musings of a young priest

Farewell to the Blogosphere

2005-08-29T23:12:00.000-05:00

Due to the scarcity of my posts recently, I imagine that there are few, if any, who countenance this blog anymore. But to the few who might stop by I must leave with this farewell message (at least in terms of blogging).

You see, I came to a realization. Originally this blog was meant to be a forum for my "musings," hence the title of the blog. But I realize now that, at least for me, any musing that is worth recording is worth recording in a personal journal or perhaps in personal correspondence with other people. This is to say nothing against those who have found blogging a meaningful and productive way to share their thoughts and insights and analyses of current trends in any number of disciplines. Indeed there are many who have "mastered" the art of blogging and have made quite a name for themselves in the process. But for me personally, I have found that the old-fashioned disciplines of journal keeping and personal letters are the best way to record the "musings" that pass through this sometimes thick skull.

So, while I hope to remain an active reader and participant in the realm of blogs, I must sign off as the author of this one. Many thanks to those who have read and commented. May the Lord bless you and keep you always.

RED+

The Great Justification

2005-06-22T14:31:00.000-05:00

Well folks, here it is. The Windsor Report asked for it, and the ACC got it. "To Set our Hope on Christ" is the theological response to the Windsor Report's invitation that ECUSA submit a theological rationale for its insistence in engaging in communion-breaking activities. It can be found (among other places, I'm sure) here for download as a PDF document. I will try to read it in the next few days, but I can already tell that I'm in for a frustrating read as I was already fuming at the end of +Frank's introduction in which he commends the Spirit of Truth for guiding us into new truths out the riches of "Christ who is our Truth." Our Truth? I believe Jesus said that he was the Truth. But there lies the rub, right? I suppose I should have expected nothing less from a committed pluralist/relativist.

On a more joyful, and I suppose quite appropriate note, a blessed St. Alban's day to all. St. Alban, for those who are not familiar, is venerated as the first martyr (protomartyr) of Britain. He was a pagan Roman soldier living in the Roman city of Verulamium, to the northeast of London. He was converted by a Christian priest who sought and gained shelter from Alban during a widespread persecution by the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian. When the authorities discovered the priest's whereabouts, Alban insisted on taking the priest's cloak and turning himself in. He was tortured and beheaded in the year 304. The Venerable Bede tells a moving tale of the man whose duty it was to execute Alban. He was overcome with "terror from God" and cast away his sword, "desiring rather to die with the Martyr or for the Martyr." The executioner was beheaded there with Alban on this date in 304.

Holy Alban, pray for us.

True Romance

2005-06-15T15:00:00.000-05:00

Mr. and Mrs. Percy Arrowsmith

This English couple just celebrated their 80th wedding anniversary on June 1. 80 years!! Now that's a great love story. You can have the torrid affairs of TV and movies and the 1-5 year "marriages" of Hollywood, I don't want them. I'll take the story of a man and woman who said "til death do us part" and meant it...for 80 years.

Truly this couple meant it because today, two weeks after their 80-year anniversary, Mr. Arrowsmith died at home with his beloved wife by his side. He was 105 and she is 100.

You can read about it here, along with some rather flat and uninspiring words from the Anglican Bishop of Hereford.

Now, of course, I didn't know them, and have no idea of how their 80 years together panned out. But I do know that "romance" doesn't keep two people together for 80 years, love does. Love that stands by vows and committments made. Love that dies to self so that the other can grow. Love that says "til death do us part," and then sticks around until death.

May this couple be an inspiration to all married persons in their vocation of being one in the Lord. Please pray for the repose of Mr. Arrowsmith's soul and for his grieving wife and family.

May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. And may light perpetual shine them. Amen.

It's a small world

2005-06-13T13:04:00.000-05:00

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Remember that line near the beginning of Last Crusade. Professor Jones is teaching a class in the lecture hall and he says this:

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall."

Well, I met Dr. Tyree yesterday. He lives in Macomb, IL, and attends St. George's Episcopal Church, where I was the supply priest. He is a very kindly and distinguished old gentleman who is small of stature and always wears his rather eccentric scarf around. The Deacon of the parish pointed him out to me and said that he was the man on whom that particular line in the movie was based.

And being a huge Indiana Jones fan, I thought that was the coolest thing in the world. I wanted to get a picture with him to put on the blog, but I didn't have a camera with me, so you'll just have to trust me on this one. He, of course, doesn't actually appear in the film, they simply used his name.

"Cranking 'em out"

2005-06-12T21:58:00.000-05:00

Whew! It's been quite a weekend in the Diocese of Quincy! Two new priests ordained and instituted as Rectors in two days.

Fr. Michael Brooks and Fr. David Wagner are two recent grads of Nashotah House. Fr. Michael was ordained yesterday on the feast of St. Barnabas and Fr. David was ordained this evening.

Fr. Brooks is the Rector of St. Peter's Church in Canton, IL, and Fr. Wagner is the Rector of St. John's, Kewanee, IL, and its parochial mission, the Church of the Transfiguration in Princeton.

You can find info on these parishes at our Diocesan website: www.dioceseofquincy.org

The ordinations/institutions were glorious. There is something pretty incredible about the fullness of the Body of Christ gathered together when all orders are present to offer the Holy Sacrifice with their Bishop. Bishop Ackerman's sermons were powerful and inspiring, and renewed all the priests (well, at least my) desire to serve our Lord with fervency and sacrificial love. What an amazing feeling it is to know that as we gathered around the ordinands to sing the Veni Creator Spiritus and join the Bishop in laying on hands we were entering into an act that has been done by the Church for ages and ages.

It's good to be the Church.

Please pray for these two men as they enter into exciting and challenging parish ministries.

Pax Vobiscum

RED+

St. Barnabas the Apostle

2005-06-11T12:18:00.000-05:00

St. Barnabas the Apostle

Please pray for my friend Michael Brooks, who, God willing, will be ordained a priest in Christ's One, Holy, Cathlolic, and Apostolic Church today at 2:00pm

St. Ephrem of Edessa

2005-06-10T10:28:00.000-05:00

St Ephrem of Edessa

THE PRAYER OF SAINT EPHREM THE SYRIAN

O Lord and Master of my life,take from me the spirit of sloth, despondency,lust of power, and idle talk; But grant rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother; for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Interesting...

2005-06-08T12:45:00.000-05:00

This is from the blog of a newly-ordained Roman Catholic priest:

Consistency: via The Curt Jester

Consistency

1. Crucifix in a jar of urine - Art to be protected.

2. Elephant dung on a picture of the Madonna - Art to be protected.

3. Accidental urine over spray on a Koran via an air duct - High crime to be denounced by the major media.

The soldier who did this and who was subsequently relieved and sent to guard the gate instead should have claimed he was a performance artist.

To playing Martin Luther in Wittenburg...

2005-06-07T17:29:00.000-05:00

You can find it all at your Episcopal Church!!

What it is about Episcoheretics and "Theses?" First we had to deal with Spong's 12 Theses and now Mr. Fox has come up with 95. Do these guys really think they're going to go down in history the same way Luther and other reformers did? It seems to me quite arrogant and presumptuous to even call what they're putting out there "theses." I suppose that's technically a correct term, but clearly they mean it in a deeper sense. They see themselves as groundbreaking reformers of a Christianity in danger of dying out for its "fundamentalism (a catch-all term for those who don't agree with them)."

It's quite sad, really. The fact of the matter is that centuries from now the works of these men will be as familiar to Christians as the works of the heresiarchs of ages past are today. Who reads Arius today apart from patristic scholars?

Such energy and emotion spent on tearing down the house than cannot fall in order to put up a house of cards that will inevitably blow away forever. What a pity. And their teaching isn't even cutting edge or original. Same old tired blathering we've been hearing since the 1960s ("we" in a collective sense...of course I didn't hear anything in the 60's because I wasn't born until 1977...).

