Everything Matters: Starbucks and Christian Worship

Everything Matters: Starbucks and Christian Worship

 

 

 

First a wee bit of housekeeping: If you're new to my little corner of the Internet, welcome! All respectful conversation is welcome here, so dive right in. If you've been here before and had this site bookmarked, please note that the new URL is www.davidfaulkner.org. The old URL is no longer active, so please update your bookmark!  I will be posting more frequently, ranging from original writings such as this one, to links to recommended articles, sermons, commentary, and most likely some humor as well.

 

 

What has Starbucks to do with Christian worship (aside from the fact that many mega churches now "proudly brew" their coffee)? More than you might think. I enjoyed working at Starbucks while I was in seminary. It really is an ideal job for a seminarian: I received a pound of coffee a week (on top of being wired to the gills at work!), fair pay, a fun place to work, and most importantly a lot of practice at remaining charming when people are being rude to me--not that the clergy have need of such a skill! I also received a black apron emblazoned with the Starbucks logo and the phrase "Everything Matters." That is the link between Starbucks and how we ought to view Christian Worship: Everything Matters.

 

Consider this: Starbucks contends (on a corporate level, your mileage may vary with your local baristas!) that literally every aspect of their coffee making and selling task truly matters. It matters how the drinks are made, where the straws are placed, what music is playing, how long it takes the customer to be served, whether a store has an adequate supply of those helpful little stoppers that keep one from spilling coffee in the car, and so on. There is no trivial or unimportant aspect of the Starbucks experience; it all matters. If it is worth obsessing over every aspect of a coffee experience, how much more important is it to thoughtfully consider every aspect of worshipping God? I humbly suggest that the Church needs to demonstrate at least the same level of attention to detail when bringing people into the transforming presence of Jesus Christ as Starbucks does when serving people their daily doses of caffeine.

 

Why is this worth going on about? Quite simply, everything we say and do in Christian worship says something about how we understand God, humanity, and our relationship to Him. While there are many beliefs that people carefully work through and decide to hold, most people most of the time simply discover what they believe, rather than decide (whether this is good or not is another thought for another day). If one has spent years singing only about fire and brimstone, it is difficult to view any other facet of God than His righteous judgment. On the other hand, if one has spent years singing about how great we are and how Jesus is lucky to have our fabulous selves, it is difficult to not end up talking to God like we are the spoiled brat from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. This one:

 

 

Neither option is recommended. If we truly recognize how we are all shaped by the language we use in worship, the theology we repeat in liturgies and in the hymns and songs we sing, we can only respond by caring about every single word and liturgical action. Everything matters. This is why some of us (myself certainly included) get so worked up when talking about liturgical change. It is not that change is bad; we must worship God and proclaim the Gospel afresh in every context and every generation. It is quite simply that the words we repeat day after day, and the hymns we sing week after week will so shape the people of God that change is worth undertaking carefully and deliberately. The stakes are simply too high to fail to question the theology contained in music and liturgy already being used as well as those being proposed for use, whether it is a local question or part of denomination-wide liturgical revision.

 

This is not just for Anglicans and Roman Catholics. All Christians need to question what is said, sung, and done in worship in order to ensure that practice is consistent with professed theology. Growing up Baptist, I remember discussions over where in the service it would be best to take up the offering. I confess that at the time I found such discussions tedious. However, if everything matters, that does too. If the offering is collected after the sermon, is it a tip for good preaching? How about if it is collected at the end as people are leaving when everyone can plainly see if their neighbors remembered their pledge envelope? It is admittedly not the gravest example, but even an action as seemingly simple as the collection of money must be carefully considered, for the words spoken around it and even its place in the liturgy communicate something to the people.

