanted relationship between two people, of which there are many precedents in history. How they interact with marriage and matrimony will vary from place to place. In places where same-sex marriage is legal, it will mean that a clergy person will not be celebrating matrimony, but MAY be solemnizing a civil marriage. In places when same-sex marriage is not legal, a Clergy person will neither be celebrating matrimony, nor solemnizing a civil marriage, but simply blessing a covenanted relationship. In many places, the rites will not be used at all because the diocesan bishop will not authorize their use. This flexibility is necessary at this time, not only due to theological diversity, but due to legal issues with civil marriage in many states.

There may be those, both for and opposed, that will insist that this really IS matrimony. There could be truth in that, since matrimony is a sacramental rite in which the couple itself are the ministers. The priest only adds the Church's blessing to their sacramental action in the vows. Thus, it could be matrimony whether the church believes it or not. (Though technically, if the church does not recognize it, it may be sacramental, but it is not a sacramental rite.)

What the church will do in the future is unclear. We may move towards accepting same-sex rites as being matrimony by adapting the Prayer Book rite and changing the canons. Or the GLBT community may decide that what they are doing is something other than matrimony (A position I have heard articulated by several GLBT individuals.) In any case, the current rites provide something for a time in which we need to address various needs in multiple contexts.

David+

Posted with Blogsy

Tuscon: Liturgies of Anger

The rhetoric rages over the shootings in Tuscon this weekend.  What role did incendiary political speech play in the tragedy?  Both sides are rushing to assign and avoid blame.  The left correctly points to the "Targets" of Sarah Palin and Jesse Kelly's "Shoot an M16 to remove Gabrielle Giffords" event as adding to a generalized political fervor of violence.  The right correctly points out that Jared Loughner was disturbed and that his actions cannot be directly attributed to their rhetoric.  However, for those of us who work in the liturgical church, we know how a repeated message can change a life for good or for ill.

The liturgies of our traditions, whether in the parish church or in monastic enclosure, are designed to steep the person in our tradition.  Over time, as you internalize the prayers and readings of liturgical Christianity, they become part of you.  They come to the fore in conversation and in times of decision-making.  They change you in a (hopefully) positive way as you become more sensitive to the needs of those around us and the poorest in our society.  Christian liturgy is based in hope, faith, and love, and the function of good liturgy is not only to glorify God, but to transform us into becoming better Christians.

But while we believe the Holy Spirit is at work in a unique way in our liturgies, the idea of repetition making something part of you is a human technology, not something that liturgy holds a monopoly on.  Such technology is routinely used for ill, such as brainwashing into cults and terrorist groups.  
It is true that there is no direct correspondence between a mediascape where it is possible to listen, read, and watch vitriolic speech that demonizes the other 24/7 and the act of an insane person.

 However, for those of us who have watched liturgy transform people for good, it is inescapable to conclude that the stories we are immersed in make a huge difference in people's development.  Constant exposure to overtly-violent speech creates a mindset where real violence is conceivable, and is more than simple coincidence as some have suggested.

Therefore, those whose rhetoric is violence-filled SHOULD feel at least partially responsible for acts such as those in Tuscon.  While they don't bear direct responsibility, they need to own up to the fact that they are acting as liturgists of hate whether they intend to be or not.  

Jesus used the parable of the sower, and it is illustrative in this case.  When we sow seeds of hope, some of those land on poor soil and simply wither.  This is the way of the world.  However, when we sow seeds of hate and anger, those seeds land in that normally-infertile ground, take root, and sprout.  Our politicians need to think about what kind of seed they are sowing, what kind of liturgy are they celebrating, and whether they are trading the future of a country that is based in compromise for their own short-term gain at the polls.  

David+

Synod, ACNA and the FCE - A narrowly-avoided theological misstep

 In its Synod Wednesday (2/10/10), the Church of England (CofE) voted to "recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) to remain within the Anglican family."  I am encouraged by the fact that the language used here is "Anglican Family," which is novel and rather vague, and may simply mean people who use a BCP and drink Sherry.  However, I'm not sure that the members of Synod understand how close they came to a theological misstep by considering full communion by ACNA.  This misstep revolves around an incomplete understanding of just who ACNA is, which is apparent from the motion itself.  In the first resolve, the synod states that they are, "aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada."  The implication here is that ACNA is made up completely of former members of the The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada who have left recently over issues of human sexuality.  This is a false implication.  Some of the member churches of ACNA have been separated from the Anglican Communion for decades over issues having nothing to do with human sexuality.  Many members and clergy of ACNA congregations have NEVER been members of TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada.  Creating a state of full communion would have endorsed groups whose theology could have created problems for the CofE.

A primary example is the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).  The REC was formed in 1873 by the Assistant Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky, George David Cummins (I wrote a blog entry on this last year). Its theology denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Baptismal Regeneration.  The REC is a founding member church in ACNA, existing alongside the ultra Anglo-Catholic former TEC Diocese of Fort Worth.  Speculations on how that can possibly work is outside the pale of this post. But that's an American problem, right?  Well, it might be, if the REC had not joined into full communion with a disaffected splinter of the CofE in 1927, the Free Church of England (FCE).  The REC performed a “boundary crossing” and intruded into the sphere of the CofE by consecrating FCE bishops into Apostolic Succession.

