On Being A Reformed Catholic: A Reformation Day Reflection

Dear Reader,

I do apologize for my absence, though I'm certain your life has moved right along without my meager input! While I have been busy, I now return to consider why we should all thank God for the Protestant Reformation. More specifically, I would like to situate this in an Anglican context and consider what Rome and Geneva have to do with Canterbury (so to speak) and what this via media (middle way) business really means (hint: it doesn't mean that we Anglicans are always pleasant and reasonable and never fail to chill the salad forks). In other words, what is an Anglican? The short answer is that an Anglican is one in communion with the See of Canterbury who inherits and lives within a tradition which is both Catholic--maintaining the Episcopate and continuity with the early Church tradition-- and Reformed-- nuancing Catholic tradition with the reforms for which our forefathers wrote, prayed, fought, and died (e.g. Sola Scriptura- Scripture alone being of final authority, the Bible and liturgy being in the tongue of the people).

As a priest in Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church who serves in a Diocese within a Provence of the Anglican Communion, I am, by my very vows and vocation, called to be both Reformed and Catholic (This is also attested to by my owning both a biretta and an ESV Study Bible--see above picture, and no, I do not have a green pom on top--that's another thing on my desk). So, my cards are on the table. I believe that the Protestant Reformation was a necessary and God-ordained response to corruption and abuses with in the Church, and that the only way to be properly Reformed is to also be properly Catholic. Indeed, without the Catholic context, the Reformation doesn't really make any sense (What then would be reformed?).

If you can pray for yourself, read your own Bible, go to Mass celebrated in the language that you speak, and even (respectfully) question your clergy without fear of damnation, thank a Reformer. So much of what we take for granted we owe to the faith and suffering of those who have gone before us. It is because of the Reformation that all of the people, not just the wealthy and the ordained, have access to the Scriptures. It is also because of the Reformation that the people are permitted to know what it is that the priests are doing at the altar, and to hear the Sacrament celebrated in their own tongue. In short, the Reformation gave lay folk access to knowledge that is rightfully theirs and acknowledged that God can and does relate to His children even apart from ecclesiastical hierarchy. So, as Anglicans, we must be thankful for the Reformation, because it was then that the supremacy of Scripture, and the rights of all Christians to have access to it and the rites of the Church in their native tongue was held high. As Catholic as we are, and must me, we are indeed Reformed. There isn't the time to enumerate all of the Reformation principles, but much of what we experience as "Anglican" rather than "Roman" is really properly noted as being Reformed.

However Reformed we are, we are still Catholic. Or as I'm fond of responding when people see me with a collar and a wife and inquire as to how that's possible, "I'm Catholic, but I'm not Roman." Indeed, as Anglicans we affirm that we hold no unique faith, but only that which was held by the Church Catholic throughout the ages (long before various schisms). So, while many descendants of the Reformation would identify as being congregational in leadership, and avoid the use of terms like bishop, priest, and sacrament, we retained these traits as essentials.This is part of being in the "Magisterial Reformation"--those who became Reformed but retained some form of hierarchy in Church governance.

A brief and necessary aside: When we talk about the Roman Church and its corruption and abuses, we must be clear to note that this reference belongs in a certain time and place. The Roman Church today has also been reformed (Council of Trent--"Counter-Reformation", Vatican II--20th Century, etc.) and things such as the selling of indulgences have been suppressed in the Roman Church as well. While there are certain differences that would definitely keep one Anglican (rejecting the claim that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction over all Christian territories everywhere, for example) rather than Roman, it would be both untrue and uncharitable to talk about the Roman Church today as if it too was never cleansed and reformed from unfortunate abuses.

Back to our being Catholic...So, we understand ourselves as being both Reformed (liturgy in the language of the people, access to the Scriptures for all, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ alone, of no merit of our own) and Catholic (claiming episcopal ministry that succeeds from the Apostles, celebrating the Sacraments, being tied to the faith as it has been for 2000 years). To be an Anglican is to be a Reformed Catholic (though this is certainly a spectrum from liturgical protestants to Anglo-Papalists).