 

Remember the words of Scotsman Andrew Fletcher, "Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." (Many wrongly attribute this to Plato, which would admittedly give it more weight if the attribution were true!) We might tweak this for the Church and say, "Let me make the liturgy and music of the Church, and I care not who makes the canons or writes the House of Bishops position papers." Our repeated worship together forms all of us and our beliefs far more substantially than canons, the Articles of Religion, or any other top-down statement. It would be difficult to overstate the influence of corporate worship on both corporate and private belief. Everything matters, indeed.

 

Just the other day during Morning Prayer I prayed as I typically do for the parish I serve. I happened to use the prayer for the parish contained in Saint Augustine's Prayer Book (1967 rev. ed., 1993 new size) instead of the 1979 American BCP and I was deeply struck by the differences in the two prayers that a casual observer might call "basically the same." Read them both and see what stands out to you. The differences are far greater than older idiom and newer.

 

First, from Saint Augustine's (p. 36):

 

Almighty and everlasting God, who dost govern all things in heaven and earth, mercifully hear the supplications of us thy servants, and grant unto this parish all things that are needful for its spiritual welfare; enlighten and guide its priest(s); strengthen and increase the faithful; visit and relieve the sick; turn and soften the wicked; rouse the careless; recover the fallen; restore the penitent; remove all hindrances to the advancement of thy truth; bring all to be of one heart and mind within the fold of thy holy Church; to the honor and glory of thy Name. Amen.

 

Now, from the 1979 American BCP (p. 817):

 

Almighty and everliving God, ruler of all things in heaven and earth, hear our prayers for this parish family. Strengthen the faithful, arouse the careless, and restore the penitent. Grant us all things necessary for our common life, and bring us all to be of one heart and mind within your holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

 

Are these "basically the same," or are there differences that matter? What does it mean that one prays for the priest(s) and the other doesn't? Are there really wicked people in the parish? How did praying for the removal of hindrances to the advancement of God's truth not make the cut? And the question that matters most: how might one's view of parish life be shaped differently depending on which of these prayers one prays for years?

 

The point of this example and of this whole post is not to argue for one version of something over another. There are obviously positive elements in both prayers. Neither prayer is heretical. It is simply to suggest that everything we do in worship matters. It matters how we address God. It matters if the theology contained in worship music is deistic at best. It matters how we engage the senses. It matters if and how we include children. It matters how we baptize, how we bless, and how we celebrate. There is not an inconsequential moment or element in all of Christian worship.

 

Let us learn from Starbucks. It would be a shame for later generations to say that we were not nearly as concerned with every aspect of properly worshipping God as Starbucks was with every aspect of selling coffee.

 

Everything matters.



Presiding Bishop Unwittingly Speaks the Truth

“Most of us don’t live in a world where one person is the ultimate decider – because, over and over again, we’ve discovered that better decisions are made when they’re made in communities with appropriate checks and balances. Power assumed by one authority figure alone is often a recipe for abuse, tyranny and corruption.”

-Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, speaking to the continuing Episcopalians in the State of South Carolina, Jan 26th, 2013 (ENS Article , emphasis mine)

Full text of "sermon" here 

I find myself in unfamiliar territory today: I agree with the Presiding Bishop...at least on the above quote. While railing against Bishop Lawrence of the departed Diocese of South Carolina, she unwittingly criticized him for alleged behavior that is far more characteristic of her behavior as the Presiding Bishop. Does she really not see the irony dripping off the above quote!? Perhaps the plank in her eye is obscuring her vision. 

To compare the mentality of a brother bishop to school shooters (see here), or to call him and presumably those close to him "petty deciders or wolves who masquerade as sheep" is incredibly inappropriate for any Christian, not to mention bizarre. I truly have never before heard or read such a spiteful and hate-fueled speech on either side of our present unpleasantness. This type of hateful and over the top language is even worse coming from a leader who claims to speak for the "national Church" and all Episcopalians. Let me be clear: I am an Episcopal priest and the Presiding Bishop does not speak for me. I have no delusion that I share in any ownership of anything outside of my parish and my diocese. The idea that one person, even if one agrees with the present incumbent, can speak for all Episcopalians is sheer lunacy. 