Usquequo, Domine?

From clowning around with the Holy Eucharist...

2005-06-07T17:28:00.000-05:00

Beginning another year

2005-06-06T13:23:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, June 5, which is normally the Feast of St. Boniface (but not this year because it fell on a Sunday) marked the one year anniversary of my ordination to the Holy Priesthood. Only 29 more to go until I can retire (ha,ha). Please pray for me that I may faithfully obey the will of Our Lord and serve his Church with reverence, love, and holy joy.

pax vobiscum,

RED+

St. Paul's Vision

2005-06-04T14:08:00.000-05:00

Acts 9:1-9

"Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

This text tells the story of St. Paul's dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus. Of course, Paul was not looking to be converted to Christ. He was, rather, in hot pursuit of followers of the Way, armed with credentials from the high priest and a passionate resolve to see this "Way" wiped out completely.

The story that unfolds in these few verses is one that has much to say about the nature of the Church and the nature of conversion.

I had never noticed this before reading A. M. Ramsey's The Gospel and the Catholic Church, but Jesus tells Saul that he is the one Saul is persecuting. He doesn't say "I am Jesus, whose disciples you are persecuting," or "I am Jesus, whose Way you are persecuting." In this simple post-ascension "I am" statement, the Lord Jesus identifies himself with his Church. The Church is not simply a group of people who follow Jesus. The Church is in a very real way united to her Lord. It's not surprising that Saul would hear these words and later be the one to develop the idea of the Church as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians) with Christ as the Head (Ephesians, Colossians).* This has tremendous implications of how the Church is to order her life. Simply put, she is to order her life in the same way a human body orders itself...by listening to and obeying the commands that come from the head. Life in the Church is nothing less than sharing in the life of God in Christ, or "partaking of the divine nature (1 Peter 1:4)." A church that orders its life apart from living union with Christ, body and head, is no church at all. When a church sells its birthright for a "mess of pottage (Heb. 12:16)" it loses its place in the line of inheritance. The lifeblood that keeps body and head united throughout the centuries is called Holy Tradition. When this is ignored, changed, or discarded, it is to drain the blood and replace with embalming fluid, which appropriately enough, only serves the dead, and that by making them look better. But they're still dead.

Jesus, when he appeared to that great theologian-to-be of the Church, laid the foundation by identifying himself with that Church. To persecute the Way was to persecute Christ himself. And so today, to depart from the Way as it has been handed down is to depart from Christ himself.

This passage also gives some interesting insight into the nature of conversion. The stereotypical evangelical approach ( and I mean stereotypical...not necessarily typical) is to "present the gospel" and then seal the deal with a "decision" for Christ. Without denying the necessity of a personal embrace of the truth of the gospel, it needs to be said that conversion is a process. Paul heard the living voice of the One for whom he would from henceforth live...and die. And yet, even with that unmediated encounter, Paul was blinded for a period of three days before he was completely enlightened. Why was Paul blinded? Shouldn't his eyes have immediately been opened after encountering the Lord Jesus? No, for the light of Christ was so bright that it simply allowed him to see how in the dark he really was. Those who are in complete darkness must first have their eyes opened to darkness itself before they can see the Light as He really is. Perhaps this is why the early Church was so committed to the Catechumenate as a requirement for Holy Baptism.

All dressed up and no folks to celebrate for...

2005-06-03T09:59:00.000-05:00

This is the third week in a row.

Since as a Diocesan staff priest I have no parochial assignment, the Cathedral where I have my office has graciously given me the Altar every week on Friday. This is actually to the Cathedral staff's advantage, as the clergy here take Friday as their day off, whereas I take Monday off. So
it's a great deal for both parties...at least when someone shows up.

I showed up to set out the vessels, light the candles, vest prayerfully, and begin Matins by myself (which is not unusual). Usually those who are coming to Mass show up during the recitation of the Psalter or the readings. So, as I prayed the prayer of St. Chrysostom toward the end of the Office, I realized that, again, I was alone and no one would be coming for the Holy Mysteries...for the third week in a row.

My feelings about this are certainly colored by the flesh. As a priest, I look forward to every opportunity to offer the Holy Sacrifice, and am understandably disappointed when that opportunity is missed due to lack of interest of the laity. And I feel what is certainly an unfounded fear that perhaps no one comes because they don't like me...after all, people come during the rest of the week. But as I thought and reflected today in the silence and solitude of the Lady Chapel before the Blessed Sacrament, I realized that maybe I was sensing more than just human disappointment.

Christ longs to have fellowship with his Bride just as she should long to have fellowship with him. The Holy Eucharist is the highest form of that fellowship here on earth. It is the pledge and foretaste of the consummation of the Church's union with Christ in heaven. So perhaps I sensed from the Lord a disappointment that on these particular days not one person could be bothered to come and partake of the Divine food. I realize that life is busy now, but isn't that more reason to start the day at the Altar?

Oh well, I guess this will all be taken care of in eternity, where EVERYONE (who accepted the invitation, that is) will be at Mass ALL the time.

Pax Vobiscum,

RED+

A bit of humor...

2005-05-11T13:49:00.000-05:00

Times as discouraging as ours require that we step back and dare to laugh a bit. Here's something that made me chuckle...

You may be an Anglo-Catholic if …

If you believe that Sacraments are to be administered, not passed around.

If you hold the doctrine that whatever is worth doing is worth overdoing.

You think of the Wippel's catalog as liturgical porn.

You get more exercise genuflecting, kneeling, and prostrating than running, jogging, or walking.

Most of the volumes in your library have been out of print for over a century.

The primary causes of your violating the Tenth Commandment are found on the pages of
Wippell's.

You'd consider going over to Rome if it didn't mean giving up being catholic.

On hearing the parable of the Good Samaritan, you wonder what the priest and the Levite were
wearing.

On Easter morning, the men of your parish wear more lace than the women.

You believe that the current controversies over the Bishopric of Jerusalem, the Open Pulpit Canon, the ordination of women, the new Prayer Book, and the Bishop of New Hampshire can be settled amicably but that the Alcuin Club and the Society of SS. Peter & Paul may need separate provinces.

You believe that 'old-time religion' was what we had before Pius XII started mucking around
with Holy Week.

You'll fight to the death for the 1928 Prayer Book, provided it's never actually used.

You are willing to receive a visitation from your bishop, but would go to the barricades to keep cassock-albs out of your parish.

You think that "Almy" is French for Methodist.

You think that "On Eagles' Wings" is where Low Churchmen read the epistle.

Keep on praying...and laugh when you can,

RED+

2005-04-26T10:56:00.000-05:00

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

A gem from C.H. Spurgeon

2005-04-26T10:13:00.000-05:00

Greetings All,

It may surprise some fellow Anglo-Catholics to hear this from me, but I believe that Charles Haddon Spurgeon's Morning and Evening is one of the greatest devotional classics in the English language. Spurgeon, or course, was the great English Baptist who has been called "the prince of preachers." He did not have much affection in his heart for the Anglo-Catholic revival in England, nor was he the least bit thrilled about the restored Roman Catholic heirarchy at the See of Westminster. Some of his sermons and writings are filled with quite potent vitriol against "Puseyism" and the "Romish anitchrist." But there were even those who were quite involved in "Puseyism" who gleaned from Spurgeon's insight into Scripture and the life of faith. One was The Rev'd A.H. Stanton (a hero of mine), who, as curate of St. Alban's, Holborn, was in the center of the ritualist controversies. Stanton, who was an outstanding preacher in his own right, rarely consulted commentaries or dictionaries in preparation. But he often looked to see "what Mr. Spurgeon was saying" at the time. Despite his extreme loyalty to Protestantism and dislike of (Roman) Catholicism, there is much in Spurgeon's writings that is of great value to Christians all across the spectrum. I have been continually blessed by Morning and Evening, and would like to share last evenings meditation with you:

"If any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in tohim." --Revelation 3:20

What is your desire this evening? Is it set upon heavenly things? Do you long to enjoy the high doctrine of eternal love?Do you desire liberty in very close communion with God? Do you aspire to know the heights, and depths, and lengths, and breadths? Then you must draw near to Jesus; you must get a clear sight of Him in His preciousness and completeness: you must view Him in His work, in His offices, in His person. He who understands Christ, receives an anointing from the Holy One, by which He knows all things. Christ is the great master-key of all the chambers of God: there is no treasure-house of God which will not open and yield up all its wealth to the soul that lives near to Jesus. Are you saying, "O that He would dwell in my bosom"? "Would that He would make my heart His dwelling-place for ever"? Open the door, beloved, and He will come into yoursouls. He has long been knocking, and all with this object, that He may sup with you, and you with Him. _He sups with you_because you find the house or the heart, and _you with Him_because He brings the provision. He could not sup with you if it were not in your heart, you finding the house; nor could you sup with Him, for you have a bare cupboard, if He did not bringprovision with Him. Fling wide, then, the portals of your soul.He will come with that love which you long to feel; He will come with that joy into which you cannot work your poor depressed spirit; He will bring the peace which now you have not; He will come with His flagons of wine and sweet apples of love, and cheer you till you have no other sickness but that of "love o'erpowering, love divine." Only open the door to Him, drive out His enemies, give Him the keys of your heart, and He will dwell there for ever. Oh, wondrous love, that brings such a guest to dwell in such a heart!

As one who (unlike Spurgeon) holds a high view of Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, this reflection fires the heart! I hope you will profit by it as well.

Peace,

RED+

Back to the blog, finally.

2005-04-23T16:19:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm pretty sure by now that nobody is even viewing this blog as I haven't posted anything in months, but I shall for my own sake resume posting. Rather than start back up with a rant or a commentary on church life, I thought I would offer up my sermon for tomorrow morning. Someone said recently on a radio program I enjoy that we should be careful when blogging because blogs don't go away. So here we have an opportunity to leave something of a legacy behind for our children. I can either leave behind a vapor trail of my hot air regarding current events, or I could leave behind footprints of my journey with Jesus. I am choosing the latter. I hope these thoughts bless you or someone you know. God be with you on your journey, friend.

“Turning the World Upside Down”
A sermon for the 5th Sunday of Easter, Year A
April 24, 2005
The Reverend Father Ronald E. Drummond, Jr.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do; because I go to the Father.”
John 14:12

Imagine a scene at the Peoria county courthouse. A judge looks attentively as some city authorities drag in a couple of urban missionaries. The judge sternly asks, “What charge do you bring against these people?” One city official says, “Your honor, these people who are turning the world upside-down have come here also.” After a rundown of their missionary activities the judge gives them a stiff fine and lets them go.

That’s what it may have looked like had the episode from today’s reading from Acts occurred in our own time.

“Turning the world upside-down.”

That’s quite a way to describe the impact of what Paul, Silas, and all of the early Christians were doing in the first century. This description comes from some Jewish detractors who are trying to stop the evangelistic activities of Paul, Silas, and their companions.

Just what were these men up to?

We can find out by reading Acts chapter 7 all the way up to this point. In just 10 chapters Paul has gone from newly-converted believer who had violently persecuted the church to fearless apostle who was the subject of violent persecution. Like General Sherman of Civil War fame he blazed a trail on a determined march through cities and towns and set each one on fire as he went. But unlike Sherman, Paul’s fire was the fire of the gospel. It was a fire that blazed with the light of Jesus Christ’s love and power. It was a fire that destroyed unbelief and apathy and ignited passion and conviction in the hearts of those who heard. Paul’s was a message that turned the world upside down. In fact, the entire book of Acts could be titled “the world upside down.” Love them or hate them, there was no denying back then that something real, something powerful was happening among these followers of “The Way,” these “Christians” as they had recently been named.

What has happened in 2000 years?

I never see a headline in the newspaper that says, “Local Church turns the world upside down.” I don’t hear a buzz in the coffee shop or at the Mall about how Christians are turning the world upside down. I don’t see people beating down the doors of our churches to see just what all the excitement is about. I hear about that in Africa and Asia and South America, but I don’t hear it here at home. What I mostly hear about Christians is how nice and polite our services and community activities are or what hypocrites we are.

What have we lost and how do we get it back? How can we turn the world upside down again?

Perhaps we can start by admitting that our view of what the Church can be and do is often quite different from the way Jesus, the head of the whole operation, envisioned it. We have come up with some very sophisticated plans and statements for how the ministry of the church should be done. The language we use in our mission and vision statements is often lofty, noble, and intentional but if we’re really honest, our experience as a church doesn’t quite match our stated mission and vision. Conferences and workshops and courses and seminars are available in abundance in the frantic race to find out how to “grow the church” or “equip leadership” or “increase pledging units.” But are these things bringing the promised results? Are these trees bearing the fruit we hoped for? As I read the story of the early church in Acts and reflect on my experience of the church today, I am discouraged by the glaring discontinuity of it all. Is this the way it’s supposed to be, or are we missing something?

We as Christians are inheritors of great promises. One of the most frightening, thrilling, and encouraging promises is found in today’s gospel. Jesus says in John 14:12, “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.”

Greater works than the Son of God? How is it possible? The early church of the book of Acts seemed to embrace and live into this promise in a way that we have forgotten. You see, the early Christians didn’t have a master plan for ministry, they simply followed the master planner. They did the works of Jesus because the Holy Spirit was sent to fill them and empower them to do so. Jesus promised early on in Acts that his followers would “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon [them];” What was this power?Simply put, it was the power to do the things that Jesus did.

Jesus preached and taught about the Kingdom of God
Jesus healed the sick
Jesus cast demons out of afflicted persons
Jesus raised the dead

But did much more than the miraculous and spectacular. He ministered in very ordinary and quiet ways as well:

Jesus loved the unlovable
Jesus touched the untouchable
Jesus reached the unreachable
Jesus held and blessed little children
Jesus ate meals with the elite and the lowly
Jesus brought lost sheep back to the fold

And if you spend enough time reading the Acts of the Apostles, this is what the early church did! They simply did the works Jesus did.

These are the things that turned the world upside down in the 1st century and they will do it again in the twenty-first century!!

We can do these things because Jesus promised that we could and then empowered us to do them. In fact, we can do greater works than Jesus simply because Jesus is one man but his living body on earth numbers billions of men and women.

If I began to distribute pamphlets to the city of Peoria, I may reach a few hundred persons. But if I equipped you all with pamphlets, gave you instructions, and sent you out to various places, I would reach thousands.

That is what Christ has done with his Church. He spent three years on this earth doing the works the Father had given him to do. Then, before returning to his Father, he left instructions for his followers, equipped them by sending the Holy Spirit, and sent them out to spread his life-changing message.

I said earlier that Jesus’ promise that we would do greater works than his is frightening, thrilling, and encouraging. It’s frightening because what we are talking about is having the power of the living God in us by the presence of the Holy Spirit, and to me that’s scary! But it’s also thrilling to think that what we are called to do is the very work of the Son of God, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords!! And it’s encouraging because we realize that we are not left to fulfill our ministries in our own strength or cleverness, but in power that is freely given to all without regard to qualifications except the openness of our hearts.

The Acts of the Apostles reveals what the Spirit-filled Body of Christ looked like in the first century but also gives us guidance on how we should operate today.

The early church was a praying church. They did nothing apart from intimate communion with their Lord and Savior. They prayed before ministry, during ministry, after ministry. They prayed when selecting leaders. They prayed and sang hymns when they were put into prison. They praised God, thanked God, worshipped God. They were a people given to constant prayer

The early church was an obedient church. What they heard from God in prayer they obeyed in practice. They went where they were lead to go and did what God told them to do.

