Anglican Musings

A Slippery Slope

2007-11-13T20:20:00.000-06:00

The story at this link on Fox News is worth reading. It is obvious from this article that we are headed down a very slippery slope in regards to human life. Once again we are failing to realize that having the technological ability to perform an act is not the same thing as having the moral right and/or obligation to carry it out.

What good is 'progress' if we make ourselves morally bankrupt in order to achieve it? Are any of these potential cures worth the unwilling sacrifice of a human life just because that life might appear small and insignificant? These utilitarians would do well to read Aquinas' principle of double effect.

The term "therapeutic cloning" is especially troublesome to me as I do not see how a treatment that causes the eradication of another person can be considered therapeutic. Drawing a distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning completely misses the point. Both acts are evil for different reasons. The first act views human beings as resources to be harvested and the second act views them as products to be manufactured. There is really no way for the utilitarians to get around these viewpoints.

They can gloss it over all they like with medical terminology and evolving understandings of ethics, but it all boils down to a secular worldview that places its faith in technology and human progress rather than God. The secular liberalists can march in lockstep behind the zeitgeist all they want but it will ultimately take them where they do not wish to go.

The Gospel of Mark Project

2007-11-10T12:05:00.001-06:00

I have started a new site that is focused on an in-depth study on the Gospel of Mark. I think the Anglican blogs have become far too focused on the troubles in the Communion, so I hope that this new site will be a good alternative to those who are weary of the debates. I felt that getting back to Jesus in the Scriptures would be an excellent place to start. So here it is:

The Gospel of Mark Project

It is very much in the early stages but I should have substantive content soon.

In Memory - James Oliver Rigney, Jr.

2007-09-18T19:01:00.000-06:00

A few days ago James Oliver Rigney, Jr. (who is best known among readers of high fantasy epics as Robert Jordan) passed away of a rare blood disease. I can remember picking up the first book of his Wheel of Time series many years ago as an undergraduate and have been reading his books ever since. He was one of the few fantasy writers to live up to the legacy that Tolkien left to the world, and Jordan's works will continue to be an influence on fantasy literature for many years to come.

He went peacefully and was a devout Episcopalian until the very end. I would like to offer this passage from the Book of Common Prayer in his memory:

Father of all, we pray to you for James, and for all those whom
we love but see no longer. Grant to them eternal rest. Let
light perpetual shine upon them. May his soul and the souls
of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen.

Just Checking In

2007-09-06T19:50:00.000-06:00

I wanted to apologize to my regular readers for not posting in a while. At this point I am not sure if I want to keep this blog going. To be honest I have been fairly discouraged by the Anglican blogosphere. There is a lot of rhetoric flying around but not much in the way of theological substance or intelligent debate. It is very difficult for anything to be heard in the noise these days especially as we move towards the September meeting of the U.S. House of Bishops. The voices of moderates and rational conservatives are being lost in the cacophony of opinions as the tension builds, and as a result I think my articles are the digital equivalent of talking to a brick wall.

I am hopeful that the Communion will remain intact but until cooler heads prevail it will be difficult to predict what will happen. If the ECUSA document 'Communion Matters' is any indication of what the House of Bishops is going to do there could be negative consequences. To put it bluntly -- that document is a piece of junk that is more about making excuses and arrogant political posturing than working out what it means to be 'in communion'. In fact it doesn't really say much at all worth hearing. Simply equating the debate over Jewish ritual customs in the early Church to our current problems is just plain ridiculous and does both sides a disservice.

Most ordinary Episcopalians want to remain in the Anglican Communion, and the House of Bishops doesn't want to deal with that fact. Hopefully some clarity and intelligent discussion will result from the meetings ahead with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I will leave the site up for now but at this point I am not sure how often I will post.

Why I Am Anglican - Part Four

2007-08-16T20:41:00.000-06:00

Another reason I am Anglican is because to be part of the Anglican Communion is to affirm that there is only one Church. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ in which we are all incorporated by virtue of our baptism. I believe that the Church is more than just an institution or a collection of random people who happen to affirm a common set of beliefs. It is the primary means through which Jesus interacts with the world, and as such it is much more dynamic than any human construct. It is a living entity sustained by the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately this vitality has been compromised by the endless divisions that plague our Church. I strongly disagree with the fact that there are literally thousands of Protestant denominations, and my aversion to this schismatic mentality is one of the main reasons I am Anglican. I think part of being in the 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church' means that there will always be differences of opinion when it comes to theology, and I do not think that schism is always the answer to solve these kinds of debates. Thankfully most other mainline Protestants understand that concept as well, and I am grateful for the ecumenical work that is being done with our Lutheran and Methodist partners. We are obligated to work towards unity wherever we can in order to be consistent with Jesus' high priestly prayer in the Gospel of John. Open communion and shared mission with other baptized Christians should be some of our primary goals.

It is true that both the Catholic and Orthodox faiths share a high ecclesiology with Anglicanism, but they differ in that complete unity is a prerequisite for full communion. I greatly admire their commitment to Eucharistic unity, and I believe their various implementations of this unity are special gifts to the Church. However, I adhere to the Anglican expression of the one Church because I do not think that complete doctrinal unity is required to be 'the Church'. A high ecclesiology does not have to be exclusionary in order to function properly. The disciples came to the Eucharistic table as one along with their presuppositions and respective worldviews. Differences are part of being in the Church and are a sign that while we are assisted by the Holy Spirit we are still fallen human beings.