So what is this via media business, anyway? Current usage has unfortunately made this important term all but devoid of any real meaning. If you've heard this battered around, you likely got the impression that Anglicans are the middle way in every respect (e.g. right between Republican and Democrat, Capitalist and Socialist, INTP and ESFJ, etc.), or even worse, that Anglicans are pleasant folk who are entirely wishy-washy. For example, the way via media is being used now is to say that we can see both sides of any issue and hold it all in tension while we live into...blah blah blah. To follow the via media is not to lack a spine or the ability to make a decision, it is rather to walk the middle way between Geneva (Reformed Protestantism) and Rome (representing Catholicism, which actually extends beyond Rome). Via media, like most misused Latin phrases, actually has a historical reference point and actually means something!

So, there you have it, we Anglicans are the people in communion with Canterbury who seek to be both Reformed and Catholic and to balance God's continual reformation of the Church with the teaching and faith of the Church Fathers. This is in many respects more difficult than simply signing either the Roman or a Reformed catechism, but we do it precisely because we believe that God calls us to be both Reformed and Catholic. And if God calls us to this, walking the via media is the faithful and honest thing to do, regardless of the difficulties this may cause.

May God bless your celebration of the Reformation as well as All Saints' and All Souls' Days.

Blessings,

David+

The Civic and the Sacred

Dear Reader,

Following this past Sunday's remembrances of the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, I am compelled to reflect upon the intersection of liturgy and public life. Like many, this is an intersection that I avoid because we've all seen it navigated quite poorly. I will humbly attempt to set out the dangers of navigating this poorly as well as the dangers of avoiding it all together. I will then conclude with some thoughts on engaging this difficult intersection rightly.


You're doing it wrong: Church and state a wee bit too cozy


Much of why I typically avoid engaging public observances liturgically is rooted in seeing it done so poorly so often. What immediately comes to mind is the often onerous task of going to Church on the Fourth of July (or the Sunday nearest). I am proud to be an American, but flag-waving (sometimes literally) during the celebration taking place in the Kingdom of Heaven is wantonly inappropriate. Liturgy transcends national allegiances and raises us to the higher truth that our first and primary citizenship is found in Heaven, rather than in any nation (no matter how great) of this world. This is the first danger, of making the worship of God and allegiance to the state one and the same. I am a loyal American and a loyal Priest of the Church--but these are two separate commitments, with my commitment to Christ and His Church necessarily trumping my commitment to our great nation.


It is easy enough for the observer to discern when love of God and love of country are made to be one and the same thing, but what about a second danger that is more subtle? In some cases love of country is presented as a component, a necessary part, of loving God rightly. This can be more difficult to root out, because instead of conflating love of God with love of country, one takes the qualities of a faithful relationship with God (e.g. loyalty, love, devotion, allegiance) and then concludes that if God calls us to be loyal and loving people--which He does--we should then exhibit love and loyalty to the state as well. Of course, we cannot be loyal to the state when it opposes God, so this cannot be always true. In short, the more subtle form of this problem is presented that the kind of person who loves God rightly is also the kind of person who is loyal to his or her state.


With both of these errors, it's mostly a matter of degree of error rather than of kind. We Americans in particular need to be mindful of our collective tendency to assume that God has a special interest in the United Sates that He does not have everywhere else. It is certainly true that God has used our country for good, just as he has used rulers in every age of history for good. But we would do well to remember how absurd it would be if the paintbrush assumed that a masterpiece was glorious due to its qualities rather than the fact that it was used by the master artist. However God may choose to use America to paint a small portion of the history that He is unfolding, we are still just a brush. Love of God and loyalty to the state must always be separate, even when the state is used for good.


Where are we going? And why are we in this hand basket?