The early church was a sacrificial church. We read of how the people of the church shared their goods with those in need so that no one wanted for anything. We read of people giving substantially of their substance to support the work of spreading the gospel. And we see men and women minister as God has called them at great personal expense, whether it be of money, of reputation, or of life itself.

The early church was a bold church. They weren’t content to live out their faith privately. They knew that they were called to share the faith as well as keep the faith. They were not afraid to invoke the very name of Jesus to heal the sick and cast out evil spirits. They were not afraid to preach in places of hostility or difficulty.

These are the characteristics of a church that does the works of Jesus. These are the characteristics of a church that turns the world upside-down.

Ask yourself this question: Can Jesus use me to do his works? The answer lies not in asking questions like “am I talented enough?” or “am I smart enough” or “am I spiritual enough?” or “do I have the right kind of personality?”

It lies in one simple question: Do you believe?

Do you believe that Jesus really did all of the things recorded in the Gospels? Do you believe He has the power to do these things today? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit given to you at Baptism and poured our upon you at Confirmation really empowers you? Do you believe that the church should be turning the world upside down today?

Do you believe?

Christian belief is not simply agreement or acceptance of the mind. It is also the openness and trust of the heart. I pray that this day you would truly believe all that Christ promised. I pray that this day you may know and feel that the power that raised Christ from the dead dwells in you today. I pray that you may “fan into flame” the gift that was given you by the laying on of hands at Confirmation. But most of all, I pray that you and I, as living members of the Body of Jesus Christ, might once again turn the world upside-down.

What I've been reading lately...

2005-01-22T21:20:00.000-06:00

I have discovered since entering ministry full-time that I have to beg, borrow, and steal time to read, but I have managed to do a little bit lately. Here's what's been off my shelf:

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. A popularization of a lot of wakcy revisionist history of Christian origins. Brown is certainly a sloppy and uncritical historian, but he's also an amazingly engaging storyteller. I read this in two evenings of reading well past 2:00am. Couldn't put it down.

The Gospel Code by Ben Witherington III. Antidote for the above book. Witherington's skill as a New Testament scholar writing for a general audience shines on every page. I read this because Da Vinci Code is generating a lot of questions from parishioners young and old who don't know any better. I figured a well-reasonsed and lucid response would be better than just, "Nuh Uh!"

Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down by Marva J. Dawn. I have just started this one and can tell that it's going to be good. Dawn's objective is to explore how we can be faithful to tradition in our worship and yet also reach out to those outside of the Faith. She critiques both a dead traditionalism which insists that we "do it the way it's always been done," as well as those who are pushing for "relevance" by completely selling out to the entertainment culture. As one whose ministry is primarily to youth, this book has a lot to say that is of great interest to me.

Penny for your thoughts...what's everyone else been reading lately? Post a comment if you've come across something exciting or interesting.

Does God answer prayer?

2005-01-19T13:11:00.000-06:00

You tell me.

I was listening to a Christian radio station yesterday, and there was a woman being interviewed named Norma McCorvey. It took me a while to make the connection but then I realized that this was "Jane Roe" from Roe v. Wade. It took me a few moments to make the next connection but I then remembered that she was the one who argued FOR abortion and played a major role in getting us in the mess we are in today. Now she has repented of her actions and is now advocating to overturn the historic decision. Read about it here:

Does God answer prayer? I think so.

Slowly but surely we are making headway. Pro-lifers, be encouraged.

The "Greener Grass" of other Churches

2005-01-17T06:46:00.000-06:00

Many of us well-meaning Anglicans, in an attempt to dissuade those who might "jump ship" to another church in response to our theological Ringling bros. act, often use the phrase "the grass isn't greener on the other side." What we mean, of course, is that they are trading one set of problems in our church for another set of problems in a different church. While this is certainly true, it seems to me that the way we often use that phrase reveals an underlying premise:

All the problems that all churches face are all equally the same, so we may as well just stay and make the best of it wherever we are.

I have long subscribed to the "grass isn't greener" philosophy, but now I am beginning to rethink my position on this. I'm beginning to think that in my well-meaning attempt to keep folks genuinely Anglican (and not Roman, Eastern, Amia, or Continuum), I might just be messing with what the Spirit of God is doing in someone else's life.

Let's talk about green grass for minute. In places where the grass is green, it means that the climate is good for growth. There is plenty of sunlight and rain to nourish the grass. Where grass can't grow is in places where there is too much sun and dryness from lack of rain. Our beloved Episcopal Church, as a whole, is becoming (and in many places is already) a barren desert. There may be plenty of sun, due to the fact that most of our Bishops and our PB are constantly trying to tell us how great things are (commonly referred to as blowing sunshine up the ...). But the showers of God's Holy Spirit are being withheld for the most part. Without a doubt there are Oases throughout the land, but basically what we are dealing with here is a barren wasteland of a church.

What does all this mean? In my thinking, it means that the grass IS greener on many "other sides." It means that the Good Shepherd's presence is going to be more evident and palpable in many other "pastures." Shepherds watch their flocks in green pastures where the sheep can be well-fed, not in deserts where they have to wander endlessly to find a good meal. And as far as one-to-one comparisons of the problem-issues in other churches, I find that these comparisons don't hold up to the light of experience. Many don't mind exchanging a certain kind of liturgy for a place where they can grow in the Lord. Many don't mind trading spiritual barreness for an "extral-mural" Anglican body where the Spirit of God is working freely. Many just want a place where the sacraments are duly administered and the Word of God duly preached.

I must make something clear at this point. I am not advocating a massive exodus from the Episcopal Church (although that is already happening somewhat). I am not suggesting that the only option for those who are truly seeking the Lord is to leave for another body. I myself feel no need to go anywhere else (in part because I am blessed to be in a "green" diocese with a real shepherd). But I, for my part, am going to be a little less judgemental of those who are simply tired of wandering in the desert looking for something nourishing to eat and some living water to drink. It is an issue of vocation and judgement.

It's an issue of vocation where people are concerned. We have to honor what the Spirit of God is doing in the lives of those who simply cannot abide by what is happening in our church at the present time. God is calling people away from the desert so that they may enjoy the abundant life in a greener pasture. On the other hand, God is certainly calling many to stay for one reason or another. God's will is unscrutable at times, but we must be faithful to the calling he has placed on us as individuals.

It's an issue of judgment where the Episcopal Chruch is concerned. Just as God withheld rain from Israel in the time of Elijah, he is withholding the shower of His Spirit on our idolatrous Church at this time. God's judgement upon ECUSA, as David Virtue notes, is not going to be fire and brimstone or thunderbolts from the sky. The slow, grueling bleed-out we are experiencing is judgement enough. Our once proud and vibrant church is shrivelling fast. And people leaving for other churches is part of that judgement.

I'm not going anywhere. God has called me to "fish in this boat," in the words of John Stott. But I am going to be more cautious and prayerful in my advice to those who are contemplating leaving ECUSA. And I am certainly not going to argue that the "grass isn't greener" in every case. Because just maybe it really is.

St. Thomas the Apostle

2004-12-21T10:54:00.000-06:00

It's a shame to be remembered primarily for something that is embarrasing and not particularly flattering. I, for one, would be mortified if the chief thing people remembered about me was as the kid who got an eraser stuck in his nose in the fourth grade. I would hope that people realized that I had moved long past that point andhad done some other things in life that were more noble and enduring.

I wonder if St. Thomas had any clue that he would be forever memorialized by Christians and non-Christians alike as "doubting Thomas." Just as Seinfeld has contributed to mainstream culture such things as "close talker," yada yada yada," and "double-dipping," so Christian tradition has seen to it that "doubting Thomas" has trickled its way over the years into the mainstream of cultural vocabulary. A person who has never stepped into a church or opened a Bible knows about doubting Thomas. But is this completely fair?