I like the fact that an Anglo-Catholic with Wesleyan sensibilities like myself can share the Eucharist with a Calvinist, a low church evangelical, or a charismatic. I think the Church is weakened greatly if we divide along theological schools of thought or particular emphases of spirituality. Having all of us under one roof is what it means to be a catholic community of faith, and the Anglican Communion is the only place I know of to find this kind of diversity. With that diversity comes challenges but through the grace of God we will see it through.

Why I Am Anglican - Part Three

2007-08-07T20:30:00.001-06:00

Another reason I chose to become Anglican is the fact that tradition is a critical part of our Anglican heritage. I agree with the 16th century Reformers that doctrine should always be judged against Scripture for consistency, but I also realize that the meaning of Scripture is most certainly not self-evident to the average reader. Scripture was never meant to be interpreted in a vacuum since the Bible itself did not exist in complete form until several hundred years after the Resurrection.

Many movements within Christianity proclaim that they are 'Bible-based' or that they rely solely on the 'plain sense' of Scripture. This would be acceptable if it were not for the fact that different people may interpret the same Bible passage in vastly different ways. How does one decide which interpretation is correct? The tradition of the Church and our God-given capability to reason help us sort out these kinds of problems.

Tradition is also essential to preserving Christians from further fragmentation. If there is no framework outside of the Bible for discussion the only result can be further schism since the scale will be totally imbalanced in favor of private judgment. Without tradition to inform our decisions we as a Church are in danger of falling prey to theological fads or dogmatizing ourselves into corners.

The Church was meant to live as a catholic community of faith where the views of all are to be considered and formed into an integrated whole. This perspective includes listening to the Christians who have come before us as well. This does not mean we should observe stagnant traditionalism, but we should take the time to learn from the experiences of those who have come before us to avoid reinventing the theological wheel. To quote Jaroslav Pelikan, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

I became Anglican because I believe that the Anglican Communion does the best job of incorporating tradition into the life of the Church. It sets boundaries for debate with the historic Creeds, the Book of Common Prayer, and Holy Scripture while providing the flexibility to deal with new and unexpected situations not foreseen by the original Apostles. It cherishes the contributions of the past while looking to the future.

Tradition also binds us together when we pray as a corporate body with the Book of Common Prayer. Lex orandi, lex credendi -- we pray what we believe. A tradition formed and nurtured in common prayer is by its very nature a living tradition, and in our postmodern society only traditions with this kind of vibrancy can survive.

Anglicanism is not afraid to question itself, and with that inquisitive outlook comes a great many challenges not found in more conservative churches. That intellectual honesty is one of the reasons I became Anglican in the first place. Being both catholic and reformed presents us with unique opportunities as well as difficulties when it comes to understanding tradition in the life of our Church today. In many ways we are on the front lines of coming to terms with the effects of postmodernism on the Church. Dealing with postmodernism and secular liberalism is not an easy task, but it is a struggle that the Church as a whole must undergo as we move into the 21st century. Tradition and Scripture will keep us grounded amidst all of this if we do not lose sight of them.

Why I Am Anglican - Part Two

2007-08-01T21:54:00.000-06:00

The sacramental character of Anglicanism is another reason why I chose to become part of the Anglican Communion. The sacraments are a way for us to grasp spiritual realities that would otherwise be abstract and difficult to understand. To quote Richard Hooker, they "are an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." The sacraments are in effect mediators of the sacred. There are certainly other gateways to the holy besides the 'official' sacraments as is clear from the vitality of the evangelical and charismatic movements, but the sacraments passed down by the historic Church have stood the test of time and have been a blessing to Christians since the Church's earliest beginnings.

The sacraments differ from more modern elements of Christianity in that they rely less on subjectivity. Before I became a sacramental Christian I often struggled with the fact that I did not always 'feel' something while attending church. How did I know that God was really present? Plenty of people around me seemed to have no problem experiencing God through praise and worship, but my left-brained personality tended to regard this expression of Christianity as emotionalism. As a result God had to reach me through other means, and it just so happened that the sacraments were exactly the medicine I needed.

The sacraments provide visible assurance that Christ is present in His Church regardless of how we may feel at the time. They bind us together in the mystical Body of Christ and sustain us for the journey. They function as a connection between the material and the spiritual world, and this affirms the fact that physical actions and substances can have spiritual benefits. We are more than just spirits in temporary cages of flesh to be discarded at death. We are bodies animated by a soul, and as a result what we do with our bodies has spiritual relevance. To put it plainly: Matter matters.

When I dip my fingers in the baptismal font and cross myself as I walk into the sanctuary the water helps me remember the moment I became Christian at my baptism. When I receive the Eucharist I know that I am doing more than just eating bread and drinking wine. I am receiving Jesus Himself through the Eucharist, and in doing so I am given a special grace available through no other means. When I was confirmed through the laying on of hands by my bishop I knew objectively that my bond with the Church was strengthened.

For me the sacraments are a reassuring sign that God is with His Church, and they are a large part of why I am Anglican. Certainly other expressions of Christianity are sacramental, but Anglicanism has a special character all its own that is best experienced over time rather than explained. When you sense grace working in your life as a result of the sacraments then you will have some idea of what the Anglican pilgrimage is like.

Why I Am Anglican - Part One

2007-07-28T20:53:00.000-06:00

During this time of turmoil in the Anglican Communion I thought it would be worthwhile to share with my readers why I decided to become Anglican in the first place and why I choose to remain one. The journey from the independent Baptist faith of my childhood to the communion of the Church of England has been a very challenging one for me personally, and though I might have reached the destination the journey is not over. I do not think that it will be complete until I finally see Jesus as He really is, and I think the same can be said of most Christian pilgrimages.