To be fair, this centralization of power and influence certainly did not start with the present Presiding Bishop, but we do well to consider the state in which we find ourselves. Power corrupts, and the Presiding Bishop rightly notes that when one figure assumes the power it often leads to abuse, tyranny and corruption. She apparently fails to see how this truth has been demonstrated in her term as Presiding Bishop. Fast tracking bishops to "renounce their orders" rather than letting the House of Bishops speak, inhibiting without the consent of the three most senior active bishops (which the new Title IV conveniently does not require), and setting up new dioceses (which TEC has every right to do) while violating the canons of TEC all point to an office that has overgrown its canonical bounds and is running unchecked.

We are a church of checks and balances, at least on paper. Parishes can't call a rector without the consent of the Diocesan. Bishops can't ordain without the consent of the Standing Committee. The canons protect all involved: the clergy from the bishop, the clergy from the people, and the people from the clergy. At the parish level and the diocesan level we see this truth played out, but not at the "national" level. Here, as has been documented over years by folks more informed than me, we see a bloated bureaucracy operating unchecked and at many times against the canons that are supposed to keep it and all of us in line.

There is much more I would like to say, but the Presiding Bishop makes the argument against centralized power far better than I could at the moment. If you are an Episcopalian, and especially if you are an Episcopalian who disagrees with what I have written, I urge you to go read the Presiding Bishop's "sermon" for yourself.  I welcome all dialogue, especially from those who have actually read what the Presiding Bishop said.

I am sad that the Presiding Bishop can't seem to go about the business of organizing a group of remaining Episcopalians without resulting to volleying some of the most bizarre and spiteful language I have witnessed against another group of Christians who could not in good conscience go along with her way of doing things. If we are to have splits, and we are, we need to part as brothers and sisters in Christ in such a manner that we may have some shred of hope to proclaim the love of Christ to the world even after they've watched us fight.

Regardless of your bias in this particular situation, I urge you to pray for the Church. Pray that when the dust settles we will still have some legitimacy left to proclaim the Gospel to this broken and sinful world.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it

with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, 

purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is 

amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in 

want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake

of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen. (BCP 1979, p. 816)

Catholic Anglicanism

Dear Reader,

I would like to share with you a helpful little piece from Fr. Thomas A. Fraser, president of The Living Church Foundation, Inc.. In this piece, he neatly outlines what exactly we mean when we go on about  being a Catholic Anglican. I think one of the great underlying tensions in The Episcopal Church is between the desire for autonomy and the classical Anglican concern for catholicity. What then does Catholic Anglicanism mean?

[Fr. Fraser writes:]

When we speak of Catholic Anglicanism we mean:

1. an Anglicanism which is defined by, and in all things understood in, the perspective of the fullness of its almost 2,000 year history, not understood as being founded in and defined by the second half of the 16th century; 
2. an Anglicanism in full communion with the ancient See of Canterbury, whose core norms and practice are consistent on all levels — provincial, diocesan, parochial — with the teaching of the Anglican Communion worldwide, as expressed by the council of Anglican primates, archbishops, and diocesan bishops known as the Lambeth Conference; 
3. an Anglicanism which upholds the historic teaching of the undivided Catholic Church as defined by its seven General Councils: 
• The Church on earth is a divinely instituted sacramental body established by Jesus Christ, which will be indwelt by the Holy Spirit until Christ’s coming again at the end of the age; 
• The Church on earth, while not infallible, is “indefectible,” that is, it cannot remain in error. In the fullness of time the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth; 
• Christ gave the authority and power to interpret his revelation and apply it to the ongoing life of the Church (to “bind and loose”): to his apostles as a body (neither to any individual bishop alone or any local synod of bishops nor to every individual Christian). Therefore only a general council of all the bishops in the apostolic succession can authoritatively interpret matters of faith and morals (de fide) and alone constitutes the dominically established magisterium of the holy Catholic Church; 
• The Church has three states: “militant” on earth, “expectant” in paradise, and “triumphant” in heaven; 
• Salvation is a lifelong process or journey beginning with justification (which comes through Baptism) and continues with sanctification (which comes principally, though not exclusively, through the other sacraments); 
• Seven sacraments objectively convey salvific grace, including the sacrament of Holy Orders: bishops, priests, and deacons in the Apostolic Succession.