While it is an error for the Church to get too cozy with the state, it is also an error for the Church to abdicate her rightful role to proclaim the Gospel in society. I found it heartbreaking to watch some of the 9/11 memorial ceremony at Ground Zero in which no clergy were involved, "meditative silence" replaced actual prayer, and Shakespeare and Scripture were both read with equal reverence and dignity. Certainly we can do better than having civic memorial events that are so blatantly secular. I much rather would have waited quietly for the Christian cleric's turn to pray in a long line of representatives from every religion imaginable than to do whatever it is I was supposed to do in the quiet of my heart after hearing from Shakespeare. The Church has a place in wider culture, and however one articulates that, there is no getting out of the fact that part of our being in the world but not of it is to be in the midst of all of the triumph and tragedy that happen in the world. We cannot permit all of religion to be pushed to the sidelines when there is a public observance to take place. On this I would gladly stand with persons of any faith and oppose the false notion that one can properly remember the dead without being at all religious.


In addition to the Church being in the public square, there is also the issue of how to observe national events within the context of a Sunday liturgy in the Church. Since the liturgy is the work of all of the people, and the gathering together of the prayers of the faithful, it would have been dishonest to have Mass on Sunday while pretending that it wasn't the 10th anniversary of 9/11. To ignore civic observances, especially one that has to do with remembering the dead and the living who still suffer, is a grave error indeed. It is good and right to situate such things within the context of the liturgy of the Church and to interpret such events through the lens of the Gospel. We cannot ignore elephants in the room, even if it means it will be a lot of work to do liturgy well on a particular day. We must deal with what is up and alive in our communities, and this will at times require us to engage with a civic remembrance.



Thoughts on the way forward: Handling this intersection rightly


Since we cannot conflate love of God with loyalty to the state, and since the Church is responsible for proclaiming the Gospel in all places, including the public square, we must sort out how to rightly deal with in intersection of the civic and the Sacred. As with most things, it seems like a great part of the way forward is to make sure our various concerns and commitments are properly ordered. I'll offer some questions to help one tease this out, regardless of what observance is being dealt with:


1. Is love of God and fidelity to Church teaching clearly seen as the highest good?

2. Does whatever Church observance (e.g. Sunday Mass) appear to be the context in which the other observance (e.g. 9/11) is situated or is it the other way around?

3. Are the main duties of the Church easily observed, or has the civic observance taken center stage? For example, on 9/11 the Church can celebrate Mass, pray for the living and the dead, and pray for peace (all part of Her primary mission) without getting bogged down in nationalistic rhetoric.


4. Is the Church proclaiming the Gospel clearly--even if this means pushing back against the state--or is She simply blessing whatever it is that the state has given Her to bless?


These are thorny issues indeed. I hope these reflections have been helpful in beginning to sort out an important issue that most of us (myself absolutely included) would rather avoid. I'd love to hear your thoughts and would welcome any and all civil interaction in the comments. What do you think about this intersection? Have you seen practices that you think are commendable? Have you been in a worship context in which you were uncomfortable with nationalism? Of course, if you wish to share a negative experience, please do spare us the name of the parish and the denomination. We can have this discussion without degrading other Christians.

As always, thanks for dropping by!


Peace to You All,

David+

To Whom Does the Liturgy Belong?

Dear Reader,

I hope this finds you enjoying the first few days of a true and proper Fall. I have certainly been pleased to enjoy returning to the out of doors.

After a brief absence, I return to consider a question of fundamental importance: To whom does the liturgy belong? This is a live question indeed, especially in light of ongoing liturgical revision in various parts of the Church. To frame it a wee bit differently, who in the Church has the right to change the liturgy? Does the liturgy as a whole belong to an appointed body of clergy and scholars or does it belong to the laos (from which we get the word "laity")--the whole people of God?

Of course, I will argue that the liturgy belongs to the whole Church, all of the faithful, and not to a small and elite few. For good order, and due to the sad divisions of the Church, on a practical level the answer is closer to saying that the liturgy within a particular portion of the Church belongs to the faithful resident in that part of the Church. This is due in part to recognized "local variation" (e.g. We in the States pray for the President rather than the Queen.) and is not at all to suggest that one portion of the Church has the right to change the liturgy in a manner that would cut against orthodox belief. It follows then that in The Episcopal Church the liturgy does not belong to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (more on that in a moment), but to all of the faithful.