The first thing that drew me towards Anglicanism was the liturgy. During my time in the Baptist faith I had no experience with the liturgy. The services were all centered around the songs and the sermon (which was usually anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour in length). It was almost like I was a spectator rather than a participant in the service since I spent a great deal of time calmly sitting in the pew while listening to 'special songs' and long-winded preachers. I should add that this was not typical of the more mainstream Southern Baptist churches I attended later as an adult, but I never quite got over the 'worship as spectator sport' perception that formed in my mind as a child. So for these and other reasons I began my search for a different way of experiencing God.

My first experience with the liturgy was in the Methodist Church. Those of you who are church history buffs know that the Methodist movement originally started within the Church of England, so many of the elements of Anglicanism can be found in Methodism. During my first few visits to Methodist services I heard the Apostles Creed and the Eucharistic liturgy, and for the first time I felt like I was a participant in the service rather than a bystander. It was there that I first felt a real draw to the liturgy and knew what it was that I had been missing all that time. I will always be grateful for the time I spent in the Methodist Church and my experiences there still influence me to this very day.

I spent over a year there and experienced the flow of the liturgy over the course of the yearly church cycle. When our pastor left for another assignment we left the church to find another one closer to home and decided to attend an Episcopal church. When I encountered the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) for the first time I knew right then that the liturgy was how I most fully experienced God. The BCP was rich with Scriptural references and the prayers of famous saints written hundreds (or even thousands) of years before. When I recited the Nicene Creed and these historic prayers along with everyone else I felt a real sense of connection to the ancient Church that I had not experienced before.

After being confirmed a few months later I eventually became a lector (lay reader) and enjoy that very much. The fact that the liturgy is all organized around the Eucharist is very important to me as I believe now that is the ultimate act of worship. During the Eucharistic Prayer we draw near to God as He draws near to us in His sacraments. The Daily Office is also a rich source of prayer and has been a comfort to me when I have used it.

My wife jokes now that I am a liturgical snob, and I do tend to agree with her for the most part. I think God designs us all with affinities for different modes of worship, and it just took me a while to find my particular one. Maybe some of you have had similar experiences in your own churches. Feel free to share if you have!

This is the first in a multi-part series so check back for more!

A Few Thoughts

2007-07-14T18:36:00.000-06:00

I wanted to make a quick post just to let my readers know that I am still out here. Sorry I haven't updated in a while, but I haven't been able to think of a good article to post on the site. If any of you have any ideas for articles or questions about Anglicanism please send me an email.

I did finish reading 'The Cost of Discipleship' by Dietrich Bonhoeffer last week. It was a fairly difficult book to read as it was almost like a splash of cold water in the face. Reading it definitely makes you think about what your priorities should be. The theology of the book is oriented towards the Lutheran viewpoint but it is still valuable for all Christians to read. If you read anything about Bonhoeffer's life you will see that he is someone who truly lived what he wrote.

The Way Forward

2007-07-05T21:33:00.001-06:00

When Jesus first celebrated the Eucharist there was a juxtaposition of two very different worldviews that is not talked about very much. One of the disciples participating in the table fellowship was Simon the Zealot and another was Matthew the former tax collector. Before his conversion Matthew was perceived by his fellow Jews as a traitor to his own kind and a conspirator with the Roman establishment. If Simon had been a member of the Zealot faction within Judaism he would have been very much opposed to Roman rule and especially to people like Matthew. How is it that these two people were able to come together in Eucharistic unity? The answer to this question is relevant to our own struggles in the Anglican Communion today.

The reason they were able to do this is that as part of their call to conversion and discipleship they were required by Jesus to set aside their old presuppositions and take up a new unified perspective. This unity was not monolithic, but at the same time it was not a false unity where everyone maintained their former positions with no change whatsoever. It was a unity informed by grace.

This unity is not free but requires a great deal of sacrifice. This lies in the difference between what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called 'cheap grace' and 'costly grace.' Under the model of cheap grace we can continue to hold our current positions that are ingrained in us by our personal experiences and popular culture and remain unchanged by the Gospel. If we choose costly grace we must lay our theories and concerns before Christ and simply follow Him using the tools he has given to the Church. That is not an easy task. The obvious question is: "How do we go about this?"

Each of us has a lens through which we look as we make use of the standard Anglican tools of Scripture, tradition, and reason. This lens is formed over the course of our lives as a product of our religious backgrounds and life experiences. Every time we use the tools our conclusions are shaped by the design of this lens. As a result it is extremely difficult to drill down to a truly objective point of view since a lens is just a tool of our own making and is not the truth itself. We must be very careful to never confuse the lens with the object of the lens' gaze. However, the presence of the lens does not mean that there is no objective truth to be found. It is there and for the sake of unity we are obligated to find it.

There are vast differences in how this process works in the different parts of the Communion. The debate over homosexuality has led to an unnecessary dualism that has marginalized the voices of conservatives and moderates who wish to remain loyal to the Episcopal Church. Anathemas are being tossed around by both sides, and people are pointing fingers at each other while stating in a grandiose manner, "You are out of communion." The rest of us are in the middle watching the pews empty as the American expression of Anglicanism teeters on the precipice of irrelevancy. The simple truth about this disgraceful process is that we do not have the authority to make these kinds of statements as to 'who is in' and 'who is out'. Only God decides who is in communion among the baptized.