I have heard many a piously-motivated and well-meaning preacher blast poor Thomas for his disbelief as if we ourselves would do no such thing if we saw the risen Lord. But perhaps it would give us a new perspective to put ourselves as best we can into the mind of Thomas at that very moment that he saw Jesus.

Imagine the grief you have felt at the loss of a close friend or family member. In some ways, you would do anything to have them back, but on the other hand, you know that deep down you must come to terms with the fact that this person is dead. They had died. They aren't coming back. And if you have been in the midst of a grueling process of grief you know that the rational words of comforters who talk much about our loved one "being in a better place" and "with God now" and other such platitudes provide little to no comfort at all, at least until the inebriating effect of grief begins to wear off. Simply put, promises made to us while we are in a rational state simply don't have much effect upon us when we are in an irrational state. This does not mean that the promise itself is invalid, it simply means that we don't have the capacity to take comfort in such promises until the initial storm surge of grief and pain subsides.

What grief Thomas must have felt. This Jesus whom he had put so much faith in, had travelled with, had given his heart to, had hung his every hope upon, was dead. He died. He was gone. Of course Thomas had heard and believed with the rest of the apostles all of the promises that Jesus had made, included the one about rising from the dead. But how could that be of comfort or rationally grasped at a time like this? To say that he should have been better prepared would be like saying that looking a map or a photo of Niagra falls is proper preparation for an actual jump into the falls.

My guess is that Thomas had just begun to get used to the fact that Jesus was gone and that it was simply too painful to even entertain the notion that this man standing before him could be Jesus. It was too risky to take back hold of someone he had just begun to let go. His problem was not so much that he doubted when he saw Jesus. His problem was that he wasn't with the rest of his brethren when he should have been. His grief he had borne in isolation and without the community of faith. While his brethren comforted one another in their pain and fear, he went at it alone, or at least without them. When individual faith is weak it needs the faith of the community to hold it up, just as Aaron and Joshua held up Moses hands as the Israelites did battle.

Once Thomas encountered Christ in the presence of his brethren, and once the Lord had graciously granted his demand for proof, his response was one that, while not as enduring as "doubting Thomas," has been on the lips of Catholic Christians for centuries during Mass: "My Lord and My God."

Not only did Thomas recognized the man Jesus in the resurrected flesh, he knew him as his Lord and his God. Quite a turn around.

All this is not to exculpate Thomas from his unbelief. He shouldn't have doubted. He should've held on more tightly to promise of his Lord even in the midst of pain and grief. But let us think twice before we hold our own faith to his as superior. We have not only the Holy Spirit in our hearts witnessing to the truth of our Lord's resurrection, we have 2,000 years of unbroken teaching concerning this great mystery. So when our faith is weak, we have this great pillar to lean upon. St Thomas didn't have this. He had himself and a relatively small band of fearful, quivering men.

The vindication of St. Thomas is found not only in his great acclamation of Jesus as Lord and God, but also in what that acclamation drove him to do. Myriad Christians in India look to St Thomas as their patron and founder of their Church, grateful that because he was so gripped by the message of his Lord and his God, he would traverse far across land and sea to bring the life-changing message of Jesus to an exotic land.

St Thomas, pray for us on this day as we honor you, that we may overcome our doubts and as we encounter the risen Lord, say with you, "My Lord and My God."

Everliving God, who didst strengthen thine apostle Thomas with sure and certain faith in thy Son's resurrection: Grant us so perfectly and without doubt to believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, that our faith may never be found wanting in thy sight; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Holiday Greetings with No Offense!

2004-12-15T11:50:00.000-06:00

Not even the ACLU could find a problem with this!

(Not my own creation, I recieved this from a mailing list in which I participate)

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the Western Hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.
This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Happy Holidays!

Western Europe is still run by Barbarians

2004-12-02T13:46:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I think the term "Western Civilization" is an oxymoron. Perhaps you have recently heard as I have that the Netherlands has been practicing outright infanticide on sick babies. They are pushing to have this practice completely sanctioned in that country. Of course this rightly infuriates those who are committed to a culture of life and the sanctity of all life. But so often the discussion is turned to the subject of the value of human life. In other words, does human life have worth? Those who oppose the aforementioned practice and others such as abortion, believe that the more progressive death-mongers (pardon the not-so-irenic term) do not value human life.

Perhaps this isn't the best way to frame the argument.

If we are generous in speculating about the motives of the "other side (which I am usually not)," it must be said that they value human life, too. After all, the argument they present is precisely that human life loses its value after a certain point of insufferable pain, lack of brain activity, or other criteria often included in the overall designation "quality of life." While I certainly have disagreements with this way of reasoning and don't believe that the value of life should be judged on a scale, I have to admit that in their own warped and falacious way the "other side" values life as well. The question isn't whether life is valued or not.

I believe, like so many other issues we face today, that what we're disagreeing about is authority. Christians have long wrestled with the tension between the fact that we are created as free agents, able to choose and make decisions, and the fact that we are creatures under the Lordship of our Creator, whose sovereignty and authority trumps our own in the case of a conflict.

The progressives seem to operate under that assumption that human freedom is unbridled for the most part and that if we can do it, we should do it. Of course, they have their boundries as well, but these boundries are fluid and are usually governed by utilitarian and consequentialist principles rather than concrete, absolute authority.

In issues of life and death, the question we should be asking is this: "Is it right for one human to determine whether or not another human should live or die." Are we overstepping our freedom and encroaching upon divine sovereignty when we take life and death into our own hands, particularly in medical cases where suffering, deformity, or severe retardation is involved? I for one think we are. God is the giver and sustainer of life and He is also the judge of when that life should end. Humans are gloriously created in God's image as free beings but our freedom does not extend to the giving and taking of life as we please. Even if we can come up with the most humane and pragmatic reasons of why a life should be ended, it simply isn't ours to judge. It's like disagreeing with the war in Iraq. We may disagree and have great reasons why we shouldn't be there but the fact of the matter is that it's not our decision. Even more true this is when it comes to issues of life.

Those of us who are pro-life should be so not simply because we believe that human life has value. We should be so because we believe that our freedom as human beings does not extend to the domain of deciding on who should live and die. It's a matter of authority much more than of value.

Of course this point of view raises all kinds of other questions like the ethics of combat and capital punishment, but, as the title of this blog relates, these are the musings of a young priest, one who has many more question than answers. I'm interested to hear some viewpoints on this topic.

Pax,

RED+

What's the Rush?

2004-12-02T13:39:00.000-06:00

Well, here I am back in the game after a long hiatus. As I shared with a priest friend recently, I either find that I spend too much time blogging (when I should be working) or no time at all (such as lately). I shall try from now on to find a judicious balance between the two (Oh how very Anglican of me...)

One of the most profound quotes from a movie that I have ever heard comes from Shawshank Redemption. Brooks is an elderly convict who has spent the majority of his life behind bars. His sentence is served and he is released. In a letter from the outside to his former prison mates, he shares how different the world is from before he went to prison. "The world went and got itself in a big damned hurry," he writes.

A big damned hurry indeed.

As the secular juggernaut presses on, we find the practice of beginning Christmas right after thanks giving or even before has crept into the Church. I don't simply mean Protestant churches with no liturgical year. Even churches that foll0w a liturgical calendar with Advent included have been sucked in. Of course, many Protestant churches are at the head of the Christian capitulation to the world's impatient hastening of the Christmas season. I can't find a Christian radio station that isn't playing Christmas music much of the time.

My question is, "what's the big damned hurry?"

Advent is quite frankly a treasure, particulary in these high-pressured and frantic days where the month of Decemeber is primarily a time to get stuck in holiday traffic, wait in line at retail stores, worry about not having enough money to get everyone presents, and any number of situations that create disquietude in the life of the soul.

