Category Archives: church

Embracing St Benedict (as opposed to Killing George Herbert)

Posted on by

This is from his Rule, on ‘The Character of the Abbot’:

“It is seemly for the abbot to be ever doing some good for his brethren rather than to be presiding over them. He must, therefore, be learned in the law of God, that he may know whence to bring forth things new and old; he must be chaste, sober, and merciful, ever preferring mercy to justice, that he himself may obtain mercy. Let him hate sin and love the brethren. And even in his corrections, let him act with prudence, and not go too far, lest while he seek too eagerly to scrape off the rust, the vessel be broken. Let him keep his own frailty ever before his eyes, and remember that the bruised reed must not be broken. And by this we do not mean that he should suffer vices to grow up; but that prudently and with charity he should cut them off, in the way he shall see best for each, as we have already said; and let him study rather to be loved than feared. Let him not be violent nor over anxious, not exacting nor obstinate, not jealous nor prone to suspicion, or else he will never be at rest. In all his commands, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be prudent and considerate. In the works which he imposes let him be discreet and moderate, bearing in mind the discretion of holy Jacob, when he said: ‘If I cause my flocks to be overdriven, they will all perish in one day’. Taking, then, such testimonies as are borne by these and the like words to discretion, the mother of virtues, let him so temper all things, that the strong may have something to strive after, and the weak nothing at which to take alarm.”

That’s an ideal I could aim at.

Growth in discipleship 2

Posted on by

Lots of interesting comments on my first post on this, here and on Facebook. I’ll concentrate on the things that I agree with.

First: learning styles. Yes, this absolutely needs to be taken into account. One model that I’ve liked is this one:

Second: the list in the last post can be jumbled up and shuffled around – it’s not a linear process I mostly agree with this, but not totally.

Put these two together and we’d have more of a spiral staircase, with lots of different access points. So the question becomes – do we provide a context within which people can enter in all sorts of different ways?

Those learning styles: Activist – Theorist – Reflector – Pragmatist. How do they fit into ‘learning how to be a Christian’?

Third: a comment from Tim on FB, “The problem as I see it is that the NT does not present the apostles and early missionaries as leading Christians through ten-week courses. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t grow disciples, though. I tried the ‘course’ approach for years and it just didn’t work for anything more than a minority of people in our context. I also noted that even those who had been through the courses were not necessarily practising the disciplines they had learned about. So I’ve come to the conclusion that the old-fashioned one-on-one approach may well be best. It seems to be working better for me anyway.” I liked this a lot, not least because it chimed with my last talk on St Benedict, wherein he described what the Abbot was supposed to do (how he was supposed to be) which was to focus on the monks as individuals. Raises the ghost of George Herbert again though…

So “What would Jesus do?” – in the ASB ordinal the priest is enjoined to ‘set the Good Shepherd always before [you] as the pattern of [your] calling’. I can see the following:
– plenty of private prayer time and solitude getting intimate with the Father;
– work with a small group of the ‘inner three’;
– work with a small group of ‘the twelve’;
– work with a wider group of disciples (and where Mary Mag?)
– generalised teaching to crowds primarily with parables but also with healing/exorcisms
– prophetic drama and public debate with the religious authorities.

I would say that he modelled a particular understanding of faith, and lived it in the circumstances in which he found himself.

(I’m not sure that he did much of what might today be called ‘public service’ or ‘good works’ – that seems to be a liberal distraction – things that make us ‘good people’ rather than ‘people of God’ – not that there’s anything wrong with being a ‘good person’!)

OK time run out; still thinking about this; more later.

Growth in discipleship

Posted on by

If you go to a school of Martial Arts, there is a clear structure describing how you grow from a complete beginner to someone who has proficiency (helpfully marked out by different coloured belts). The same scheme applies in all sorts of other areas. It doesn’t really apply in the church, and I wonder if that is a problem. In other words, I wonder if a clear structure setting out how we understand what it means to grow as a Christian would be of some use. As a first sketch, how about this:

Alpha

Post-Alpha

Confirmation course and confirmation

House groups and regular attendance at worship

Private prayer and becoming comfortable with silence

Regular and formal bible study, also some doctrine and church history

Service to church

Service to community

What do people think? What is missing?

Of course, having something like this offends against all sorts of shibboleths, eg that we are all of equal value in the sight of the Lord (true, but irrelevant). It begs the question of whether it is possible to be more ‘advanced’ in the faith than others. Yet I don’t believe anyone actually thinks that there isn’t a difference – it’s just that it is only acceptable to talk about such differences when the people being mentioned are a long way away, either in time or space.

