The Room Collapses

And let us be assured
that it is not in saying a great deal that we shall be heard (Matt 6:7),
but in purity of heart and in tears of compunction.
Our prayer, therefore, ought to be short and pure,
unless it happens to be prolonged
by an inspiration of divine grace.
In community, however, let prayer be very short,
and when the Superior gives the signal let all rise together.

~ The Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 20

For several months now, ever since an earnest (and somewhat bold) promise from the pulpit in a sermon, I have been gathering with other people for Morning and Evening Prayer at St. John's from Monday through Thursday. We say Morning Prayer at 8:30am and then Evening Prayer at 5:15pm. 

I had no idea, when I began doing this, if anyone would show up. I just knew that I had an abiding sense of being called to this habit, this discipline, and to begin to practice it publicly. I'm that sort of Christian, the sort that needs accountability, otherwise my grand promises to God tend to slip away...

Most of the time someone does join me. Interestingly, I get others who join me at Evening Prayer slightly more often and in greater numbers than Morning Prayer. Sometimes I need to be elsewhere at those hours and so another parishioner steps in and leads the Office for me. Often that person winds up being our Parish Administrator who has slowly moved into a profound ministry to me in being able to lead the Office in my stead.

So, though it is just me sometimes, most of the time I am praying with others. And I've begun to notice something.

After the three Collects, but before the General Thanksgiving, our custom is to invite "other prayers or thanksgivings, either silently or aloud." I give this invitation and then close my eyes, seeking to be in the presence of God more intently as I whisper my own prayers alongside those of my sisters and brothers.

But as my eyes close, the strangest thing happens.

Do you know how when you close your eyes, you can still sense the presence of other people in a room? You know that person is over there and this other person over here. Well, when I close my eyes for this time of intercession, the room collapses in on me. It is as though the several feet of distance between me and the other worshippers has utterly evaporated and they are now standing nose to nose with me, all of us closer than would ever be natural or comfortable.

The first time this happened I actually opened my eyes, thinking that perhaps someone had moved closer, but everyone was standing in the same place, whispering prayers, breathing quietly, resting in God's presence.

It doesn't happen every time, but it happens more often than not. And every single time it takes my breath away. It is as though the Spirit has inhaled deeply, sucking the space out of the room, knitting our souls together in petition and thanksgiving.

There is this line in the Prayer of St. Chrysostom that we use at the Office whenever more than one person is present, a line that says, "you have promised through your well-beloved Son that when two or three are gathered in his Name you will be in the midst of them." And I wonder, I wonder if sometimes that vacuum that pulls my spirit close to those of others is actually the hand of Jesus, taking our separate souls and braiding them together.

The Office has long been an important part of my life as a Christian, even before I was an Episcopalian I was captivated by it. And for quite a while I've said it on my own, with a brief period of saying it regularly with a colleague I worked with.

But now, as I gather with whatever handful of people God pulled into that old narthex at that moment, I'm reminded of why the Office is, in its fullest expression, said in community.

Because my heart's desires, my soul's anxieties, all the joy and pain and searching that accompanies this life is not meant to be mine alone. There is a place, an oasis of worship, into which anyone can come. Twice a day, at 8:30am and 5:15pm, there is a space where heaven sucks the air out of a room and makes evident the One Body through those disparate worshippers.

And though sometimes I cannot breathe... I know that it is in that knitting together my ragged breath, full of prayers, thanksgiving and, at times, begging.... it is in that knitting together that my ragged prayerful breath is enveloped by a Spirit who can interpret what I cannot even begin to express.

It is in the body of those gathered that I find the divine always present.

Your True Worth: On Cowardice and Bravery in the Church

One of my parishioners received a long four-page letter from his brother, a Roman Catholic, condemning his decision to get married to his partner. I wrote the following letter to my parishioner when he forwarded the letter on to me. 

With his permission, I'm reposting the letter here, knowing that what my parishioner is going through is not abnormal in our world and in the church. I have removed their names, but the rest of the letter remains as it was written. The bulk of the letter is responding to the various arguments his brother threw at him. I am not, of course, posting his brother's letter, but given what I say, you can probably get the gist of what he was told. My letter may be a bit disjointed in argument, but that is because I was trying to respond point by point to his brother's argument.