A bit of history regarding liturgical revision in The Episcopal Church is needed at this point. But first, let me clarify that I'm not opposed to revision, I simply think that revision out to be done "properly, as in the daytime" and in plain view of all concerned. Up through the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, every change was worked out, individually, in General Convention. This means that if one wanted to change one tiny prayer, the entire Convention would see it and take action. Of course, this means that revising a lot of material would take a long time--a frustration to those who want to do the revising, but perhaps a welcomed help to those who want to move more slowly.

For the making of the 1979 BCP, groups of clergy and scholars worked on various rites over a number of years and published these rites as Prayer Book Studies and eventually in 1971, 1973, and 1976, and 1977 service books that would be the basis for what we now know as the 1979 BCP. There were discussions to be sure throughout this process, but at the end of the day the 1976 and 1979 General Conventions would both vote to establish this text as the new Prayer book for The Episcopal Church (As it takes the concurring votes of two subsequent conventions to establish a BCP.). The thing to note here is that all each convention did was vote to accept the text as a whole, in toto, without occasion for sorting out all of the differences in the new Prayer Book. While this may not seem problematic after a few decades of Prayer Book Studies, there were significant changes at the 11th hour before the 1976 Draft Proposed BCP was printed (More on that another time--our theology of burial was changed right before the 1976 book was printed.). 

The point is that we now are contending with a system in which a small group makes sweeping changes at such a fast rate that the whole of the faithful hardly have time to attempt to digest them before a vote is called and a change has been made. For an example of this happening now, see Dean Kevin Martin's (Dean of St. Matthew's Cathedral, Diocese of Dallas) excellent post on the revision to Lesser Feasts and Fasts known as Holy Women, Holy Men. It may be found here.

What is the point? While it may seem that the point is to be discouraged, it certainly is not! Our prayer is Common to our life in part because we recognize that the Prayer Book, though it is authorized by General Convention, governs the highest and the lowest in the Church. Even bishops are ruled by the rubrics (directions and instructions which one must follow) in the Prayer Book. No one person and no one group is over the Book of Common Prayer--we all submit to it. The point is two-fold: 1.) Those in power must be open when engaging liturgical revision so that active discernment and debate may take place; 2.) All of us must remain engaged and aware of changes afoot in the Church. In their defense, the SCLM posted a blog about Holy Women, Holy Men in which all were invited to comment on different observances. The lack of traditionalist engagement was sad indeed. I too passed up the opportunity to engage the revision process.

We must pay attention to all proposed changes and hold fast to Catholic doctrine and practice, and we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while any one group makes changes to the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgy belongs to the whole faithful of God, and we all must love and defend her.

Many Blessings,
David+

Why I love Ordinary Time

Dear Reader,

I promised to discuss Ordinary Time and why I have a deep appreciation for it and hope you do (or will) as well. In order to discuss this, I must set out a few preliminary thoughts about liturgical time and celebrations, reflect on Ordinary Time itself, and finally suggest some thoughts about how our approach to Ordinary Time may well shed light on our spiritual life in general.

What is liturgical time, anyway? Just as the liturgy of the Prayer Book guides us through an entire Mass, so the Church calendar guides us through each year. They both have an ebb and flow that direct us to important elements of our faith and always to the Cross of Christ. The calendar calls us to repent and celebrate, share joy and sorrow, fast and feast. There is an internal logic to the whole thing that calls us to walk again and again through different parts of Our Lord's life and to celebrate the Communion of Saints as well. The calendar does not permit us to skip over important elements of our faith and story.