We need to take a serious look at the methods being used to make these kinds of assumptions. Only when we come to realize that a lens is not the same as objective truth will we have any chance of achieving Eucharistic unity again. The first order of business is to admit that the current attempts by the progressive wing of our Church to describe homosexuality as normative ignore the tools of Scripture and tradition. With the current data that we have there is no way to justify this via Scripture or tradition, so the proponents of this movement must rely solely on experience and the call to 'social justice.' This is an incredibly subjective approach and I would argue that it is not particularly Anglican or even Christian but instead is a secular liberalist approach. Once experience becomes the plumb line it is only a matter of time before moral relativism becomes systemic. We should stick to the tools that Anglicanism has always used.

On the other hand the wave of schism that is rippling through our Church is also based on the wrong assumptions. One of the goals of Anglicanism is to maintain a sense of catholic order in our Church. The intervention of foreign bishops violates this sense of order as much as Robinson's consecration and is a thumb in the eye of the Windsor Report and the Communique. If we continue to fragment we are disobeying Jesus' command to unity and will ultimately end up as a collection of sects rather than a Church. We need to work for change within the framework that we currently have. If we wish to be Anglican then we must make the Windsor Report the roadmap for the way forward, and we all need to be honest about implementing it. As part of the Windsor process we also need to respond to the care of homosexuals in our church with pastoral sensitivity and not just give it lip service.

Like Simon the Zealot and Matthew we need to set aside our assumptions and focus on what sacrifices need to be made for the sake of church unity. How can the Episcopal Church strengthen the bonds of communion? The first step is total compliance with the Windsor Report to give everyone some breathing room. Although each province is autonomous what we do in the U.S. has dramatic impacts on other provinces. We are not independent but interdependent. The unique nature of our polity can and should be balanced with this interdependence between provinces of the Communion. We must understand that with our more democratic polity comes a great degree of responsibility to ourselves and to Anglicans worldwide. The same compliance message holds true for other provinces. All interventions and further schism should immediately cease until after Lambeth.

The next step is the cessation of all lawsuits against breakaway parishes. The national church has had the opportunity to take the moral high road and has chosen not to do so. This is very scandalous for the church and is totally contrary to the Gospel. Negotiated settlements where the needs of all are considered should be the only courses of action. Otherwise our unity will continue to fragment while the attorneys stand around and collect their fees like the postmodern equivalent of the moneychangers in the temple. It is time to flip the tables on these opportunists.

It is time to start meaning what we say and saying what we mean. All of the posturing, games, and anathemas need to stop. If we keep this up it is likely that the noble Anglican experiment will fail, and we will only have ourselves to blame. Only when we set aside all of our presuppositions and admit in humility that we do not know everything will we even have a chance at unity. Even now Jesus sits at the table and waits for us to join him for nourishment before our common mission. As He looks at us we know we have a job to do. Are we willing to take up the challenge of costly grace? It is never easy but it is always worth it.

The Golden Ticket

2007-07-02T20:20:00.000-06:00

To start I would like to refer you this excellent post by N.T. Wright who is one of my favorite theologians. There seems to be a focus particularly in evangelical American Christianity on the process of getting 'saved'. One simply has to walk down to the altar, make a profession of faith in Christ, and then one has the magic golden ticket to heaven. We are justified by faith so that is the end of the story, right? Not exactly...

While I certainly agree with evangelicals on justification by faith and the subsequent conversion of life I think this kind of theology misses the point. Becoming a Christian is not about punching our ticket to heaven although eternal life is a result of salvation. The Christian life is about helping to usher in the kingdom of God and becoming part of the new creation. This new creation will not occur through the destruction of the material world but will be made present when God does what Wright calls 'setting the world to rights.' We are to be part of that process.

So do I believe in heaven and hell? I certainly do, but I think these ideas need to be integrated with a larger understanding of the meaning of the kingdom of God.

The Communion of Saints

2007-06-28T21:36:00.001-06:00

The communion of saints is one of the most profound doctrines in the Christian tradition. All Christians are incorporated into the mystical Body of Christ by virtue of their baptism. Through Christ we are inextricably linked to God and to each other, and together we form the post-Ascension presence of Christ on earth. Jesus heals through the touch of our hands, He feeds the hungry through our generosity, and He speaks the words of forgiveness through our relationships with each other. This is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Incarnation. We are not meant to be a community of disembodied spirits but rather the living Church through which God interacts with the real world and spreads the message of the Resurrection.

The Church is composed of two parts -- the Church Militant (the faithful who are still on this earth) and the Church Triumphant (those who have undergone physical death and are now with Christ). Christians who have already completed their pilgrimage on this earth are not truly dead but are fully alive in Christ. The link between Christians is so strong that not even physical death can sever it. Together the Church Militant and Church Triumphant are participants in the Divine Liturgy that is forever said before the throne of God.

Very early on the Church felt that the martyrs and saints who had departed this world were not separated from Christians who were alive, but rather they were in greater communion with God and with earthly Christians. This led to the doctrine of the intercession of the saints which is still present in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions. To ask for a saint's intercession is simply to ask them to pray for you as you would a fellow Christian who is alive on this earth.

This intercession is not at all analogous to praying to God -- worship is due to God alone. Since these saints are truly alive it is completely orthodox to allow for this practice as long as it is done in the proper sense. It is only through God's grace that the intercession of the saints is even possible. As long as medieval excesses are avoided it is a reasonable practice that is consistent with historic teachings of the Church.