Know this above all else whoever you are and wherever you come from: you are immensely beloved of God and a decision to enter a covenanted relationship with a parter, whether the same gender or the opposite gender, is always a brave and courageous decision to give yourself. It is all the more brave when your blood family rejects you because of it. 

Dear _____,

This is a heavy letter and we can absolutely talk about it on Thursday. Let me just give some of my responses to the points he makes. Know, above all, that I support you and your partner and believe what you are choosing is indeed God's calling for your life. I applaud your courage and integrity.

Brothers and Men / Homosexuality in Today's Culture
Both men and women are indeed sexual beings. However, I fundamentally disagree with your brother that the ending point of sexuality must always be procreation. If he believes that, then he would also have to affirm the other tenets of that position: (1) any form of conception is immoral and (2) couples that are infertile should not have sex. I doubt he holds those beliefs. As our Prayer Book says, the union of two people "in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord." Procreation of children can be a part of a sexual union, but few heterosexual people place that absolute requirement on opposite-sex relationships—a tremendous hypocrisy.

Furthermore, repeated studies have shown there are no adverse affects of same-sex couples adopting and raising children. That is a choice some infertile opposite-sex couples make and is a wonderful choice for a same-sex couple as well. Indeed, studies show that children thrive in two parent households—without regard to them being same or opposite-sex. At the same time, having children is not a requirement of opposite-sex relationships and it is remarkably unfair to say it is so essential to sexual intimacy that without the possibility of procreation a couple should not be together, be they opposite-sex or same-sex.

Also, on the science claims, it's also very clear scientifically that a small percentage of several animal species have same-sex relationships. It's not chosen, it's simply a physical reality. Humanity will not come to an end because this is only a minority of the species in any species. To say that it is "unnatural" shows a complete disregard for what we actually know about nature.

And here is where I really disagree with him: the choice to be in a covenanted relationship with your partner is not a selfish choice. It is choosing to take responsibility for another human being, to covenant yourself to him. Promiscuity with no commitment is the selfish "all dessert and no dinner" choice so common in our culture. Any couple that chooses to covenant, that chooses responsibility to be a part of sexual intimacy is a couple that is choosing the self-giving, responsible path. Your choice to covenant your life with your beloved is a choice that affirms him, one in which you will promise to support him, one in which you will affirm a willingness to lay down your life for him. And just like any opposite-sex couple that makes that choice, this self-giving act is expressed in sexual intimacy. And that is beautiful.

Also, it is hugely disingenous for any Christian to tell another Christian they have to be celibate for their entire life. As a whole, Protestant Christianity since the Reformation has resisted forcing celibacy upon a class of people. That is why we do not require celibacy for priests in our tradition. Some people are indeed called to a celibate life, but the church traditionally understands that as a charism of the Holy Spirit discerned in community. It is never enforced upon a class of people (i.e., priests or homosexual persons). For a heterosexual Christian, who because of his attraction is free to choose to find a mate and be married to tell a homosexual Christian to "man up and take your cross" is, forgive the language, utter bullshit.

And the idea that two adults choosing to commit to one another in a life-long commitment is the same thing as bestiality is so foolish I will not even honor it with a response.

The question is what will be the calling of the church to gay and lesbian people? Will we tell them they have to be celibate, even though we do not require that of any other class of people? Will we tell them to change, even though science has shown how immensely harmful that is? No, we will invite them into faithful, covenanted, relationships, knowing that the power of sexual intimacy for healing our souls is most fully experienced in a covenanted relationship with another person. And inviting people to do that, to get married, in a culture like ours that often despises commitment, is profoundly counter-cultural. That invitation into covenanted relationship is the one the church should issue boldly and proudly.