For example, the calendar does not let us fast forward to Resurrection Sunday, but forces us to leave Maundy Thursday in mourning for Our Lord, and to remain so until the Great Vigil of Easter. I will never forget my first Holy Week as a Wheaton College freshman. Until that Holy Week, I had never properly mourned Our Lord's death, and as a result I had never properly celebrated His resurrection. Walking home that Thursday night in silence was a well overdue punch in the gut. I had no choice but to sit with the reality of Our Lord's death until the acclimation of His Resurrection. This is a gift of liturgical time, and when we follow the calendar year after year we walk with Our Lord, and the Church, from His birth all the way through His Resurrection and Ascension and the birth of the Church at Pentecost.

At this point, one may think that the year is the fundamental unit of liturgical time, but that would be incorrect. The fundamental unit of time is the week, marked by Sunday, the perpetual feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord. In the midst of the Church year, we have many important celebrations, but our chief celebration is the Lord's Day. Ordinary Time is when we remember this truth--that our lives are found in the Resurrection of Our Lord and as such this event is our central celebration.

Imagine that you are painting the liturgical year (warning: this is non technical, and I know what I'm suggesting would actually create a lot of brown, but bear with me) and that the whole background is green for Ordinary Time. This is the normal state (hence, "Ordinary" time, that which is standard, as opposed to something "proper", such as a collect, to a certain day) of Christian worship. On this backdrop one may also paint the Christmas cycle with purple for Advent and White for Christmas and the days following, and the Paschal/Easter cycle with purple for Lent and White for Easter through Ascension Day and of course red for Pentecost and other days of the Spirit and martyrs interspersed. This painting would not work without the Ordinary green background. The Christmas and Easter cycles are proper times that break into Ordinary Time.

So, why do I love Ordinary Time? First, I believe that the Christmas and Easter cycles are more special when we aren't running about trying to make every day a hugely impressive feast day. Sort of the, "if every day's a feast day, no day is a feast day" problem. When we settle into Ordinary Time, we aren't feast-fatigued when it is time for a Principal or Major feast to come along. Second, amidst all of the celebrations of the year, Ordinary Time always calls us back to the main thing--that we live because of the Resurrection. This is fantastically good news which does not require our "jazzing up!" In short, when we love Ordinary Time and live into it, we acknowledge that our lives are rooted in the life of the Resurrected Christ.

Does our approach to Ordinary Time say anything about our spiritual lives as well? I think it does. How often do we give God glory for big things such as healing miracles, but fail to acknowledge His grace in the air that we breath, the strength to live day by day, or the blessings of our families? Anyone can be thankful for an obvious miracle, but it is a deeper thing indeed to praise God for the "small" things of daily live, which in fact are far more grand than we typically imagine.

Only praising God for "big" things is like insisting that every day appear to be a principal feast. May we all give God glory in Ordinary Time, and be content to live the lives with which He so richly blesses us.

Blessings,
David+

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Dear Reader,

This past Sunday we celebrated the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was a great blessing to give thanks for Our Lord's love for the Virgin Mary, his mother. Indeed, though the Assumption is not explicitly proven by Scripture (though Scripture certainly provides a basis for the doctrine), it dates back to early teaching in the Church and is most beneficial to our faith. How we think about the Assumption may help us all to better understand how we approach the intersection of belief and authority in the Church.

Saint Mary the Virgin

O God, you have taken to yourself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of your incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Though it is horribly tempting, I will pass over the fact that the 1979 BCP chooses to simply call the day "Saint Mary the Virgin" even though the collect is clearly talking about the Assumption! Instead, I would like to reflect on the manner in which we each engage belief, and specifically how we engage Church teaching that is not repugnant to Scripture, but may not be clearly proven by it.

I once heard tale of a Roman Catholic who told a Protestant that he was far too concerned trying to prove (or disprove) everything while the Roman Catholic viewed the deposit of faith and said, "Look at all these wonderful things the Church believes that I get to believe as well!" I think we can all exhibit a mixture of these two approaches, but what is this Western Protestant business of being skeptical of almost everything?