Some Christians may raise the objection that there is only one mediator between God and man and that Jesus is this sole mediator. This is certainly true, but we ask fellow Christians to pray for us all the time because we know that the prayers of others have been found by the Church to be efficacious. Other people interceding for us in no way reduces the unique work of Jesus' complete mediation. All intercessions are ultimately derived from his singular act and cannot be separated from it.

If these Christians in heaven are in full communion with God then that makes their prayers on our behalf that much more powerful. My only advice to skeptics would be to try it out for yourself. I have been very blessed by this practice and I highly recommend it. It is often a difficult journey in this life, and more people praying for you is always a good thing.

Book Review - The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions

2007-06-27T20:13:00.000-06:00

Earlier this week I finished reading this excellent work by two popular Anglican theologians -- N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. This book is organized around a set of topics about Jesus where each author provides their respective views as well as comments on the other author's conclusions. Despite the fact that these two men have very different views on Jesus the debate in the book was quite friendly, and I think the book overall is a valuable contribution to the study of Jesus and the development of Christology in the early Church.

I like the fact that both men affirm a Jesus that is much different from that portrayed on the big screen over the past several decades. Their understanding of Jesus is firmly rooted in the historical context of first century Judaism rather than in the successive layers of piety that often obscure Jesus and make Him seem too otherworldly. A proper study of Jesus in His Jewish context in the larger Greco-Roman world leads to a better understanding of the Incarnation and its role in human history.

Both authors did a fine job of articulating their positions. I did tend to agree with Wright more often as his views are more consistent with the historic teachings of the Church. I did think that Borg's use of cross-cultural methods to study Jesus was very insightful, and I found his categories of Jesus as Jewish mystic, healer, and social prophet to be quite informative. After reading this book I think that Borg represents the best of the progressive movement.

Ultimately I think Wright came out ahead in the debate as his assumptions seemed to be more rooted in post-Exilic Judaism while Borg focused too much on 'history metaphorized'. I certainly agree with Borg that history as metaphor is common in the Bible, but I think to assume the metaphorical stance just because events in Matthew or Luke are not in the Gospel of Mark or Q is itself a modern anachronism.

It is certainly possible that the Matthean or Lucan communities simply remembered more things from the past as Mark circulated in the early Church. I do think that there is some later theology in the synoptic Gospels but it is not possible to select decisively where it occurs. There is also the whole problem as to whether or not Q even exists.

Overall I highly recommend this book as well as anything else by these particular authors. Regardless of your faith outlook you will find yourself challenged and might just find yourself thinking about Jesus from unexpected angles. After all, isn't the whole point to come to know Jesus more fully?

The Bread of Life

2007-06-21T21:28:00.001-06:00

One of the most powerful Bible passages about the Eucharist may be found in chapter 6 of John's Gospel. In verse 48 Jesus states "I am the bread of life," and in verse 53 Jesus says, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Shortly after he made these statements the people began to start grumbling as they tried to make sense out of what he said. Like many of the bystanders in the Gospels they are portrayed as hostile to Jesus' message, but should we be quick to judge them? One can hardly blame these grumblers since the controversy over the meaning of these words continues to this day across the Christian spectrum. Even within the Anglican Communion there is a wide range of opinion on what the Eucharist actually means.

I believe that after the bread and wine are consecrated during the Eucharistic liturgy Jesus is truly present in these elements. What actually happens goes beyond mere symbolism. This is what is called the Real Presence. It is important to make the distinction that by asserting the Real Presence I am not talking about a fleshy body but rather the post-Resurrection body of Jesus which is not bound by the normal human limits of space or time.

How this happens remains a mystery, but theories abound as to ways in which God accomplishes this task. As an Anglo-Catholic I lean towards transubstantiation as opposed to the other forms of explanation, but I do not believe that we have to fully understand the Eucharist in order to benefit from it. In any case it is a mystery that we will not fully understand until after death we come to know God as He really is.

I believe in the Real Presence for various reasons. One of my reasons is that the early Church strongly supports this interpretation. The notion of a purely symbolic Eucharist did not exist prior to Zwingli.

Another reason is that since I have come to believe in the Real Presence I have detected a change in my own life. It has been very gradual but I can sense a spiritual benefit from receiving the Eucharist, and I do not believe that mere symbolism could achieve this. I have also heard similar testimony from other people. The Eucharist is God's way of drawing near to us in table fellowship in a way that defies human description. St. Ignatius of Antioch said the Eucharist is the 'medicine of immortality,' and I heartily agree with him.

The Role of Fathers

2007-06-13T21:08:00.001-06:00

Since Father's Day is coming up I thought it would be appropriate to talk for a moment about the relation of the father to his family. It is clear that the father has a special role in the family that no one else can fill. The sexes are designed by God to be complementary in the nurturing of the family unit, and the absence of either parent from the lives of their children can have unforeseen consequences. As a result I believe that much of the instability in Western society is due to fathers' lack of involvement in their children's lives.

The family unit of a father, mother, and their children is itself an imperfect reflection of the complete communion between the members of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all exist in perfect harmony with each other, and the immeasurable degree of love between the members of the Trinity is a model that families should look to for guidance.

This ideal of the Trinity as a model for family relationship leads to a understanding of the family in a sacramental sense. There is a spiritual relationship between the members of the family that works in conjunction with the more tangible aspects of the relationship. What we say or do in the material world can have indelible effects on the spiritual aspects of our relationships with each other and with God. Fathers must be coworkers with the other members of their family to maintain a healthy balance in order to protect this relationship.