In Advent, we are given a precious season of four Sundays and the weeks between to hunker down with ourselves and with God and quietly prepare ourselves for the coming of the King of Kings, both in rememberance of the Child and in anticipation of the Risen and Glorified Judge of all men. We are given an opportunity not to be sucked into the secular vortex of panic and frenzy and it is an opportunity unique to Christians. The Orthodox, hardcore as they are, have a forty-day season of preparation that parallels Lent in both duration and rigor. But even with our Lent-lite here in the West, there is an opportunity to raise our level of communion with God, and not just our blood pressure.

But still the rush toward Christmas rolls on, even among those of us in catholic communions that observe this season. I guess it's just part of being American. And yet, the irony of it all is that we rush and hurry toward Christmas and the observance of Christ's first coming, but we seem to be convinced that we have all the time in the world before his second coming. Shouldn't it be the other way around...patiently preparing during Advent for Christmas but eagerly anticipating the coming of our King in glory?

A story is told of Satan sending three young devils to earth to finish their apprentice training. Satan asked them what their strategy would be. The first said "I'll tell men there is no God." Satan replied, "That's no use. Men generally realize that there is a God." The second devil said, "I'll tell men there is no hell." Satan replied, "That's no use either, men generally believe there is a hell for sin and punishment." The third young devil said, "I'll tell men there is no hurry." Satan said, "Go and tell them, and you will ruin them by the thousands."

It's the nature of fallen humanity to completely miss the boat, or to use another expression, to put the emPHAsis on the wrong syLLAble. We hurry toward a largely secularized observance of a holy day for which we are given 3 or 4 weeks to prepare. But we poke along on the path of readiness for the coming of our King and Judge. "He hasn't come back in 2,000 years," we say, "surely he won't be back in my lifetime!"

But he will. Even if he doesn't come to meet us in this life, we will go to meet him at the end of it.

Let's get it right this Advent. Let's use this season to quietly, humbly, and with penitence avoid as best as we can the hurry and rush of the secular juggernaut. But let us use the time also to increase our sense of urgency and haste to prepare in our hearts a mansion for our coming Savior. For all the we don't know about Christ's second coming, we know one thing...he's coming, and we'd better be as ready as we can possibly be.

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the quick and

dead, we may rise to the life immortal, through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.

-The Book of Common Prayer

Peace to you all this Advent season,

RED+

P.S.- For an interesting bit about the history of Advent, go see this. (At least until next week)

I'm finally back

2004-11-05T14:00:00.000-06:00

Greetings again to all.

Well, I haven't posted anything in a while, as you can tell. Several major events have taken place without a single comment from me on this blog. Clearly I am shirking my responsibility to offer my ramblings to the blogging community. All Saints, All Souls, and a successful Presidential election (can you tell who I supported?) have all come and gone, and I didn't even so much as offer a reflection. To those of you who read this blog, I'm sorry. And special thanks to a good friend from Texas, Randall Foster, who politely encouraged me by e-mail to get back in the game. Being as I just recieved the latest issue of Touchstone magazine, I'm sure I'll have a lot to say in the next few days.

Let me begin by paying a compliment to Senator Kerry, with whom I have little in common on most issues: Cheers for conceding the election in such a timely fashion. I realize that there was really no chance that he could have won, but he still could have made a fuss and drawn out this awful campaign for another several weeks or months. But he chose to allow the process to work for itself and he was a gracious loser. His concession speech was actually rather moving and inspirational, as far as political speeches go. So thank you, Senator Kerry, for allowing the will of the people to trump your own will. Best wishes and prayers for your remaining years in the Senate.

I'm not one to believe in the divine right of Presidents, but I really do think that Bush is God's man for our time. I know this could draw vociferous fire from those who hate him, but I just put it out there. For one, I am ardently pro-life, and even though I don't think Bush is the messiah President and the greatest leader of our time, I couldn't vote for someone who would use government money to make it easier to end the life of the unborn. I guess that makes me a single issue voter...oh well. I realize that foreign policy was the hot-button of this campaign, but as a Christian within the Great Tradition I realize that no matter how effectively we fight the war on terror or insurgents in Iraq, we are doomed if we allow the secularist left to win the culture war being fought right here in our own country. If we continue to ignore the sanctity of life from womb to tomb and erode the traditional family and marriage as understood throughout our history, Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden will be the least of our worries. For then we will destroy our nation from the inside out, without the help of terrorist attacks. So I chose a President who will not only fight the war on terror abroad, but also the war on our foundational moral principles here at home.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't believe that Bush is perfect, infallible, or totally noble in all of his decisions. But his conduct of the Presidency for the past four years has convinced me of several things: He is a godly man. He is sinful and fallible as all men are, but I believe he is godly. He is a man unmoved by popular opinion when his convictions are strong. That's refreshing in politics. He is a man who stands by those around him. He is loyal. He understands the gravity and monumental consequences of his decisions. I believe that the Presidency for him is a duty of solemn obligation and not just his highest step on the ladder of success.

Well, enough gushing on my part. My appeal to all would be this: While it is perfectly reasonable for Christian people to disagree with who should have been elected, it is a divine mandate that we pray for the one who was elected. Paul's command to pray for rulers of course was written in a time when rulers were not chosen by the people, but the principle remains the same. Christians are called to pray for their rulers, whether they like them or not. There is no release from this obligation. If John Kerry had been elected, John Kerry would have been at the top of my prayer list every day. And even if you don't like Bush, I ask you to do the same. Incidentally, it's helpful to know that the rulers Paul was bidding the Church to pray for were the ones who were persecuting the Church.

Speaking of prayer, please pray for Sen. Edwards and his wife Elizabeth. Again, many of us are glad that he lost, but to lose a vice-presidential election, a Senate seat, and have your wife diagnosed with breast cancer is a lot to handle in one week. Jesus mercy, Mary pray.

Peace to you,

RED+

The Failure of the Anglican Experiment...?

2004-10-28T14:17:00.000-05:00

Greetings again to all,

What I am about to write is going to seem traitorous and disloyal. It may infuriate some. In fact, I feel horrible for even thinking what I am thinking but that's the way it is.

Are we witnessing the failure of the Anglican Experiment?

What I mean by that is historic Anglicanism's committment to a non-papal, scriptural and conciliar Catholicism without a strong central authority. Are we discovering that this vision is untenable and unworkable in our time?

Before I go on, let me say that I am committed to the Anglican Way. I am committed to the Anglican liturgy and to the spirituality and pastoral vision of the English tradition. But can we really exist as a truly Catholic church with no centralized authority whatsover? I don't mean we all just need to become RCs and accept Papal authority as it stands now. But isn't there something in all of us that looks for authority...tangible, human authority?

Think about it. Everybody has a "pope." In other words, everyone has an authority that they look to for a final and authoritative word on matters of great importance. For many Anglo-Catholics, it is the Holy Father himself. For revisionists, it's Spong or Griswold. For many faithful Anglicans, it's Akinola. For '28 BCP folks it's Peter Toon. There seems to be a primal consciousness of the need for authority; central, final authority. Of course we believe Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority, and for Anglicans, that Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. But who mediates that authority to us? That is the question at hand.

The Windsor Report seems to want to give a greater role to the Archbishop of Canterbury. And while it is certainly a small step, it is indeed a step toward more centralized authority. Anglicanism for years has been trying to cope with the lack of central authority by coming up with various "instruments of unity." In the midst of all of this, we have qualified every statement that has come from these instruments as non-binding and advisory. But are we realizing now that our experiment of Catholicism without central authority has simply failed? I shudder to think.

The Windsor Report is a fine piece of theology, to be sure. It presents us with a vision of being in Communion by way of loving interdependence and autonomy-in-relationship. It holds us accountable to the bonds of love and affection which hold us together. But is it too generous to human nature to assume that we will not inevitably push through our own agendas, citing "autonomy" and "differing contexts" as a pretense for our lack of desire to submit ourselves to the good of the Communion? I think perhaps.