Do we tend to be trusting of the Church and accept her teaching except when it is in clear conflict with Scripture, or are we more skeptical? I'd like to suggest that the answer to this question says a lot about how one views the Church and her teaching authority. Even though "councils have erred and will continue to err" do we really think that we as individuals stand a better chance of getting it right that the entire witness of the Church throughout the ages?

One certainly should not violate one's conscience, but if we are more trusting of our own faculties to discern the truth than we are of the Church Catholic we may err far more severely as we sit on the thrones of our own lives. Whatever one's answer, this is an issue worth pondering.

What do you think? As for me, with the exception of Church teaching conflicting with Scripture or violating my conscience, I wish to do all that I can to take the posture of submitting to the teaching of the Church throughout the ages. After passing through three different theology programs, I am more certain than ever that the Church as a whole has a truer teaching than any one person could possibly concoct.

God has blessed us and bound us together as the Church, the Bride of Christ. May we all grow in love for and submission to her.

Blessings,

David+

Proper 14: The Sunday closest to August 10

Dear Reader,

If you are in climes similar to mine, I pray this finds you and yours safe and as cool as possible. Perhaps a post on praying for rain is in order across the South and Texas!

This coming Sunday, my parish will be celebrating the Feast of Saint Mary the Virgin, or the Blessed Virgin Mary in Glory, or the Assumption. Historical hint: if a celebration has more than one name, we've usually bickered over it amongst ourselves at some point in Church history! Next week we will reflect on the collect for the Feast of Saint Mary the Virgin. Other upcoming topics include: "Why I love Ordinary Time," "Mass Intentions," and "Keeping the Office: Daily Prayer."

Proper 14: The Sunday closest to August 10 

Grant to us, Lord, we pray, the spirit to think and do always those things that are right, that we, who cannot exist without you, may by you be enabled to live according to your will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

We cannot exist without God. Cranmer got it right here translating this collect, found in a few important earlier liturgy books. The essence of the Latin is as simple as that: sine te esse, "which cannot be." Cranmer translated this rightly in 1549, but sadly for the 1662 (still the "gold standard" for most Anglican provinces) the revisers softened it to "we who cannot do any thing that is good without thee."

Why did this happen? For one thing, the 1662 lands, generally speaking, more on the Reformed end of things than the 1549, which is more in line with earlier Catholic theology (not a value judgement, just an attempt to briefly describe the different ethos of each). The collect was altered, I suspect, to reinforce the Reformed doctrine of prevenient grace (which, incidentally, goes back to St. Augustine). This doctrine affirms that God's grace is working in the world in such a way that any good that anyone does, whether a believer or not, is the work of God. In short, it is true that we can do nothing good at all apart from God. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly! But I think the change in 1662 was an unfortunate one.

The collect from 1549 (which is, roughly, the collect in the US 1979 book) is far deeper than the softened version from 1662 and in fact acknowledging that we cannot be without God subsumes the statement that we can do no good apart from God and says so much more as well! We cannot exist apart from God: we can do no good, we can have no relationships, we can't worship, we can't speak, we can't breathe, our hearts can't beat; we can experience nothing of human existence without God Himself. We are completely and totally dependent upon God for every moment of our existence.

I suspect that all too often, we think about God in the 1662 instead of 1549 mindset. We talk about Him as though He helps us to do good and be better. While this is true, it is not nearly as true as acknowledging that we cannot even exist without Him. It is easy to jump off from the 1662 collect and find yourself browsing in the self-help section of the book store! God is not in the business of sprucing us up; He makes us and we are His. Without him we cannot be.

If we only need God to help us do better, we owe Him a little, but if we need Him for every moment of our existence we owe Him nothing less than absolutely everything.

Blessings,

David+

Collect for Proper 13, and a few updates.

Dear Reader,

I pray this finds you and yours well. If you are in the heat as I am, I also pray this finds you cool!

Before diving into the collect, please note a few blog updates:

The new address for the blog is http://www.notonlywithourlips.com. Of course the old address will continue to redirect to here, but I hope this will be simpler for all to type and remember.

