C.S. Lewis speaks

bls from The Topmost Apple posted this additional quote from C.S. Lewis in response to the Lewis quote I mentioned previously. It’s a good one!
C.S. Lewis (excerpted from the book, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer):

“Novelty, simply as such, can have only an entertainment value. And they [conservative church goers, which he believes make up the majority] don’t go to be entertained. They go to use the service, or if you prefer, to enact it.”
“Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best…when, through familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.”
“But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping.”
“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude the question, ‘What on earth is he up to now?’ will intrude. It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.”
“Thus my whole liturgiological position really boils down to an entreaty for permanence and uniformity. I can make do with almost any kind of service whatever, if only it will stay put. But if each form is snatched away just when I am beginning to feel at home in it, then I can never make any progress in the art of worship. You give me no chance to acquire the trained habit…”

She then commented, “The ‘trained habit of prayer’ is, to me, the most crucial aspect of this; how can we advance in this if we aren’t given the opportunity? If we can’t make progress of this sort, we are lost and it’s pointless to go to church at all, IMO.”
Amen!

What is all this stuff…Who or what am I within it all

I think I’m slowly coming to some conclusions about who and what I am with reference to my priestly vocation and this unwieldy thing called “Anglicanism.”
I’ve never been an “Institutional Man.” Go figure. Why in the world am I then in a hierarchical institution to which I have vowed conformity and obedience? Good question! I can only answer that by saying that through discernment and the affirmation of “the people” – together with my sense that each step along the way that God was leading and two bishops’ approved – here I am.
I have come to the point that when asked what I am, I say, “I am an Anglican priest in the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.” I say am an “Anglican priest” rather than an “Episcopal priest” because I have come into the Catholic notion of the Church. Our Church is Catholic (though reformed and not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome – which I do understand is problematic for other parts of the Church Catholic) and if we profess to believe that we, as Anglicans and as Episcopalians, are really part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” then I must believe that my priesthood is more than with a denominational institution known as The Episcopal Church. This is one reason why I was so anxious and insistent that I was ordained a priest before the last General Convention (2006) – if the Convention made decisions that resulted in The Episcopal Church USA no longer being part of the Anglican Communion, then I wanted it to be known that I was ordained priest while still part of something Catholic, still part of the Anglican expression of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” still part of the Anglican Communion.
I specify “The Episcopal Church in the USA” rather than “The Episcopal Church” (promulgated since the last General Convention because some people believe to specify ‘USA’ is to be arrogant and noninclusive to those Episcopalians under our jurisdiction that are part of other geopolitical nation-states). I do this because while we have jurisdictions in places outside the geographical boundaries of the United States and its territories, there is not a single Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion.
In this country, we are the expression of Anglicanism (an Episcopal Church) within the geopolitical boundaries of the USA. In our missionary work in other parts of the world, we should be striving to build indigenous churches with their own identity – “The Episcopal Church in Ecuador” or in Taiwan, for example. We support them in their efforts, but shouldn’t think that we should keep them under this “American Church.” That is paternalistic. There is a sense of self-loathing coming from those who insist that this Episcopal Church USA needs to take on a different identity other than “Anglo” or “American” as a heritage and cultural-ethos because there are people who are currently part of us from other cultures and countries that we are helping to become self-sufficient and independent that are not Anglo or American. We don’t have to deny who we are or what we have been in order to help build the Church in other cultures and countries, unless of course we hate ourselves. Some do, and it is sad. To truly celebrate diversity and to truly appreciate other cultures, we must first understand and appreciate our own. If we hate our own, we cannot honestly understand or appreciate what other cultures have to offer us.
The Episcopal Church USA is not an “international Church” akin to the international nature of the Anglican Communion. IMHO, this is profoundly disrespectful, in ways only Americans can be, to those “Episcopal Church” jurisdictions in other parts of the world, like the Episcopal Church of Scotland. We are not “The” only Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion, and to drop the “in the USA” implies that perhaps we are. It also implies that we are alone – better than, superior to, those other Episcopal Churches of the world, either separate now or seeking eventual, rightful independence from our jurisdiction. Take that, rabid political correctness!
I also believe it is a sin to continually divide the Church organic because of our particular dogmatic demands that the Church give way to every whim devised by our very limited and prideful notions of what Jesus means when he calls the Church to be, something. Perhaps the 2,000+ Tradition really does have something to say to our very limited and parochial-zeitgeist. Like my previous post mentions from the author Sarah Cunningham, “This kind of unexpected idolatry—the obsession with living in despair over what is wrong with the institutionalized church—creeps up on you (like most shifty little idols do). … Criticism becomes what we end up worshiping.”
I am an Anglican priest that has vowed to obey my bishop, that is a bishop in The Episcopal Church in the USA, part of the Anglican Communion, institutions within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
All that being said, I’m really tired of the Idolatry that has resulted from the inter-perspectival fights between liberals and conservatives, The Episcopal Church USA hierarchy and rebellious priests, parishes, and bishops – both here and abroad – and my part in it all. I want and need to stop. (Although, I think I’ve worked for moderation and continued communion between us all rather than trying to force a particular theological or ideological perspective that results in schism!)
“Anglican” is an ethos or heritage as much as it is an institution. The institutions may crumble under the weight of our hubris, selfishness, and fear, but the “Anglican Way” will hopefully remain. I want it to, I will work for its survival even if the institution does not survive, and I will remain an Anglican priest.
That’s what I’m think right now, anyway.