If you have a sacramental view of family it is clear that being a father is the most important responsibility that a man can have. Fathers (along with mothers) are responsible for much more than just meeting the physical needs of our children. The emotional and spiritual needs of children must be met as well, and God in His mercy has given each parent particular gifts to meet these needs. These gifts are largely being ignored as our society is quickly losing sight of the fact that there is more to fatherhood than meeting physical needs. Much of that is due to a reduced sense of parental responsibility and a lack of respect for children in general. Children are often regarded as nuisances or as just another check box in a long list of 'adult' responsibilities, and that is a real tragedy. What is needed for modern fathers is a sense of earnestness in our responsibility to our children.

Being a good parent is an integral part of following Christ. When we set aside our own needs and desires in service of our children we are learning what it means to be a disciple. I will be the first to confess that this is not an easy task and I often fail in this regard. If we keep trying we will see that the road of discipleship particularly in regards to our families has rewards beyond measure. The love and happiness of our children is worth infinitely more than any material comforts.

I do not know where I would be today without my wife and children. I can honestly say that being a husband and father has been an experience beyond compare. My wife and children have taught me the true meaning of redemptive grace and have restored my faith in the Church. This Father's Day I choose to celebrate them and I pray that I never stop trying to reach the ideal of what a father should be.

A Question of Ethics

2007-06-07T21:55:00.000-06:00

You may have heard today that Congress has just voted in favor of legislation to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. You can read more details about the vote here.

I have said before on this blog that I am against this kind of research since I believe that an embryo is in fact a human that is created with a soul by God at the moment of conception. As a consequence of this the value of one's life is not measured according to its ability to act but has immeasurable value by virtue of its existence.

I think the arguments in favor of this research is another part of the ongoing trend that regards human beings as resources to be used when expedient and discarded when they become unnecessary or inconvenient. A society that measures the value of life based on its 'usefulness' or 'viability' is ultimately a dystopian society.

Proponents of this research who do assign value to embryonic life might argue that the benefits would far exceed the ethical cost of destroying these embryos, but is that cost something that we are willing to pay? How can you empirically measure the value of a human life? While we certainly can grasp the potential benefits I do not believe that we fully comprehend the cost.

A common objection raised to opponents of the research is 'the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, so why should they die in vain?' This still does not change the fact that intentional harm (and subsequent death) is inflicted on the embryos during the extraction process.

It is possible that this research could lead to great advances in medical science, but there is no concrete proof that it will deliver on its promises. While I disagree with the President on most things I hope that he follows through on his veto threat.

A Mustard Seed

2007-06-04T20:59:00.000-06:00

I have recently taken up the practice of praying the Daily Office. Often I find it hard to find the time to pray, or when I do pray it is difficult for me to find the right words to say because my mind will not stop racing. Having a fixed set of prayers and Scripture readings in front of me has really helped me to focus on the business at hand. It is also a comfort to know that I am praying the same prayers as millions of other Anglicans all over the world.

While having Evening Prayer today I came across an interesting passage during the Gospel reading. The verse that particularly struck me was Luke 17:6. Jesus says to His disciples, "If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you." (NRSV)

A mustard seed is something quite insignificant by human standards, but God often uses the 'foolish things of this world to confound the wise.' I think the meaning of this passage is that no matter how insignificant our faith may seem to us (or to others) God can still use that faith to accomplish great things. We as Christians are not measured by the quantity of our faith but rather by its mere presence.

In this world where we are saturated by postmodernity it is normal for us to struggle with doubts, but even the smallest grain of faith can help us to overcome them. Doubts and anxiety are part and parcel of being human, but faith is the gift God grants us through the Holy Spirit to rise above these things and become what we are meant to be.

The Meaning of Baptism

2007-05-29T21:43:00.000-06:00

There are many debates in the Church over the meaning of baptism. As a result there is a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding what baptism actually does and who should receive it. This article will attempt to give the Anglican perspective on baptism.

Baptism is considered to be a sacrament by Anglicans, so it is important to know what a sacrament is in order to understand the Anglican perspective on baptism. Richard Hooker (who was a 16th century Anglican theologian) said that a sacrament is 'an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.' The idea behind a sacrament is that God uses physical objects that we can easily comprehend (water in the case of baptism and bread and wine in the case of the Eucharist) along with the spoken word (the liturgical formulas specific to the sacrament) to convey redemptive grace on the recipient of the sacrament. The sacraments are in effect channels of grace that God provides us as a means of salvation.

The sacraments were a symbol of the truth during the early years when the Church struggled against sects like the Gnostics. The Gnostics essentially believed that all matter was bad and that only the spiritual realities mattered. The sacraments provide a direct counterpoint to that idea since they function as a connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. This has foundations in the theology of the Incarnation since God Himself took on physical form as Jesus Christ and in doing so God sanctified matter for use by the Church.

Baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the Church. When one is baptized the stain of original sin inherited from Adam is washed away, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within the person, and the person is formally incorporated into the Body of Christ. This occurs regardless of whether a person is baptized as an infant or an adult because the grace bestowed upon a person during baptism is an unmerited gift from God in His boundless mercy. We can do nothing in and of ourselves to earn this grace. Baptism is regenerative, which means that it bestows sanctifying grace and new life in Christ upon the recipient.

However, it is important to remember that our journey towards salvation is not completed in baptism. This is particularly true in the case of infant baptism. During the ceremony parents make baptismal vows for their child, but it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that the child understands the meaning of these vows and comes to grow in faith in Christ. The ability of the child to exhibit this faith is itself a product of the sanctifying grace bestowed upon the child during baptism. When the child is older (usually 8-12) he/she will have the opportunity via the sacrament of Confirmation to formally reaffirm and take as their own the baptismal vows made for them by his/her parents.