Also, a few have asked about following via email, and so to your right you will see a gadget wherein you may type your email if you wish and be notified of new posts via email. You won't receive any emails from doing this besides notification when the blog has been updated.

I hope you will forgive my tardiness in posting this update, but Saturday I had the privilege of conducting a burial for one of the Faithful Departed, and am just now sitting back down to write.

Proper 13, The Sunday closest to August 3rd


Let your continual mercy, O Lord, cleanse and defend your Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without your help, protect and govern it always by your goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

This is an interesting collect for Ordinary Time (more on why it's Ordinary Time later--hint, Pentecost is not a season), which comes from the Gelasian Sacramentary , which is a very important early (complied circa 750AD) book of Christian liturgy that was one of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's key sources in translating liturgical elements for his compiling/writing the first Book of Common Prayer. In other words, this collect was not made up in the 1960's (a comforting fact, indeed).

Acknowledging that the Church cannot continue without divine assistance is not at all surprising, though we would do well to remember this truth. What is more striking to me is the petition for God to "cleanse and defend your Church." Asking God to defend us comes quite easily, but what about this business of cleansing us as well?

I would like to suggest that the cleansing and defending of the Church, and ourselves as well, are in some sense two necessary parts of one action--God's maturing of His People. That is to say, that if God were to cleanse us but not defend us we would be clean but easy prey for the Devil and the powers of this world. On the other hand, if God defended us without cleansing us as well, we'd be exceedingly safe spiritual infants. For God to grow and develop the Church, He cleanses her of impurities via loving discipline and defends her from all assaults of her enemies. For the Church to rightly live out her role as Christ's presence on earth, she must always submit to God's cleansing actions while giving thanks for His defense. God's loving discipline is a mystery to be sure, but it is true that He loves us entirely too much to fail to discipline and cleanse us. God's discipline is a loving action.

Praying for God to cleanse the church is not too difficult to do, but what about praying for Him to cleanse each of us individually? This is far more difficult, indeed. When praying corporately, we can pray for God to cleanse the Church from the grievous sins of all those around us without ever admitting that we ourselves are culpable before God and need to be cleansed of our sin as well. We are to submit to God's discipline and pray that He would cleanse and defend us, growing us into fuller expressions of of the image of Jesus Christ.

May we yearn for God's cleansing, loving discipline in our lives as much as we yearn for His protection and defense. May God bless you this day.

David+

The Collect for the Feast of St. James the Great

Dear Reader,

I suspect that one regular feature of this blog may come to be a reflection on the previous Sunday's collect that those of us in the Anglican/Episcopal portion of the Church Catholic will have prayed together at Mass. While I'm tempted to reflect on this coming Sunday's collect, I will also be doing so in my upcoming sermon which some of you are obligated to hear; so I will hold off for the sake of not spoiling my own sermon!

Today we will consider the collect for St. James (July 25th), patron of the parish which I serve. Later in the week we will consider last week's collect (Proper 13) and we'll be all caught up and consider one collect per week thereafter, excepting when a noteworthy observance pops up during the week.

Saint James the Great, July 25
O gracious God, we remember before you today your servant and apostle James, first among the Twelve to suffer martyrdom for the Name of Jesus Christ; and we pray that you will pour out upon the leaders of your Church that spirit of self-denying service by which alone they may have true authority among your people; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

This is quite the collect, indeed. It is noteworthy that instead of praying for the entire Church, as is generally the case in the collects, we are praying specifically for the leaders of the Church. Not only are we praying for Church leadership, but the collect implies-and rightly so-that leaders need divine assistance in remembering that true authority in the Kingdom of Heaven derives solely from "self-denying service." Priests are not immune from confusing worldly authority with true authority from Heaven, and we need the prayerful support of the faithful to assist us in remembering the centrality of service--not even servant leadership--but kneeling in the dust and washing feet service in our vocations.