In the end, who will come down as the final word and "tell 'em no" when a body wants to push something through that is patently contrary to the Faith? All bishops in our Church are called to guard the faith and unity of the Church. But who decides what that faith is? Every bishop in the Church claims to be fulfilling ordination vows, but if that is the case, how come there are almost as many "faiths" as there are dioceses?

Perhaps the Anglican Experiment as we know it has simply failed. Where we go from here, I have no clue, only God does. I believe in the Lord's promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail over His Church. But I fear that "business as usual" is about to change dramatically.

I'd appreciate some more thoughts on this...

Pax Vobiscum,

RED+

The wind(sor report) blows where it will...

2004-10-25T21:27:00.000-05:00

Greetings all,

It seems that the Windsor report is generating much response from all over the globe. Daily we hear reponses from Anglican leaders of every theological shade and hue. What I am amazed by is the fact that so many are patently unhappy with it. In a church where there is so much polarization on several key issues it seems that the extreme wings of each side of these issues don't really like the Windsor Report.

V. Gene Robinson considers it "unfair" and "deficient" in that there was no homosexual representative on the Commission and that he was not allowed to appear before the commission.

[This seems pretty brash to me. He is quoted as saying "There wouldn't even be a commission without my ordination." That reminds me of when I was kicked out of a band I had started as a teenager. I just moped about saying "without me they wouldn't have ever had a band!]

Forward in Faith doesn't like it because it seems to consider the issue of ordination of women as settled and the period of "reception" successfully ended.

The American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network doesn't like it because it makes no acknowledgement of the Network's existence and deems the ECUSA House of Bishops' DEPO proposal to be adequate to address pastoral needs.

Archbishop Peter Akinola doesn't like because he thinks it patronizing and insulting to those who are trying to uphold biblical faith and "sentimental and warm" toward those who have pushed the innovations ahead.

David Kalveledge of The Living Church magazine said the Report lacked teeth. (My favorite section of his editorial was when he was lambasting the commission's recommendation to invite ECUSA to express regret: "Is an RSVP necessary?"

The point of all this is that I think many of us have looked for something that simply wasn't coming. A commission with a mandate to study communion, not sexuality, to make recommendations, not a judgement, to report to an Archbishop who has no real authority except in his own province...what were we expecting?

The truth is, I think, that many of us were desperately hoping for what could not be given by this particular report by this particular commission: A judgement on sexuality issues once and for all.

Where do we go from here? Well, I know people are tired of hearing it, but I will say it again: We wait and we pray. And we pray some more. For me personally, it has been easy to get sucked into the vortex of commenting and pontificating on the Report, praising the parts that make me happy and lamenting the parts that don't. What I haven't really done is gotten on my knees before the Blessed Sacrament and plead for God's will to be done in His Church.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that everything will just magically get better if we all say our Aves and jiggle our rosary beads enough. Our communion is in trouble, serious trouble. But what I am suggesting is that the best thing any of us can do, the best all of us can do, is constantly lift up our Communion to the only one who in the final analysis can effect any lasting change...namely God. And repent for any actions of our own which hurt the Body. I realize after studying (and preaching on) this past Sunday's gospel, that I am a little like that Pharisee:

"I thank Thee, O God, that I am not like other men; liberals, revisionists, muddy moderates, or even like this homosexual Bishop. I say my Office, go to Mass every day, abstain from meat on Fridays, and read Touchstone magazine."

Shame on me if I ever give up one inch of the ground of the Catholic Faith for revisionist drivel. But shame on me even more if I forget that it is ONLY by God's mercy and grace that a miserable sinner like me finds himself within the embrace of the Faith of our fathers.

Can't we all just get along? No, of course not. It's just the way this sinful world works. But can't we all realize that the ground at Calvary is level and we all stand in the same need of the same grace? Yes we can, and we must if we are ever to get anywhere remotely similar to a solution to this mess.

Perhaps some juevos on the part of leadership would help too;-)

The Windsor Report is unfortunately not the savior we all hoped it would be. It says some good things. It says some bad things. Like any other good Anglican document of recent history it all depends on interpretation (if you know me, you'll know how much I HATE to admit that...). That's what we wait on for the time being. Several more groups have yet to process that report before anything is even done about it.

So Oremus.

Peace to you all,

RED+

Legislating Mortality...I mean, Morality

2004-10-24T18:00:00.000-05:00

Been thinking a bit lately about the debates in this election year involving issues of morality: gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

It's really getting quite tiresome for me to hear candidates (admittedly, mostly Democrats and for that matter, mostly John Kerry) go on and on self-righteously saying that although "personally opposed" to things like abortion, gay marriage, and the like, they cannot "legislate morality" to the American people. This sounds very high-minded and takes several forms. One form I am particularly "fond" of is what I have Kerry and other pro-choice "Catholics" say regarding abortion:

[imagine sincere and earnest facial expression combined with a very convicted voice:]

"I respect those who hold the view you hold (pro-life). I myself am a Catholic. I was raised Catholic. I was even an altar boy [do they want a certificate for this or something?] But I cannot force onto other American people what for me is an article of faith."

Again, this sounds really sincere and high-minded, but the problem I have is with the use of the term, "article of faith."

The sanctity of life is not something that is an article of faith in the strictest sense of that term. In other words, the Church teaches the sanctity of life not because it thought it might be a good idea to promulgate it, but because it recognizes that inherent in the order of creation itself life is good and is to protected and preserved. Therefore, not being Catholic does not give one the option to not believe in the sanctity of life. All mankind should believe in the sanctity of life. To say otherwise is to give in to that postmodern heresy that it is the community that comes up with its own rules, rather than God revealing Himself to a community. So, if you are not in the Catholic community, the sanctity of life cannot be forced upon you, because perhaps you haven't experienced life that way. Really?

What if my experience of life tells me that it's okay to kill people I don't like? Or not pay my taxes to the government? Or steal things that I do not own? Or marry 20 women? Or even 10 men and 10 women?

Clearly, the government does legislate morality. The good of a society is dependant upon the moral behavior of its citizens and upon the government's ability to restrain evil. Morality as it is legistated by the government is meant to protect the good of the society as a whole. At least, it used to be.

Now it seems that legislation is more about individual rights than about the good of the society. The sanctity of life as a bedrock prinicple of a stable society is no longer as important as an individual woman's right to choose. The sanctity of marriage and family as a necessity for a stable society is no longer as important as the rights of two individual men or two individual women to have the "rights (or rites)" of "marriage."

The legitimate legislation of morality is giving way to legislation of mortality, leading more and more into a culture of death.

But, hey, at least no one is imposing his traditional views on anyone else, right? It's just the non-traditional views being imposed.

RED+

P.S.- For a devastating critique of the current rhetoric of "not imposing my views," see this article by David Mills of Touchstone Magazine.

Hilarious!

2004-10-22T13:49:00.000-05:00

Just read this posting at Ship of Fools website, summarizing the Windsor Report:

"You've all been very naughty children. Now stop it at once!"

Only in Anglicanism can we take 93 pages to say that.