The Church's Position and Your Family
First off, I would encourage your brother to dig deeper. In particular, I would commend to him Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church by Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnson is a professor of New Testament at Candler School of Theology at Emory and is one of the most well-respected biblical scholars in North America. He is also an active Roman Catholic and a former Benedictine monk. In Scripture and Discernment he not only criticizes the traditional interpretation offered by your brother, he also offers a different approach to interpreting Scripture more faithfully, one that served as the basis for the Episcopal Church's articulation of why we fully affirm gay and lesbian Christians in our church, as we described that in To Set Our Hope on Christ.

The Scriptural argument is nowhere near as clear or persuasive as he argues it is. His entire argument is based on six—six—passages of Scripture. The argument has nothing to do with understanding the historical context of those texts—or even paying attention to how Scripture itself interprets them. The most glaring example is that in the question of the sin of Sodom. Ezekiel 16 says clearly that it was excessive food and indifference to the needy. Isaiah 1 says it was injustice, and urges those who would learn from Sodom to "learn to do good, seek justice, and rescue the oppressed." It's only in modern times that people thought the story was about homosexuality. And, to be clear, Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about proposed gang rape. To say it condemns faithful, committed, monogamous relationships is ridiculous. I've preached twice on this specific question (The Sin of Sodom in 2010 and Worthless Worship in 2013).

If he wants to look more closely at those six tiny passages of Scripture—six passages that are wildly and poorly interpreted by people with his view—I'd commend the following short essay on the Bible and Homosexuality. And if he wants to know just how angry it makes some of us clergy to watch the Bible manhandled into a tool for hate and discrimination, something that has led to untold suffering and countless suicides, then I'd encourage him to read this essay and know that, like the author, for me this is not simply an intellectual question.

I hold a Bachelor of Science in Biblical Studies with a minor in Biblical Languages, summa cum laude. I hold a Master of Divinity received with Academic Honors and straight A's. I hold a Master of Sacred Theology that resulted in a book published by a peer reviewed academic press. I will argue Scripture with him on this any day of the week and twice on those days when a gay or lesbian person sits in my office crying because of the horrible things people in the church have said to them.

Indeed, even the current Pope has some strong words for those who seem so focused on the question of homosexuality...

And your choice to oppose the Catholic Church and her teaching on this matter is not, as your brother says, an act of cowardice. It is an act of immense bravery to stand up to that venerable institution and say "I am not who you say I am. I am a beloved child of God, worthy of the grace present in covenanted sexual relationship with another person." It is an act of immense bravery to stand up and refuse to let that church tell you how disordered you are.

And your presence in the Episcopal Church, the sacraments you receive here, the challenge you hopefully receive here to be a better person, to more fully conform yourself after the mind of Christ, I hope that it is a gift to you. Because you presence here and your partner's presence here is an immense gift to us. You don't need to be welcomed by the Church. We need to be welcomed by you and forgiven for a history of cruelty and selfishness in our treatment of gay and lesbian Christians.

Your brother is right that the incarnation of Christ, that his Real Presence in the sacramental bread and wine are profoundly powerful realities. However, he seems to miss the fact that part of the importance of the sacraments is that they teach us the way that matter can be an avenue of God's grace. The grace of marriage is experienced in a particular way in the marriage bed, as former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says in The Body's Grace, in one body's delight in another, a delight that requires covenanted relationship to be healing and not harming. Indeed, as Williams says in that same article, it is tragic that this focus on homosexuality has made so many blind to the very real perversions and dangers that can happen in heterosexual relationships.

Finally, though your brother hurtfully and cruelly says he sees such wickedness in you, that "all of this has left a bad taste in my mouth," know this: I see Christ in you. I see Christ in your partner. And I see Christ's self-giving love for the church in your willingness to commit your life to your beloved, particularly in the face of such un-Christian abuse from your family.

You inspire me.

Through Grace,
Jared+

Architecture, Bishops, and Baptism... Oh My! – Sewanee D.Min. Year Three

Well, here I am, another week of my nose deep in books completed and my final paper for the 2013 Advanced Degrees Program for Sewanee is now turned in. That means I just have one more summer of coursework and then a thesis and I will have completed the requirements for the Doctor of Ministry.

As I did last year, I'm posting this year's papers online for any who might find them interesting.