Saint James' Day, observed on Sunday, July 24th at my parish, was my first day at my new cure, and I had the privilege to be invited to preach. It was indeed quite humbling for me to put on fine vestments and ascend into the pulpit in a gorgeous parish church on my very first day as the new curate and preach that if I fail to serve, I have no legitimacy to lead. (How's that for one's first day!?) Truly, to be great in the Kingdom of Heaven, we must be lower than slaves and faithfully follow The Servant, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who emptied himself on the cross for us and for our salvation.

How does this intersect with our daily lives? First, if you are a cleric, we must serve before we can even pretend to lead, and we desperately need God's grace to assist us in this task. If you aren't ordained, please commit to praying for your clergy. We need your prayers to support us and keep us faithful to our vocations. Most of us have encountered clergy handling authority wrongly, as it is exceedingly easy to do, and we would do well to pray for all of the leaders of the Church in this regard.

The larger call for all of us, lay and ordained, is to be willing to serve without being noticed and without expecting anything in return. While leading may logically proceed after service, service is always the primary call for citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. All of us are to be servants first and to not give in to the world's ways of grasping for authority, power and wealth.

Have you ever cared more about authority or status than serving others in the name of Christ? We all certainly have. May God bless us all as we follow Blessed James as he follows Christ, and may God give us the grace we need to be evermore conformed to His image.

David+

To blog or not to blog...

Dear Reader,

I have long avoided blogging because I have always felt that it would be a wee bit prideful to assume that if I were to launch my thoughts out into cyberspace anyone would bother to read them. However, I've been encouraged to blog for some time, so here we are. I pray that someone somewhere may be encouraged in the faith by reading here. Allow me to introduce myself, reflect on the title of the blog, and set out what this blog is and is not about (two equally important tasks, indeed).

Your Blogger:

I'm Father David M. Faulkner, a priest of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas and the Curate of Saint James' Church in Texarkana. I am happily married to Laura Falkner,who is the music teacher at Saint James' Day School. I hold the BA in theology from Wheaton College, the MDiv from Beeson Divinity School, and the DAS from the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest.

I'm 28 years old and having been ordained priest at that ripe old age, I'm part of the youngest 7.4% of Episcopal clergy (18-35 age range, as of 2009). Of course, 28 is significantly less than 35, but apparently there weren't enough clergy below 30 to merit our own category. Sufficed to say, I'm far younger than the vast majority of my colleagues. (Which is not to say this is good, or bad, it just is.)

I'm Catholic with regard to the Sacraments, high church with regard to the liturgy, and Evangelical with regard to the Scriptures and preaching.

Blog Title: "Not only with our lips, but in our lives"

I take my blog title from the General Thanksgiving in Morning Prayer (BCP, 59 and 101). This portion of the prayer has always haunted me. In the Anglican tradition, we pride ourselves on well done and well thought out liturgy. In this prayer, we have just finished praying an office from a 1001 page book that has been passed down in various forms for centuries and we're asking God to assist us so that we may "show forth [His] praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives..." We put a great deal of effort into glorifying God in our liturgy, and rightly so. In short, our lives and liturgy are properly intertwined, and when we live rightly we will glorify God not only in the liturgy, but in every moment and every aspect of our lives. Glorifying God in our daily lives merits at least as much attention and effort as glorifying Him in the liturgies of the Church. This blog will seek to ponder the intersections between Christian liturgy and our daily lives.

What this blog is about:

-liturgy
-personal piety and holy living (living Coram Deo)
-our communal life as the People of God
-I may also link to a sermon of mine or something that at least relates to our topic at hand.

What this blog is not about:

-Anglican Communion controversies
-Episcopal Church controversies
-These are important subjects, and I turn to the following for commentary on such: Stand Firm, The Anglican Communion Institute, Covenant, and Titus One Nine. While these are important subjects, they simply aren't the subject of this blog. 

I hope you will join me here as we ponder together the high calling God has on each of us to glorify Him "not only with our lips, but in our lives." May God bless you this day.

David+