We promote and support an understanding of Anglicanism which — in the words attributed to Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Francis Fisher (1945-61) — proclaims that “we have no doctrine of our own. We only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution.”


A hat tip and many thanks to The Rev'd Cn. Bryan Owen, who shared this piece on his blog: Creedal Christian, which I commend to you all most highly.

What do you all think? Does this outline of Anglican identity resonate with you, or are there some points on which you would like to push back?

As always, I welcome your comments.

Blessings,
David+

Sue Christians, Get a GTS Doctorate.

Dear Reader,

There is certainly much to digest from General Convention, and before I do so I want to spend a post or two laying out my approach to these issues from an Evangelical Catholic perspective. While I am working on that, I'd like to share a wee bit of news and commentary that to my shock hasn't appeared anywhere in the Anglican blogosphere. This will show just one of the symptoms of the underlying problems in our beloved Episcopal Church.

But first, the usual disclaimer: I am a priest of the Diocese of Dallas, which is a part of The Episcopal Church. I have not left TEC, and I do not advise others to do so. However, I do regard those who have left as faithful Anglicans, and most importantly my brothers and sisters in Christ. And of course, these opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Diocese of Dallas, our Title IV Intake Officer, or Mickey Mouse. Now then, onto it.

The photo above, from The General Theological Seminary, shows a familiar site, a seminary dean with those whom the seminary honored with honorary doctorates at this year's commencement. So far so good. However, this picture also shows what I believe is a first in the history of all of our Episcopal seminaries. Three of the four recipients are being honored for some of the "usual reasons": ecumenical work, seminary research and support, and teaching and writing ministry. One can read their citations and understand why the seminary would want to honor them in this way. One of the gentlemen, second from the left, is Mr. David Booth Beers, Esq., chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. He received an honorary doctorate for (and I quote from the GTS website, one really can't make this stuff up):

David Booth Beers, Esq.  is a noted attorney and Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. He is of counsel to the law firm Goodwin Proctor where he has an extensive national and international practice in the non-profit sector. He has led the legal effort of the Episcopal Church to safe guard the rights and property of the church, dioceses and parishes from the plans of those who have broken away from the church and yet attempted to take church property with them. He has worked closely for many years with the Church History faculty of the Seminary in his support of the church and enjoys wide and deep respect. He is an active layman in St. Patrick’s Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Washington. (Emphasis mine.)

That's right, if one wants an honorary doctorate, one could spend a lifetime teaching and writing, or one could simply enable litigation against other Christians. It is shameful that one of our seminaries would hold up the work of violating the clear teaching of Scripture to settle Christian disputes outside of secular court as an example worthy of a seminary doctorate. We must remember I Corinthians 6:1-8 (Which I know is difficult, since it never comes up in the RCL!):

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! (Cited from the not-General-Convention-approved English Standard Version.)

Let me be clear, I'm not bashing Mr. Beers. He is a lawyer, and lawyers rightly provide counsel to those who wish to employ their services. Lawyers provide a necessary service, regardless of the guilt or innocence of their clients. No one should judge a lawyer poorly because he or she is willing to represent people who are doing fundamentally unchristian things. 

However, I do judge that this action by one of our seminaries is incredibly shameful. Even if one believes it is proper to sue Christians who cannot in good conscience stay in The Episcopal Church, this sort of behavior should embarrass us all. If one thinks we should sue other Christians, one ought to at least have the decency to recognize it for what it is: a scandal against the whole Church (and I mean the Church Catholic, not just our tiny portion of it), demonstrative of an obsession with money and possessions, and a power play by those in power to impose their will on "those meddlesome traditionalists." Suing other Christians is the kind of stuff for smoky back rooms and dark alleys, not something to be honored in the light of day. It is certainly not something to be held up as an example to the whole Church, including in the giving of honorary degrees.