The Oxford Movement, the Liturgy and the Crisis of Faith, class taught by the Rev. Dr. Benjamin J. King, Associate Professor of Church History and Director of the Advanced Degrees Program (and keynote speaker for the upcoming SCP Conference in Philadelphia). Two papers:

The Influence of the Oxford Movement Upon St. John's Episcopal Church, Grand Haven, MI

From the introduction
One of the most difficult aspects of determining the influence of any movement or tradition upon a parish is that so much of church tradition exists implicitly, as certain assumptions about the “way things are done.” However, there are definite architectural and liturgical practices that were brought about by the Oxford Movement and whose presence in a church—even one that does not identify as a High Church or Oxford Movement parish—can indicate just how significantly the Oxford Movement impacted the Anglican tradition of Christianity. St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven, MI, is an excellent example of this reality. Though never formally identified as an Oxford Movement parish, key choices and approaches of that movement are evident in the architectural style and liturgical choices throughout much of the church’s almost one hundred and fifty year history. 

The Development of an Anglican Understanding of the Episcopate, with Particular Note to the Innovations of the Oxford Movement

From the introduction
One of the fundamental marks of Anglicanism, as articulated in the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral, is “The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.”  Indeed, the retention of a strong episcopate sets Anglicanism apart from any other Reformation era body. For the nineteenth-century Oxford Movement, the episcopate was central to the Church itself. In Oxford Movement leader Edward Bouverie Pusey’s summary of Tractarian teaching, “a high estimate of the Episcopacy as God’s ordinance,” ranks as his second point of the summary.  However, what is often unrealized is that the Oxford Movement’s understanding of the episcopate was not only a break from the tradition of prior Anglicanism, it was a significant departure from early High Church thought. A careful exploration of the development of the theology of the episcopate in the history of Anglicanism—particularly in the High Church tradition—will demonstrate how significant this departure was and raise important questions for contemporary doctrine and practice.

Mapping Ritual Structure, class taught by the Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Dean of the School of Theology, Professor of Liturgy, Charles Todd Quintard Professor of Dogmatic Theology and the Rev. Dr. James F. Turrell, Norma and Olan Mills Prof of Divinity, Assoc. Dean for Academic Affairs, Sub-dean of the Chapel of the Apostles (otherwise known as the professors with, I think, the longest titles—though having two different liturgy people teach the same class, and it not turn into a wrestling match, was quite an accomplishment). One paper:

An Analysis of the Development of Rites of Initiation in English Christianity from the First Centuries through the Middle Ages, with Application to Current Questions of Liturgical Practice

From the introduction
Students of the history of Christianity in the British Isles are well aware of the fascinating relationship between Christianity in the Roman tradition and that in the English tradition. Indeed, often the two are very difficult to pull apart. In various ages throughout the history of Christianity in the British Isles, Roman practices and understandings have dominated. At other times, this dominance was resisted and British or Celtic practices were affirmed. 

In the specific area of liturgy, these questions become even more loaded, as many of the studies presuppose a certain position at the outset. We see this particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth-century debates between the emerging evangelical or low-church Anglicans and the more catholic or high-church Anglicans. Each sought to articulate a definite tradition, either in concert with Rome or in opposition to Rome. This was particularly a reality for nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholics, for whom the catholic heritage and tradition of the Church of England was seen as essentially continuous from the first centuries... 

For all of these reasons, an exploration of the architecture, practices, and liturgy surrounding rites of initiation as they were practiced in English Christianity will be helpful. While this exploration is not intended to pretend that the practice of these rites is entirely separated from their practice on the continent (indeed, the study will reveal that this is absolutely not the case), we can see that the distinctive traditions surrounding rites of initiation in English Christianity have much to say about current liturgical practices. Indeed, several of the elements of prayer book revision in the Episcopal Church actually bear witness to the historic practice of the English Christianity from the first centuries. By claiming more deeply the distinctive aspects of English Christianity, we will be further connected to those Christians who stand in our ancestral line while still living more fully into the rites as laid out in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Furthermore, allowing ourselves to be shaped by these liturgical practices that will enable us to continue the important revision of our shared liturgy. 