Salvation in Anglicanism is not so much an instantaneous event as a process with past, present, and future components. Baptism is the first step on a long journey. The dynamic nature of the salvation process does mean that we need to be vigilant against the sin of unbelief (and the resulting fall from grace). We should always take the time to remember our baptismal vows and how we are bound to Christ through His sacrament.

Faith and Reason

2007-05-20T20:47:00.000-06:00

This weekend I finished reading a great book by Dava Sobel - 'Galileo's Daughter'. It combines two of my interests -- theology and astronomy. I was not familiar with Galileo's life prior to reading the book so it was all new to me. The book is very well written and is a real page-turner. It is primarily oriented around Galileo's life during the time of his astronomical discoveries. It references numerous letters from his daughter to provide greater insights into Galileo's character and his struggle to reconcile his discoveries with his Christian faith.

Unfortunately it is a rather tragic tale that set the groundwork for the belief that faith and reason should have an antagonistic relationship. Upon reading the book you realize that Galileo never subscribed to that point of view and felt that faith and reason are meant to be complementary. History has of course vindicated Galileo, but it is worth remembering the lessons of his life.

This story is often used now as an example of what happens when people of faith 'meddle' in science. This is particularly relevant today in the area of bioethics. To give you a particular example, I am very much opposed to embryonic stem cell research for moral reasons, but others in favor of the technology would argue that I am letting my faith transform me into a progress-denying Luddite. I would respond that my reason is properly ordered by my faith.

My reason tells me that there is no way to objectively determine through scientific means when 'personhood' is bestowed upon a baby still in the womb. As a result of this my reason leads me to conclude that the ethically safe course of action is to assume that personhood is conveyed upon a person at the moment of their conception. Proponents of this new technology cannot logically answer the question of what makes an embryo 'less human' than a grown adult. One could argue that an embryo is the epitome of what it means to be human as it contains the full potency of a human being in just a few cells whereas a grown adult has less potency and more act.

Reason devoid of faith is just as dangerous as blind faith. We as human beings have a moral responsibility to use the reason bestowed on us by the Creator in a manner that improves life but always respects it.

Eschatology: Should We Care?

2007-05-15T20:58:00.000-06:00

If you walk into many Christian bookstores around the country you will see countless books about the 'end times'. Some of these books like the Left Behind series are intended primarily to entertain people. Other more serious works examine in great detail how to connect passages in Revelation and Daniel with present-day events. These kinds of works have permeated Christian pop culture. This poses the question: Is this a good thing for Christianity?

Unfortunately I do not think these works are in the best interest of the Christian faith. My first problem with these works is that they often have the effect of converting people to Christianity out of fear. I agree that it is our mission as Christians to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, but I do not think this is a good way to go about doing it. Jesus spent a lot more time talking about the love of God and loving one's neighbor than talking about judgment. This does not mean we should gloss over man's fallen nature or the consequences of sin, but instead we need to integrate these ideas into a coherent whole that incorporates all aspects of Jesus' teachings.

My second problem is that most of these works are founded on a newer form of eschatology that is less than 200 years old. The historic Church interpreted the book of Revelation in an entirely different way. Revelation had been understood as a deeply symbolic book that predicted the eventual triumph of Christianity over the Roman Empire. The new eschatology movement discarded the proper understanding of apocalyptic literature and replaced it with a literalist interpretation where every passage is mapped to modern-day events. This brand of eschatology is primarily oriented around the final battle between good and evil -- Armageddon.

This leads me to my final point. Under this new system of eschatology it does not matter if we live in peace with each other or be good stewards of the earth since it teaches that the entire universe will be replaced anyway. In fact it is arguable that this theology has had a subliminal negative influence on foreign policy. There is this feeling among some that by stirring up problems in the Middle East that we will help usher in Armageddon and therefore trigger the Second Coming.

This is a very presumptuous idea and totally contradicts what Jesus said in Matthew 24:36. Jesus said, "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (NRSV). We need to focus more on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and less on things that are outside our control.

Mother's Day

2007-05-13T20:57:00.000-06:00

This link provides some good food for thought on Mother's Day:

Stay-at-home mom's work worth $138,095

In today's busy society the hard work of our mothers (particularly those who stay at home with children) is often overlooked. Modern mothers have an amazing number of roles to fill in the family. They definitely deserve a special day for themselves.

The Problem of Authority

2007-05-09T21:16:00.000-06:00

One of the more difficult problems in the Anglican Communion (and in mainline Protestantism in general) is one of authority. The primary question in the debate to address this problem is "Who or what has the last word in doctrinal disputes?" The answer to this question for Protestants is typically "Scripture is the sole source of authority."

The difficulty with this answer lies in the fact that the meaning of Scripture is not always clear. Scripture has many layers of meaning and opinions often differ on whether a passage of Scripture is meant to be taken literally or metaphorically. The particular faith background of the Christian reading Scripture has a large degree of influence on the results of their interpretation. How can we as a faith community reconcile these different points of view into a coherent whole? Is it even possible?

Some groups have chosen to take the literalist stance where every passage is meant to be taken exactly as it is written except where it is not theologically expedient. This intellectually weak method of exegesis creates more problems than it solves and discredits Christianity in the eyes of the secular world.

At the other end of the spectrum some groups interpret most passages metaphorically, and this has the tendency to water down Christianity to a set of moral platitudes and make relativism the order of the day.