Am I the only one who wonders what the state of Anglicanism in North America would look like if even whole dioceses weren't afraid of litigation and loss of property for which they and there forebears paid? If the fear of losing property is the only thing holding us together, Lord have mercy upon us all. I remember Bishop Lawrence of South Carolina, saying that he never felt more like the Bishop of his people than he did on the day he issued quit-claim deeds to every parish in the diocese (with apologies to +Lawrence, I think that's reasonably close, but I couldn't find the link to the original). His point, as I read it, was that his episcopal relationship with his people was stronger, not weaker, once the fear of litigation and loss of property had been removed. I think the good bishop hit the nail on the head: that which ought to bind us together had better be stronger than the fear of losing one's property.  If lawsuits and fear are what is holding us together, maybe it would be better if we splintered into oblivion.  

Of course, I think there are many other things that can help hold The Episcopal Church together, including our Catholic heritage (if we will recover it), our shared worship (admittedly less common than the BCP once was), and the unique gift we have of offering sacramental worship within a portion of the church that was at least imagined to provide more comprehensiveness than either Rome or the East, the via media.

It is difficult, however, to see all of the good and potential good that remains, when the general church is leading a legal effort to drag other Christians into court to recover "their" property. How disingenuous does one need to be to seriously suggest that the 1,000 or so Fort Worth Episcopalians who remained in The Episcopal Church after their diocese (under +Iker) left TEC in 2008 could ever hope to sustain every parish, every piece of property in that diocese? Further, how disingenuous must one be to observe well over 90% of a parish leaving, and then to suggest that the 90+% are just individuals, and the tiny few that remain are the parish? We need to find equitable solutions to parishes, and even dioceses choosing to depart TEC. We need to part graciously so that all involved can be equipped for the ministry to which they are called. And we certainly do not need to be awarding honorary seminary doctorates on the basis of suing other Christians. Given the circus those around us see when looking at our beloved and embattled Episcopal Church, it comes as no surprise that we are not filling our pews, not bringing the lost into the presence of Christ, and failing to be a good witness to the world around us. Lord have mercy, indeed.

There will be more to follow in the coming days and weeks, as we strive with one another in charity and honesty. In all things, we ought to be continually in prayer for our parishes, dioceses, general church, and Anglican Communion, and especially for those with whom we most vehemently disagree. We will always have trouble in the Church, but let us pray that we will rebuild an Episcopal Church in which such shameful action as suing other Christians does not seem to merit a doctorate.

Blessings,

David+

Time to Hit the Mattresses: A New Direction

Dear Reader,

Do you remember the epic film "Patton"? It has always stuck with me, especially the opening scene where General Patton (George C. Scott) is addressing his troops. I remember him saying, (roughly, and edited for my more delicate readership), "Many years from now, when you are sitting by your fire with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, 'Grandpa, what did you do in the Great World War II?', you don't want to have to tell him, 'Well, I shoveled animal excrement in Iowa.'"

I've been having a different incarnation of this going through my head. "Many years from now, when you come before Christ on his great and terrible day and he asks you, 'What did you do when there was a war on for the soul of your portion of my beloved Church?', you don't want to have to tell him, 'Well, I wrote a safe little blog on liturgy and tried to be polite and stay out of it.'"

I love my Episcopal Church. I love my colleagues on the left and my colleagues on the right. In fact, I love her too much to sit on the sidelines while there is a war on for her soul. We must fight fairly, we must strive with one another in love and forbearance--but fight we must. We must hold fast and boldly proclaim the faith, and we must not shy away from this task.