Searching for peace in the Holy Land

My July 31, 2013, article for the Grand Haven Tribune, Searching for peace in the Holy Land,

I had been traveling throughout Israel and Jordan on an archeological tour and, during some open time, made my way to St. George’s Cathedral, just north of the old city of Jerusalem. The cathedral is the seat of the Bishop of Jerusalem in the diocese of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. 

The last time I was in Jerusalem, with a group of pilgrims from my parish, we went to Sunday services at the cathedral. The worship service was according to the Book of Common Prayer, but in Arabic, as the cathedral’s congregation is comprised largely of Palestinian Christians. It is active in health care and education ministries, and a force for interfaith dialogue with Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land. 

I hadn’t realized, growing up, that Palestinian referred to both Christians and Muslims. I had always assumed, for some reason, that the conflict in the Holy Land was primarily a religious one between Muslims and Jews.

Read more at the Tribune's website here.

Prayer Book Christianity and Structural Reform

Seeking to come to a common sense of our core identity as Christians in the Anglican tradition is a remarkably fraught process. Almost immediately we have a tendency either to fall into existing camps that represent only one aspect of our tradition. We rehearse and recite shibboleths and slogans heard round the church, often unaware of the distinctive context that gave them expression.

The Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC) has been hard at work since their creation by General Convention and membership appointment in the ensuing months. In their July 2013 Meeting Report they have published two working papers: "Working Draft Notes on Episcopal Identity and Structure" and "Interim Report of TEC Structure for Dummies Committee."

It's largely good work, representing some thoughtful research and careful articulation. However, there is one point in the "Working Draft Notes on Episcopal Identity and Structure" that I found profoundly problematic—the section on the arts, liturgy, and mystery. It reads:

The arts, liturgy, and mystery: This sacramental and incarnational view leads to affirmation of the arts and music as means to express the sacred. Rooted in deep traditions of Christian practice over the centuries, Episcopalians treasure liturgy and embrace mystery. At its best, this is a deeply participatory value, not merely performance.

• Structure encourages new liturgical expressions for mission and creates accessibility to a wide variety of materials for prayer and song electronically. Such expressions should be unhampered by required slow processes of canonical approval or the processes of printing, thereby enabling quick dissemination of much-needed resources. 

I affirm with my whole being the first part of this section. Indeed, our sacramental and incarnational approach to the Christian life does indeed lead to a strong affirmation of the arts and music. We do indeed treasure liturgy and embrace mystery. The whole of the community, in the best liturgical practice, fully participates in their gathered worship.

However, the second half of this section goes off the rails. It assumes that this affirmation of the arts, liturgy, and mystery leads to a need for structure that encourages new liturgical expressions. Further, it insists that these expressions should be "unhampered by required slow processes of canonical approval."

I worry sometimes that we, as a tradition, our losing the value of being a "prayer book church." While other churches were drawing up confessions of faith, we were creating a Book of Common Prayer. When we had been racked with sectarian controversy and violence, the Elizabethan settlement exemplified by the 1662 Book of Common Prayer sought to bring both Catholic and Protestant together in united worship using shared and comprehensive liturgical language.

Indeed, interestingly enough, the only place the BCP shows up in the "Working Draft Notes" is in the first paragraph where we are described as having "a sacramental and incarnational faith as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer." And yet, in the section explicitly on liturgy the document seems to jettison the importance and centrality of prayer book liturgy to our identity, even suggesting changes to structure that I believe would further undermine the role of the prayer book in our church.

While it is important that we are always looking carefully at our liturgy, never afraid of what reformation of our shared worship might look like, liturgical innovation and reform must be carefully circumscribed. Even resources that are already approved by General Convention, specifically the Enriching Our Worship series, are explicitly not intended for Sunday corporate worship without approval of the Ordinary. This is, I believe, deeply intentional. While our liturgical resources should always be open to reform, that reform should be done carefully lest it run the risk of creating liturgy that is only beholden to whatever the current trends are instead of creating liturgy that comes from a renewed appreciation for the history of the church and the implications of our faith.