Now, Ecumenical agreements do not necessarily extend to other partners, so it is not correct to say that if the Synod of the CofE extended full communion to ACNA, they would be extending full communion automatically to FCE.  However, by entering into full communion with ACNA, they would be signaling that the major theological differences with mainstream Anglicanism that has kept the REC apart from TEC for over a hundred years are negligable to them.  These differences are major enough and the separation long enough that TEC was in an ecumenical dialogue with REC until the formation of ACNA – each considered the other a separate denomination.  If the CofE endorsed REC theology, it would be implicitly endorsing FCE theology.  (Confused?  Enough abbreviations yet?)

How could this be overlooked?  Probably because many members of Synod consider this an "American problem" and don't understand the history of Anglicanism in America well enough.  Many more are probably unaware of the ACNA-REC-FCE connection. In any case, it is good that synod declined to act on full communion until they had more information.  I hope that this issue can be brought to light. The idea that ACNA is made up completely of Episcopalians who have recently left the church is simply a convenient untruth. 

David+

New Podcast Item - Rebuilding A Cathedral of Compassion

New Podcast Item

A sermon by the Rev. David Simmons. The Episcopal Church of today is not the church of power and influence it was a generation ago. This is a natural consequence of the Church beginning to see the Gospel as something that requires us to take positions on issues of human rights. We are still in the process of rebuilding who we are. (And yes, I am aware that I get the date of MLK's visit to the National Cathedral wrong - I'm preaching without notes.)

The podcast item can be found here.

The podcasting feed can be found on the sidebar or at: http://podcast.askthepriest.org and is listed in the iTunes, Odeo and podcast.net directories.

More information & podcasting software can be found at http://www.ipodder.org

Donate now to Episcopal Relief and Development's Haiti fund. 

 Haitian Church Steps In During Wait for Aid 1/20/2010

In earthquake-stricken Haiti, an Episcopal bishop is providing relief to as many survivors as he can while they wait for the arrival of official aid. Jean Zache Duracin speaks with WSJ's Charles Forelle on how he's trying to help.

The Episcopal Church's Response to the Haitian Disaster

Where is God in the Haitian Earthquake?

A video by contributing author Frank Logue in response to Pat Robertson's heretical comments about the relationship between sin and the Haitian earthquake.

Roman Revisions Revealed

This morning, the Vatican Released the text of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which provides for disaffected Anglicans entering into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

The document appears to clear up some questions and leave a few loose ends to be answered. For my commentary on who, where and why this was issued, see my post here. Let's look at some of the questions and how they appear to be answered. A caveat - I'm no expert on Roman canon law, so there could be some nuances I am not catching.

1. Whose authority will these churches be under?
This is a little more Vatican-centered than I had initially understood. It appears that while the national conferences of bishops is consulted, that the authority to establish them lies with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The ordinary (bishop) is chosen by the Pope and answers directly to him. Therefore, the national conferences appear to have very little to do with the regular governance of the ordinariate. Therefore, this looks a little more like Opus Dei than military chaplaincies. I can't imagine this will be very popular with sitting diocesan bishops.

2. Can their priests be married?
The ordinary is to ordain only celibate men to the priesthood. I don't know the references to other documents, but I assume they affirm that bishops must be celibate as well. Married Anglican ministers can be accepted as candidates to Holy Orders on a case-by-case basis. So no, this church within a church will not would not appear to have the ability to raise up and ordain married seminarians, although the Complimentary Norms are a little unclear.

Upon reading the Complimentary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution, it appears that married Anglican bishops are to be re-ordained as priests. They can then be appointed as the ordinary, although not ordained as a bishop. The quasi-bishop then has jurisdictional authority and is seated as a retired bishop in the college of bishops, but does not have the sacramental authority of a bishop (i.e. to ordain).

3. Will Anglican Priests have to be re-ordained?
Yes. This has absolutely no effect on Apostolicae Curae.

4. Can churches in the Ordinariate use the Book of Common Prayer?
Still unclear. The constitution says that

"the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."

"Which have been approved by the Holy See" is the operative phrase here. In the history of Anglican-Use parishes in America, this has meant the Book of Divine Worship, which has elements of the 1928 and 1979 BCP with altered eucharistic language to reflect RC Dogma. Whether the pope will authorize a BCP wholesale without revision has yet to be seen, but seems unlikely.

5. Will members of the Ordinariate have to accept the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception?
Yes. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate."

From what I can tell, the only difference between this and the Anglican-Use provisions that have been in effect in America since 1980 is at the level of the diocese and bishop. Otherwise, they are just expanding this provision world-wide.

So those who go to Rome will have to be re-ordained, submit to absolute papal authority, accept all Roman Dogma (even the novel ones of the last 200 years), cannot raise up married men to the priesthood, and will most likely have to use a modified version of the Book of Common Prayer. One has to ask the question, What are the "Treasures of the Anglican Tradition" that the Pope seeks to retain within these ordinariates? Evensong? Is that it?

David+

Technorati Tags: Anglican, Christianity, ecclesiology, Episcopal, Religion, roman catholic, vatican