When I was ordained to the priesthood, I was charged with taking my share in the councils of the church. It is my sacred obligation to contend for the supremacy of Scripture, as interpreted by apostolic tradition, over all things in the life of the church. To fail to address wrongs, to fail to lift high the Catholic faith once delivered within my beloved Episcopal Church, is to fail at upholding the promises I made at my ordination.

I will still post on liturgy from time to time, and I will try to not get too worked up, but you all deserve better than I have been giving you, and for that I am sorry.

There will be more to come in the days ahead. Let us all pray for the whole state of Christ's Church, and especially for our tiny portion of it, presently gathered in General Convention:

Almighty and everlasting Father, you have given the Holy Spirit to abide with us for ever: Bless, we pray, with his grace and presence, the bishops and other clergy and the laity now assembled in your Name, that your Church, being preserved in true faith and godly discipline, may fulfill the mind of him who loved it and gave himself for it, your Son Jesus Christ our Savior; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen. (BCP, 255)

Gracious Father, we pray for they holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.(BCP, 816)

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (BCP, 818)

Yours in Christ,

David+

Is Easter Really Fifty Days!?

Dear Reader,

Some have been asking about how the Church calendar works and specifically how we celebrate Easter for so long. So I’d like to offer a few thoughts on the calendar, and specifically the importance of those small words—in, of, and after!

First off, every Sunday is the perpetual feast of the Resurrection, regardless of season. This is why the calendar tells us that the Sundays in Lent are in Lent, but not “of” Lent. One seventh of Christian time, one day out of every seven day week, is dedicated to celebrating the Lord’s resurrection. If we turn to Easter, then, the specific celebration of the Resurrection, we celebrate it for roughly one seventh of the Christian year—fifty days. The Christian week and year mirror each other in an orderly fashion. So, Easter is the “Sunday” of the Church calendar year. Easter really is a fifty day celebration of the Resurrection—the great Lord’s Day!

In addition to the Sundays of Easter, Advent Sundays are also “of” the season. This reinforces Advent as a proper season, and since Advent does not involve the same degree of penitential tone as Lent, there is no need to separate the Sundays from the feel and content of the surrounding season. In addition, Christmas is also a season in a sense, albeit a short one! Lent is of course a season as well, but Sundays are held out as being “in” rather than “of” because the perpetual feast of the resurrection breaks in even in the solemn darkness of Lent and brings relief—including the benefit of indulging in what one has given up for Lent on Sundays (assuming, of course, that what one gave up was not a sin!). We have Easter and Advent, as having Sundays “of” the season, and Lent as having Sundays “in” the season.

This brings us to an important point: the “after” Sundays. The Sundays after the Epiphany and the Sundays after Pentecost are a return to Ordinary Time. That is to say, while Advent, Lent and Easter are seasons, the Epiphany and Pentecost are not. Advent and Christmas form the Incarnation cycle; Lent and Easter form the Paschal cycle. These two cycles break into Ordinary Time, and if one of these two cycles is not happening, we are in Ordinary Time and focus on the weekly cycle leading up to the Feast of the Resurrection—Sunday.

The Great Fifty Days takes us from Easter Day itself, through the Ascension of Our Lord and the Day of Pentecost. This emphasizes the unity of Christ’s action in rising from the dead, ascending into Heaven, and sending the Holy Spirit to empower the Church to do his work on earth. It takes fifty days to properly celebrate this great action moving from the resurrection to the proper birth of the Church.

Happy Great Fifty Days! Do not cease your celebration for the victory of our God and the birth of his body on earth—the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Blessings,
David+

My Archbishop of Canterbury's Retirement

Dear Reader,

Those of you tightly knit into the Anglican Communion will already know that The Most Rev'd and Rt. Hon. The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, will retire from that post at the end of this calendar year and will return to academic work. For those of you reading who are outside of our Anglican world, since his enthronement on February 27, 2003 as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, he has served as the Primate (chief Episcopal leader, and in this case an Archbishop) of All England and is the primus inter pares (first among equals or peers) of all of the heads of Anglican provinces around the world. He is a focus of unity and while he cannot explicitly tell any province what to do, historically the Archbishop of Canterbury's moral authority is widely respected. His influence extends far beyond England as he gives leadership and focus to the Anglican Communion. He's also central in representing Anglicanism in ecumenical and inter-faith dialogues.