One of the best and most important things taught me by Marion Hatchett, one of the key framers of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, was, "The rubrics of this book exist to protect the laity from the whims and eccentricities of their clergy." I would argue that much of what passes for liturgical innovation these days is remarkably clergy-centered. It is foisted upon the laity without their input. Indeed, while clergy are bound to follow the rubrics of the prayer book (not doing so is, at least theoretically, grounds for deposition!) they are given significant authority when it comes to the worship of a local parish. The rector is the sole person who holds that authority. One of the reasons for the BCP and an importance upon the rubrics is that the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer are the fundamental place where the laity have a legislative voice in the worship of the church. To violate those rubrics in the name of innovation it to violate the voice and expressed will of the laity, expressed through General Convention.

But the problem goes even deeper than subtle—or not so subtle—clericalism. The Book of Common Prayer brings a level of unity to our identity. An increase in liturgical innovation outside the bounds of the prayer book would further increase the already frustrating congregational inherent in so many of our parishes. I was challenging a colleague of mine recently on the subject of Communion Regardless of Baptism (CROB). I used the above argument about the canons and prayer book being a place where the laity have a legislative voice to direct the clergy. She insisted that in her congregation, the laity had been in favor of moving forward with the process, that they had been a part of the decision.

But it is not just the laity in your local congregation who have a voice. We are ordained as clergy for the whole Christ's Church. We have made vows of obedience not only to our bishops as a symbol of the unity of the church, but also to the doctrine and discipline of the church—a discipline that includes clear constitutional and canonical arguments that the whole of the laity must be consulted when it comes to authorized liturgy, not just those in your own congregation.

Thus, liturgical revision should be slow. It should be careful. It should include the voice of all orders of the church, drawn from across the wide variety of our church. It should include liturgical experts who can help us understand the implications and history of our liturgical structures and rites. It should include careful and practical trial use of rites, use that is rigorously accountable to the whole of the church.

And I would ever so gently suggest that we do not need "new liturgical expressions for mission." If we need new liturgical expressions, it must be because our current ones are failing to clearly inculcate and form people after authentic Christian belief. Look at all the other churches and denominations that, when seeking to do good liturgy, draw from our prayer book tradition. Let's not jettison that in the favor of that which is new, streamlined, and able to be quickly approved and thrown up on the internet.

Indeed, I would argue the opposite needs to happen.

I'd like to see this Task Force invite current liturgical scholars into its work. Not so that we can do exciting and innovative liturgy—but so that our liturgical scholars can teach us about how our structures need to be reformed so that they more accurately follow the teaching and theology of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Because almost any liturgical scholar worth her or his salt, including Marion Hatchett of Blessed Memory, will tell you that we as a church have only barely begun to realize in practice the theology that amazing prayer book espouses.

Melting into Graced Community: Some Thoughts on Liturgical Presidency

I've been thinking a lot lately about what it means to preside at a liturgy. Partially, this is because I'm at Sewanee right now, in the third year of course-work for my Doctor of Ministry. Both classes I'm taking have a liturgical focus. The first, Mapping Liturgical Rite, is an explicit liturgical focus. The second, The Oxford Movement, the Liturgy, and the Crisis of Faith, is a bit more implicit... however, given the title, liturgy is clearly still a significant part of the conversation.

It seems to me that throughout the history we've been exploring, one of the fundamental questions is the way in which the community addresses itself to God. In the early church, as the community gathered around the table, they broke bread and wine with a deep sense of Christ's presence with them. The presider, in the late first-century Didache referred to interestingly enough at times as a Prophet, was given distinct words but was also invited to use his own words if he so wished. And at the end of the meal, the Presider invited the community to remember that the world into which they were returning was not real—only God's grace is real. Thus, the lovely concluding prayer, "Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If any one is holy let him come, if any one is not holy let him repent. Maranatha. Amen."

The point being that the Presider, on behalf of the community, invites God's presence into the community. The beginning part of the post-communion prayer in the Didache has the Presider giving thanks for the way in which, particularly through the liturgy, God has come to dwell within the community. "We thank thee, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name, which Thou hast caused to dwell (tabernacle) in our hearts."