I can’t avoid thinking that there is a distinct gap in our formation of new disciples, and we need something to plug that gap. (NB I’m aware that the Emmaus course covers much of this).

How I think the church will grow

Posted on by

“Indians had learned to look on us missionaries as friends, as people who would help them, and as good workers, but they had not yet learned to look on us as men and women of God.” (Quoted in Praying Hyde).

The church will grow when people perceive that here there are men and women of God.

And that will come about when we become men and women of God.

And that will come about when we put the first commandment first.

Let us pray.

Ah, Church

Posted on by

Found this from here, via Graham, and thought I’d share it as it impinges on several conversations being had within the benefice:

Here is a step-by-step plan for how to get more young people into the church:

1. Be genuine. Do not under any circumstances try to be trendy or hip, if you are not already intrinsically trendy or hip. If you are a 90-year-old woman who enjoys crocheting and listens to Beethoven, by God be proud of it.

2. Stop pretending you have a rock band.

3. Stop arguing about whether gay people are okay, fully human, or whatever else. Seriously. Stop it.

4. Stop arguing about whether women are okay, fully human, or are capable of being in a position of leadership.

5. Stop looking for the “objective truth” in Scripture.

6. Start looking for the beautiful truth in Scripture.

7. Actually read the Scriptures. If you are Episcopalian, go buy a Bible and read it. Start in Genesis, it’s pretty cool. You can skip some of the other boring parts in the Bible. Remember though that almost every book of the Bible has some really funky stuff in it. Remember to keep #5 and #6 in mind though. If you are evangelical, you may need to stop reading the Bible for about 10 years. Don’t worry: during those ten years you can work on putting these other steps into practice.

8. Start worrying about extreme poverty, violence against women, racism, consumerism, and the rate at which children are dying worldwide of preventable, treatable diseases. Put all the energy you formerly spent worrying about the legit-ness of gay people into figuring out ways to do some good in these areas.

9. Do not shy away from lighting candles, silence, incense, laughter, really good food, and extraordinary music. By “extraordinary music” I mean genuine music. Soulful music. Well-written, well-composed music. Original music. Four-part harmony music. Funky retro organ music. Hymns. Taize chants. Bluegrass. Steel guitar. Humming. Gospel. We are the church; we have a uber-rich history of amazing music. Remember this.

10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

11. Learn how to sit with people who are dying.

12. Feast as much as possible. Cardboard communion wafers are a feast in symbol only. Humans can not live on symbols alone. Remember this.

13. Notice visitors, smile genuinely at them, include them in conversations, but do not overwhelm them.

14. Be vulnerable.

15. Stop worrying about getting young people into the church. Stop worrying about marketing strategies. Take a deep breath. If there is a God, that God isn’t going to die even if there are no more Christians at all.

16. Figure out who is suffering in your community. Go be with them.

17. Remind yourself that you don’t have to take God to anyone. God is already with everyone. So, rather than taking the approach that you need to take the truth out to people who need it, adopt the approach that you need to go find the truth that others have and you are missing. Go be evangelized.

18. Put some time and care and energy into creating a beautiful space for worship and being-together. But shy away from building campaigns, parking lot expansions, and what-have-you.

19. Make some part of the church building accessible for people to pray in 24/7. Put some blankets there too, in case someone has nowhere else to go for the night.

20. Listen to God (to Wisdom, to Love) more than you speak your opinions.

~~

No comments for now, although I don’t agree with all of it.

Does Anglo-Catholicism have a future?

Posted on by

I’ve written before about where I think the CofE is headed (see especially here, here, here and, most simply, here). And I’m just wondering… I wonder what future the TEC-sympathetic clergy and congregations have in the CofE? Which is really one way of asking: what is the future for those of us who are Anglo-Catholic in theology and worship and spirituality, but who neither want to go to Rome nor embrace liberal-ish evangelicalism?

I read this post a while back, which made me think a lot. I know the church and people concerned (close to where I did my curacy) and the vitality of that sort of Anglo-Catholicism has surely vanished – rightly, on many things.

If I were to dream up a recipe for ‘my’ sort of Anglo-Catholicism, what would it look like?

At the heart – and what would qualify it as ‘Anglo-Catholic’ – would be the three-fold emphasis flowing from the theology of the Incarnation. That means: a eucharistically-centred spirituality (worship); a commitment to the orthodox creeds (doctrine); and a passionate engagement with the world, seeking social justice (service). These three I see as aspects of a single commitment, that is, logically, you can’t have one without the other two; or, at least, you can’t have full-bodied versions of one without the others, as they each support the other and give them purpose, focus and strength.