A simple Google search will net you plenty of responses to the news that +++Rowan is stepping down (some glowingly positive, others frankly downright uncharitable), but I'd like to offer something more personal here. +++Rowan is my Archbishop of Canterbury. I know some of you have lived through many Archbishops of Canterbury, but he has been in office the entire time I've been an Anglican. Since I began walking the Canterbury Trail as a Wheaton College undergraduate, I've known no other in that office.My journey from Southern Baptist student to Episcopal Priest (a complicated one, for sure!) unfolded alongside +++Rowan's Archiepiscopacy and within the context of the Anglican Communion he faithfully sought to lead. In reflecting on these past years, I'd like to highlight a few ways in which he demonstrated to me how to be an Anglican.

-His Grace is capable of such theological nuance and understanding that the Pope refers to him as "My friend, Rowan," the Orthodox gave him a D.D., and he can honestly speak with liberals and conservatives, low Evangelicals and high Anglo-Catholics. He demonstrates how, at our best, Anglicanism can contain a great degree of comprehensiveness and also relate honestly and charitably to those outside of our portion of the Church Catholic. Going beyond this, he has also demonstrated great charity in relating to those of other faiths, which is increasingly important in an age of secularization. Even those who disagree with him cannot deny his intellectual gifts.

-His Grace debated Richard Dawkins, the so called "high priest of atheism," and got him to admit that he's only 6.9 out of 7.0 (98.6%) that God doesn't exist. If you're unfamiliar with Dawkins, the previous sentence might as well have read, "His Grace struck a rock and water sprang forth!" Anglicans need to continue to follow his example and develop such rigorous and well grounded lay and ordained leaders so as to be able to stand up to the onslaught of secularism and atheism. For some to observe that the Archbishop seemed to engage the science better than Dawkins engaged the philosophy and theology gives us all a high goal indeed.

-In all of the mudslinging in the Anglican world during his tenure, and even at the most intense and challenging moments, I've never heard His Grace stoop to the petty name-calling and petulance to which so many on all sides of every issue have resorted. To be the focal point of tension and to remain charitable for a decade is no small feat.

-Finally, in his writings and talks, His Grace has been (and will continue to be) an example of a church leader who actively engages the world around him. Karl Barth talked about this as having a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. It is sometimes tempting for us to retreat into the ghetto of the church, but the Archbishop over the years has consistently weighed in on a wide range of issues, sometimes prompting the secular press to push back and ask what the Church has to do with wider culture. Theology concerns the entirety of human existence, and +++Rowan seems never to have forgotten this.

+++Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury, has demonstrated admirably how important a rigorous life of the mind is to clerics and to all Christians. He has related charitably to a diverse group of people, taken on the pressing in of secular fundamentalism, kept a cool head in the midst of conflict and not allowed the Church to forget its God-given role in speaking to culture, nor let the culture get away with thinking the Church has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure he's made mistakes (just like the rest of us), but as I approach the first anniversary of my priestly ordination, I will not speculate as to what I would have done in his place! Instead, I will just say "Thank you, Your Grace, for being my Archbishop of Canterbury as I followed God's calling on my life into the priesthood, serving in The Episcopal Church."  

We should all charitably give thanks for all of the good that +++Rowan has done in his time as Archbishop of Canterbury, while of course also praying for the Crown Nominations Committee, the Prime Minister and the Queen for wisdom and for our next Archbishop of Canterbury to faithfully lead the Church of England and our Anglican Communion. We should also hope for him to possess, in the words of His Grace, "the constitution of an ox and the skin of a rhinoceros!"

With Continued Prayers for a Holy Lent,

David+