Over the following centuries, as the liturgy developed and became more and more elaborate, formalization set in with the Presider's role. The words became set, the actions became more and more concrete. Having been raised in a non-liturgical tradition, I would argue that this formalization of liturgy and action caused the Presider increasingly to fall back into the liturgy. No longer even praying in your own words and instead praying in the words of the church, the liturgy took central place.

Now, of course, concurrent with this could be unhelpful developments. In some areas it began to be seen as though the liturgy was primarily something the priest (and servers) did while the people watched. Or, in others, laziness on the part of the clergy meant that the liturgy happened but in a very sort of rote manner.

Since the Liturgical Movement, however, the liturgy of the church has become much more participatory. Though the liturgy can certainly no longer be seen in most places as something the priest does privately while the people standing by, I would suggest that in many areas it has become a performance put on by the priest. The people say their parts, do their standing and keep their eyes on the liturgical action... but the affectations of the priest mean that their eyes are actually on the priest rather than elements upon the altar.

Ironically, I generally find this particularly in clergy with a lower theological understanding of priesthood. However, when it comes to their style of celebration, they hold out the elements at the words of institution acting in persona Christi, they break the bread and hold it out in a manner that emphasizes what they just did in the breaking. They spend most of the prayer looking at the people (when they are not looking at the book).

I would argue, this style of celebration has lost the understanding of the Presider as one who simply functions as the congregation's chosen president for their prayers to God. This style has lost a sense of celebration where the priest humbly approaches God's altar, saying his or her words, but also affirming the proper liturgical roles of the rest of the servers alongside of the people. In proper presidency, no one person is more important than the others. Each has simply been given a distinctive role to play—and God remains the fundamental actor in the liturgy, wherein the congregation calls on God to make grace present once more.

I'm sure I don't do this well all the time. But as I move towards five years as a priest, I'm increasingly convicted about the need for us, as clergy, to learn what it means to melt into the action of Holy Eucharist. As I wrote in an essay several years ago, the traditional liturgical vestments of cassock, amice, alb, girdle, stole, and chasuble give me a sense of being swaddled in grace. It covers me in the clothes of the church that I might sing the song, dance the steps, the church has asked me to do.

And, in the end, when I experience a presidency of prayer that functions in this way, one in which I truly did experience myself melting into the community's liturgical action, I discover a profound experience of grace. I am reminded that very little of my ministry is dependent upon my personality or inherent gifts... rather, it is dependent upon me accepting God's grace through a deep entrance into Christian community, coming up alongside to say my words when it is my time, being quiet when it is time for me do that.

In melting into the liturgy, I find that grace is not effected by any clergy person's "magic hands," least of all my own. Rather, grace is revealed as always present when we, as the worshiping community, succeed in pulling back the curtain on the world as it seems and encounter the world as it truly is: deeply infused with the gracious love of the Holy Trinity.

A catholic future for the Episcopal Church

My June 6, 2013, article for Daily Episcopalian, A catholic future for the Episcopal Church,

As I approach nearly ten years worshiping in the Episcopal Church, including nearly five as a priest of the church, I’m struck by what first drew me into the church as someone in his young twenties. Though I was raised in an evangelical tradition, it was one that emphasized both the early church and the importance of reason, study, and intellect in the practice of the Christian faith. The more I studied in my undergraduate and graduate work, the more I found myself drawn to a more ancient expression of Christianity, one that didn’t view the early church merely as an historic curiosity, but instead as a group to whom we were organically connected. I began to realize that certain ideas I had been told were “catholic innovations” growing up—ideas like the Presence of Christ in Communion, a hierarchical structure, the veneration of saints—these were actually important concepts in the church from her earliest centuries.

For the past five years, my priestly ministry has been deeply shaped by a group known as the Society of Catholic Priests in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. The Society began in England in the mid-nineties as a place for Anglo-Catholic clergy who also supported the ordination of women and of gay and lesbian Christians. It believed that the ideals of the catholic heritage of Anglicanism were not only essential, but that they needed a resurgence in the church today.

Read more at the Daily Episcopalian's website here.