It is obvious that neither of these extremes will work for a long-term solution to the problem of biblical authority. The difficulty is in achieving a balance between this two viewpoints, and I believe that Tradition and communal decision are key to creating this equilibrium.

Scripture was never meant to be interpreted in a vacuum. No matter how a person tackles the problem of Scriptural interpretation extra-biblical sources will have to be consulted. The interpreter crosses over into the realm of Tradition at that point. There must be a process to establish which elements of Tradition are truly timeless and which ones are purely a product of the historical framework in which they were generated.

This process should be undertaken as a community, but the obvious question now is, "Who in the community can participate in these kinds of decisions?" As the community grows larger there is greater potential for splinter groups to form. How can we as Christians avoid further fragmentation?

The overarching question is: How can we evolve as a community while still preserving the authority of Scripture?

The Empty Tomb

2007-05-05T18:13:00.000-06:00

Here is an article I wrote around Easter a couple of years ago. Hopefully it still holds up well today:

One can imagine what the women felt as they walked to Jesus’ tomb early that first Easter morning. They had likely spent the previous Sabbath day in fear and despair. All of their hopes and dreams had been dashed just two days before as their holy teacher was brutally murdered at the hands of his own people. The king and savior they had wished for had died the ignominious death of a common criminal. They did not even have the time to fully prepare His body for a proper burial before the start of the Sabbath.

Just a week before as Jesus rode into Jerusalem it seemed like the kingdom of God was imminent, but now their messianic expectations had faded. They were probably asking themselves questions like “How did we get from there to here? Why did this happen?” Unfortunately these were the kinds of questions for which there were no easy answers, so they focused on the practical matters of the here and now instead. It was much easier for them to contemplate how they were going to move the stone than to try to answer the more difficult question of what would happen to their fellowship.

The disciples’ faith at that time was shattered beyond any ordinary hope of recovery. Most of them had scattered in fear, and only John had been willing to stand with the women at the foot of the cross. Their dream of ushering in the kingdom of God had been washed away like so much flotsam, and their fragile alliance was on the verge of permanent collapse under the weight of Roman imperialism and the intolerance of the Jewish religious establishment.

So it is not without a certain amount of despair that these women walked to the tomb with their spices. It was probably only a short distance away, but the trip there could have felt longer than expected. Seeing the tomb would only make His death more real to them and touching His mutilated body again would remind them firsthand of the cruelty of a Roman crucifixion. It is a testament to their character that they continued on to the tomb. They wanted to pay their former master one last measure of respect and love even if it meant reliving those sad events.

Their pulses quickened when they saw that something had changed since their master was laid in His tomb. The massive stone blocking the entrance had been rolled away. Their hearts sank as they realized the most logical reason for this change in events. Someone had taken their Lord! His enemies could not even allow His body to rest in dignity! They hurried inside to confirm their suspicions, but then something totally unexpected happened.

The Gospels differ on the exact flow of events, but what they heard from the angels at the tomb was essentially the same. “He is not here. He is risen.” As the reality of the resurrection hit them they were overcome with both fear and joy. They initially did not understand the full truth of what had happened, but that did not prevent them from hurrying to tell the disciples of the glorious event.

It is interesting that women were the first ones chosen to proclaim the good news to others. Mark and John’s Gospels attest that Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus in his resurrected body and tell the disciples (which led to her being called “the apostle to the apostles” by St. Augustine and some of the other early Church Fathers). Why did the events play out that way? The patriarchal culture that they lived in did not regard the testimony of a woman very highly, so if anything this would have raised doubts in the minds of those who heard their story.

Maybe God chose to reward them for their loyalty and steadfastness at the foot of the cross, or possibly the rest of Jesus’ followers were too depressed to even witness such a glorious event, much less comprehend it. It also had prophetic implications for the roles of women in the church once strictly patriarchal cultures were no longer the norm. In any case the fact that women were chosen first adds credibility to the resurrection. The Gospel writers had nothing to gain by recording the events in that manner. So what does this all mean?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ had established a new age of faith and belief. The proclamation of the gospel requires no special social status, intellectual might, or exceptional piety. All that is required is an open heart to accept God’s message and a willingness to share the good news with others. These women certainly exemplify these values, and they exhibit good examples of faith that we can look to for guidance almost 2000 years later.

All Christians, male or female, clergy or laity, have one primary mission that we share with these women: to proclaim the gospel. How we do this is manifested in different ways as we all have different gifts, and each of us have distinct roles within the Body of Christ. It can be as simple as reaching out to a stranger in need, telling our children about our faith, or comforting a friend in distress. In this way we are taking the message of the resurrection and living it out in faith supported by hope in Jesus Christ for our salvation and love of God and our fellow human beings.

The empty tomb gives us hope and adds meaning to our lives. As I Peter 1:3 says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” Jesus’ passing from death unto life has opened the doorway to an existence that transcends ordinary human experience, and this hope should permeate all aspects of our lives.

Now that Jesus has conquered death we no longer have to live in fear or despair despite all the cruel things that are happening around us. We must look beyond the reality of the present age to an even greater reality. Jesus has risen, and the kingdom of God is truly in our midst. We have only to embrace it.

Welcome

2007-05-05T18:08:00.000-06:00

Thank you for visiting my blog! At this point in time I don't have a formal purpose in mind. I will start out with some various theological articles and hopefully the blog will evolve over time based on your feedback. I welcome your questions and comments either on the blog itself or at the email address at the top of the page. I hope to hear from you soon.