RED+

"Via Media" and the "Three-Legged Stool" sample

2004-10-22T12:50:00.000-05:00

Greetings, again, to all:

With all that is going on these days in the Anglican Communion, there is much talk about "via media" and the need to avoid extremes. Many times this kind of talk comes from "moderates" who don't think we should go quite so full steam ahead with our lovely innovations but who also think we shouldn't get our shorts in wad about those who doing precisely that. To their credit, many of these folks truly want to see the Church "forbearing one another in love" as St. Paul exhorts the Ephesian church. But more often, I think, it is a conveniently "historical" veneer for a lack of committment to truth one way or the other. Or, perhaps, there is committment to the truth, but the truth is such that it is too-great-for-us-to-apprehend. This is wonderfully humble and all, but Jesus said that he IS the truth, and that truth will set us free. So if the truth cannot be apprehended, then we will never be free and all this preaching and teaching the Church is supposed to be doing is at best a hit-and-miss attempt and at worst a prodigal waste of time.
So then, back to "via media." Orginally it referred to the character of the Elizabethan settlement in the late English Reformation, in which Ecclesia Anglicana eschewed the two polar opposites of Puritan protestantism or Roman Catholic recusancy (this is my understanding, I stand quite willing to be corrected...) The Caroline Divines would later elaborate the idea that the C of E could be a biblical church without being Puritan and could be a catholic Church without the Papacy.
Unfortunately, this understanding of "via media" is being pulled out of historical context. It is now being put to service by those who think that Anglicans need to find a middle ground between those who have the "anything goes" mindset and those who say any innovation is right out. So, in other words, "via media" is supposed to mean that there is a way to steer between these two extremes of committment to cutting-edge innovation and the preservation of Holy Tradition.
The only problem with this is summed up in a comment I heard a friend say years ago: If you walk in the middle of the road you're going to get hit by traffic from both directions. Perhaps the most unpopular people in the Church are not the crazy revisionists or the wagon-circling orthodox, but the muddy-middle, those who aren't really committed either way. And this is supposed to be Anglican.
There is a kernal of truth, here. Anglicans, by virtue of their lack of central magisterial authority, have always been free to explore the truth wherever it may be found. This was not a search without boundaries, but it was free enquiry nonetheless. Perhaps the golden example of this is the Liberal Catholic movement in the C of E, with such luminaries (although some will disagree with me on this) as Charles Gore, Henry Scott-Holland, and more recent figures such as A.M. Ramsey. Their liberalism allowed them to reach out into the world of ideas and seek for truth in all spheres. But their Catholicism never allowed to go beyond the bounds of what the Church taught in her most basic expressions (i.e. the Creeds). Our classic "control" has been that ubiquitous "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
But even this has been taken out of its historical context and original meaning and drafted into the service of those who would rescue the Church from "fundamentalism (i.e., committment to historical Christian orthodoxy)." The three-legged stool is hardly an adequate image to explain what Hooker meant in his Laws. The three-legged stool gives us three interdependent sources of truth. Take one leg away, and the whole stool falls. Mostly this means that take reason (new "understandings" of certain issues...mostly moral ones) away from Scripture and Tradition, and you have an unreliable understanding of the truth of a matter. But this is NOT Hooker's vision of the interplay between these three sources.
For Hooker, and for historical Anglicanism, Scripture has been the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Indeed, for Hooker, Scripture is the foundation upon which the "beautiful pillar" of tradition and reason (i.e. the Church's faith) is built. Make no mistake, Hooker believed that what "scripture doth plainly deliver" was to be given first priority of belief.
That's not to say that we view biblical authority the same as a Baptist, for instance. There is indeed an interplay and interdependence between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Tradition is that venerable history of interpreation in which the Church has used her sanctified reason to discern the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. But the mutual relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason is not one of impotent "leaning" one upon the other. Rather, is could be looked from the perspective of the doctrine of the Trinity. Here we have God, one Being in three co-eternal, and substantially equal persons existing perichoretically in mutual love and interdependence. But clearly the Father has headship and superiority. The Son and Holy Spirit do the bidding of the Father. In the same way, Scripture holds the supremacy in the "three-legged stool," but with tradition and reason exists as a marvelous unity of truth.

I realize that I have used an entire lunch break to write this, and should probably get back to work. I apologize for the length of my ramblings, but this whole misuse of "via media" and the "three legged stool" has really been a bee in my bonnet for quite some time. I invite any discussion on these things, as they are part of what makes us unique among Catholic Christendom.

RED+

Oh, and...

2004-10-22T12:14:00.000-05:00

Just FYI, my profile on this blog used my birthdate to calculate and display my astrological sign and the fact that I was born in the year of the Snake. I can't figure out how to get those off the profile so I guess I'll just leave them. To those who might be possibly disturbed that a Christian priest would care what his astrological signs are, be assured I have nothing to do with astrology and think it to be rubbish. To those who might be excited by the idea of a priest into astrology, let me say...I have nothing to do with astrology and think it to be rubbish.

The Unpalatable Remedies of God

2004-10-22T10:35:00.000-05:00

In an age where "relevance" is a hot concept in the practice of ministry, and the Church is often scrambling to find "new and innovative" ways to "make the gospel relevant" in people's lives, I found this passage from Canon W.C.E. Newbolt's addresses to ordination candidates refreshing. It is worth quoting at length.

"Yet, again, the minister of God comes from a world of sanctifying love. It is all-important to remember this. We are not making experiments; we are not dealing with unknown cases; we are not patching up wounds which we do not understand, with a treatment which we do not appreciate. He Who knew what was in man left us, for our help and cure, the Catholic Church--old remedies, slow and painful, but effectual [emphasis mine]. Would that we were more faithful in the use of them! Original sin, with its taint and malignity, does need Holy Baptism. Actual sin is forgiven and its chain snapped off by Absolution. The weakness of our nature, too feeble to stand alone, is braced and supported by Confirmation. There is growth and sustaining power in Holy Communion. Do we, as ministers of God, know how to use these things? Have we tried their edge? There is no liberality in substituting untried remedies of human invention which happen to be in the fashion, for the tried remedies of God which happen to be unpalatable. We must not be ashamed to tell Naaman to go and wash seven times in the river Jordan, if he will be cleansed from his leprosy; nor desist for his rage, nor give in because he threatens to go elsewhere. [This is the good part....]We must not be ashamed to proclaim that we hope to subdue the vice and overthrow the ramparts of sin in our towns, simply by walking around it with the sevenfold procession of grace. [Wow!] No, there is no liberality in distracting a poor sufferer by ill-considered advice, or evenly balanced advocacy of opposing remedies. We shall not cure a man who lies desperately ill by telling him that allopathists, homeopathists, herbalists, faith-healers, and all quacks, are either equally good or equally useless; but we shall feel it necessary to diagnose his case, and act carefully and with the utmost accuracy of treatment. Much more, when we are dealing with a man's soul we feel it must not be trifled with or treated inconsiderately. If we come from the God of sanctifying love, we feel that we come from a God Who has given His Son to die for us, and to rise again for our justification.

-W.C.E. Newbolt, in The Heart of a Priest, ed. by J.H.L. Morrell

RED+

Introductions and such...

2004-10-21T15:30:00.000-05:00

Greetings to everyone! My name is Ronald E Drummond Jr. and I am a priest of the Anglican Communion in the Diocese of Quincy in Illinois. I currently serve as Missioner for youth and college ministries in the Diocese and live in Peoria, IL. I read blogs often but have never had one for myself and I figured I ought to get a piece of this “blogging” action. Not that I think my mental wanderings are worth anyone’s precious time, but then again, who’s are (as time is precious to us all)? And yet blogging seems to be a great forum for the exchange of ideas and expression of opinions and I hope to use this outlet for my defense of the great truths that have carried God’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through hell and high water (without help from the Zeitgeist, thank you very much). Not only for these, but for the bedrock principles of morality which have sustained western society throughout its existence; namely, the sanctity of life and of marriage and family. As a priest it is my bounden duty to proclaim the gospel Jesus Christ and him crucified as the only name given by which we must be saved. There is no gospel but this... that which the Scriptures bear witness to and which the Church has proclaimed for 2000 years. It is water for the thirsty soul. Anything else, no matter how sincere or well-intentioned, is at best kool-aid for the soul and at worst poison for it. I often grumble to myself about the nonsense that often get passed off as Christianity these days and I have decided that the time for grumbling is past and that I should, if for nobody’s sake but mine, put my thoughts down in writing. So may I offer this as my initial step into the foyer of the blogging community. God bless all, and thanks be to God that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners...of whom I am the chief!

Fr. Ron+