Generational voice #1

Generational voices:
Here is a 20-something woman writing a review of two books concerning the “Disillusioned Generation” in Christianity Today On-Line. The author is Katie Galli, “a barista and a member of an Anglican congregation in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.” Since she says she is a member of an “Anglican” church rather than an “Episcopal” church, I suspect she may be a member of Church of the Resurrection (which has a great website and states that it is actually in Glen Ellyn). There are a number of “Anglican” churches in the area, which is in close proximity to Wheaton, IL, and Wheaton College.
Her review is entitled: Dear Disillusioned Generation: The ‘failed experiment’ called the church still looks better than the alternatives and was posted 4/21/2008 08:45AM.

Yes, we’re Americans. We multitask all day long. Efficiency is one of our top cultural values. I, too, am pragmatic. I’d like to use Sunday morning to worship God, to get a few pointers on how to improve my relationship with Jesus, and to reconnect with community. But every Sunday, the first words heard at my institutional church are, “Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” And I’m reminded that we gather weekly not to hear a practical talk on how to better live out our faith or to provide a venue to tell our friends about Jesus. We gather corporately to worship God, to celebrate the redeeming work of Christ on the cross, and to remember that our lives are not about us.
Sanders and Cunningham don’t completely disagree. Each spends some time giving a kick in the pants to the disillusioned, and Cunningham’s warning hits home: “This kind of unexpected idolatry—the obsession with living in despair over what is wrong with the institutionalized church—creeps up on you (like most shifty little idols do). … Criticism becomes what we end up worshiping.” She encourages 20-somethings to have a little more grace and patience with the failures of the church and ends her book with a love letter to the church.
The church can indeed be bureaucratic, inefficient, and, at times, hopelessly outdated. It remains one of the most embarrassing institutions to which one can belong. But it has also given us a 2,000-year legacy of saints and social reformers, and a rich liturgy and theology—the very gift 20-somethings need to grow into the full stature of Christ. [emphasis mine]

The books she reviews are:
+ Life After Church: God’s Call to Disillusioned Christians, by Brian Sanders (InterVarsity)
+ Dear Church: Letters from a Disillusioned Generation, by Sarah Cunningham (Zondervan)

We do not want stagnation, but…

“Rightly or wrongly, men are conservative in their religious habits, changes comes slowly and after much thought and a period of uncertainty. Indeed, the strength of religion in human history has been due to its conservative tenacity… Much that was stated dogmatically in the nineteenth century is now having to be modified. Before changes are again made in this age we need to be certain that they are based on more secure foundations. We do not want stagnation in the life of our Church, but stability. In the restlessness and rootlessness that characterize our contemporary society changes and reforms are to be embraced with due circumspection. In Christian worship and its art the element of tradition cannot be entirely eliminated or ignored, since it is based not merely on conservatism, but also on the wisdom and experience of the past.” [emphasis mine]
(Cyril R. Pocknee, The Parson’s Handbook Revised Edition: 1965, pg xix. [First edition by Percy Dearmer, 1899])
Note: “Conservative” here, if not abundantly apparent, is “to conserve” and should not be associated with any ideological or socio-political or socio-religions notions.