Theologically, it means a commitment to the catholic faith, understood in the traditional way as ‘what has been believed everywhere by all Christians’ – which I know is an ideal that has never been actualised, but ideals are important. In practice what this means is an acceptance of the teachings promulgated by the united councils of the church, ie through the first millenium. It involves reference to and reverence for the teachings of the church fathers as holding great weight for how we are to understand the faith. It means classical theism and an embrace of Christian mysticism. It means the approval of icons and incense – worship embracing all the senses!

With respect to the church in England, it means that we see the Anglican church as a part of the catholic church – not a sect but simply the gathering of believers in this territory. It means not claiming any doctrinal distinctives, nor any exclusive possession of the truth. It means rejecting the claims of foreign popes, and certainly the Modern doctrinal corruptions associated most especially with Vatican 1. No to Marian dogmas, but certainly an acceptance of Marian devotion such as hymns to the Theotokos.

It means a profound scepticism about the established nature of the church, and a settled intent to seek disestablishment in so far as that pursuit does not undermine more immediately important goals. It means putting flesh on the bones of ‘episcopally led, synodically governed’; that is, obedience to our bishops is still a virtue ardently to be sought, but it would be better if the bishops were elected.

It means – in the words of +Richard Chartres when he once gave a charge to ordinands – not getting caught up with the ‘festoons‘ of the faith: particular manners of dress or address; and also abandoning the whole panoply of eucharistic devotions that derive from the theological corruptions symbolised by Corpus Christi.

It feels good to get all that off my chest. However I suspect that, sadly, those who share this understanding are doomed to live out our ministries in a state of exile.

TBTMs

Posted on by

It’s been a strange few days. Some of these links might have been shared before.

An article by Joseph Tainter.
Space and Time are NOT the reward for getting your priestly ministry done: they are the necessities for getting your priestly ministry done.
The importance of Evensong.
How the Tea Party organises without leaders.
The most spiritually literate films of… (follow links on bar on left)
The 50 funniest scenes in the history of film.
The habit forge

About the church magazine, and a bit more…

Posted on by

So. The Church magazine was dead on it’s feet a few years ago, before a friend picked up the editorship and managed to take it off life-support. For very good reasons, he is now wanting to concentrate on other things, and I have said that I will – in the very short term, ie between now and Christmas – take over that job.

Yet I look at the magazine and I wonder… why? Why do we keep it going?

We need to have a channel to distribute information to the congregation. Yet we already have a weekly pew-sheet and an e-mail circulation list. The number of people who actually rely on the magazine is pretty small, if any.

It’s not as if there is any prospect of it becoming a general interest magazine, which non-churchgoers would be happy to peruse (which happens in a different one of my parishes, and very successfully). I can see a way of working to build up the magazine with lots of interesting articles… but why? What would be the point? There is a general interest magazine/newspaper for the Island already, and actually I think it’s pretty good. More than that, I think that as a culture we are drowning in words and we really don’t need any more.

In addition, the job of being a magazine editor is pretty thankless, all things considered (and I’ve done it before, so I know what I’m talking about). If there was a proper budgeting of the enterprise – that is, one which included the cost of the labour involved to produce it – I have no doubt that it would be shown that the magazine runs at a significant loss.

So I wonder… why? What’s the point? Why don’t we just let the natural processes take their course and allow that particular expression of church communication to rest in peace?

And then I think: what’s the difference between church magazines and church as such?

Roman Catholic Social Policy vs Sharia Law

Posted on by

I was shocked (shocked, I tell you, shocked!) by the Observer’s comment “I would take sharia law over roman catholic social policy.”

I find this unfathomable, and offer up this post so that people can have a natter about it, should they so desire. Here are a few thoughts to kick things off:

– I see catholic social theology as one of the glories of Christian thinking and practice. Whilst I have some minor disagreements with it (eg some aspects of sexual ethics – I disagree with Aquinas as to how to properly describe the telos of sexual behaviour) on the whole I find it a tremendously congenial place to stand;
– in contrast I see sharia law as profoundly iniquitous, not in theory (which I can understand) but in practice. To put it bluntly, the imposition of sharia law – not least if it threatened my daughters, eg their education – is something that I would have very few qualms about fighting…

Roughly speaking, it seems to me that if you have any desire for the full human flourishing for those who are not the dominant heterosexual males in a society, then the Catholic side of things has to be preferred.

Off you go 🙂