A072 The Future of Liturgy And the Opportunity for Constitutional Amendment

By

The Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle

In the season after the General Convention 2022, there has been debate about 2022-A059, which is now returning to the convention as A072. The Anglican Theological Review posted an article by The Rev. Dr Matthew Olver of Nashotah House.  As a member of the drafting group for the House of Bishops regarding the 2022-A059 revision, we bring background and clarity into the ongoing dialogue with an eye to the argument made by Olver. He wants to convince the deputies that the actions of the last Convention were not wise. Below, I offer a defence of General Convention actions regarding 2022-A059 and a response to Olver’s argument. 

I first offer seven critical contexts operating on the floor of the House of Bishops during the debate and within the group assigned to work on a means forward. These themes of conversation are: a) the 2022-A059 as presented was not going to be approved; b) there were issues raised about what belongs in the Constitution vs what belongs in the canons; c) members of the House did not want the process that has been underway for existing trial rites to be delayed – specifically those regarding marriage; d) bishops who hold a traditional view on marriage, or whose diocese were in their processes of dealing with the change, were concerned that a passage of the new rites would require canonical obedience; e) there was a lot of concern over having an actual paper bound book; f), there were issues about the continued translation of texts; g) and finally, there was concern that bishops had not been attentive to and that rules were changing around those rites permitted by bishops alone as the chief liturgical officer of the diocese.  While it may be suggested that 2022-A059 in the form presented was simple, the context in which it arrived upon the floor of the House of Bishops for debate was decidedly not simple, and failure was its immediate apparent outcome. 

Another subtext is that the typical member of the General Convention seated in either the House of Deputies or in the House of Bishops do not understand the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, especially regarding those with an effect upon liturgical forms and the use of liturgical terminology. This context means that when different liturgical resolutions come before the two houses, people may very well pass them but not understand if they passed a text for "Experimental Use," "Supplemental Use," or "Trial Use." There is also confusion over which are to be used freely and which are not. Not all of these are oriented towards the revision of The Book of Common Prayer.  This fact was admitted by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. These terms were generally used among the liturgists but not understood by the wider church.  

This is essential background because the history of how things are changed and the context in which they are changed is essential to the continuing life of the Episcopal Church's constitutional, canonical, and liturgical life. With the above in mind, I turn to the text of 2022-A059, now A072 itself. 

Let us begin by saying that we do not agree with all of Olver's constitutional and canonical points about The Episcopal Church's Constitution generally. Part of the work of this proposal was to help TEC navigate the future regarding the nature of a physical book, an online book, and the wide variety of approved BCP liturgies and liturgical forms available to the local priest and churchgoer alike. Many churches today use booklets and projection and even devices to help with the service. Some still use the book itself. This clouds the issue. The reader should remember that the context of the amendment included different understandings of the proposal's intention. These sometimes-conflicting perspectives were and are at the very root of the issue that faced 2022-A059 and our Constitution and Canons. These opposing forces and disagreements might be categorized in this way:

• Those who envision a Book of Common Prayer produced by a printer and those who envision an Ebook of Common Prayer
• Those who envision marriage equality within the Book of Common Prayer and those who are concerned they will be constitutionally forced to bless all marriages for an ever-expanding LGBTQ+ community by placing the marriage rites in the Book of Common Prayer.
• Those who experience the latent reality that translations of liturgical materials are not seen as essential to a multiethnic and multinational church and those who don't understand the issue of flexibility with liturgical texts achieve parody across our diverse church when it comes to liturgy
• Those who want structure and clarity for revision and those who didn't know we were without such clarity and structure
• Those who want to create openness in the process and those who don't want openness
• Those who want to be able to work with others to develop mission-responsive and those who want to slow down the process 
• Those who want to build a new prayer book from scratch and those who don't want this at all

The conflict we saw in 2022 regarding 2022-A059 was very much rooted in the same conflict, which has been building for three decades and came to a head in 2018, resulting in B011. I helped author this proposal with the very best liturgical minds of the church, as was my participation in creating the amendment that will surely be before us.  

To this end, the great revision underway in the 21st century regarding liturgy hoped to create a constitutional framework that would allow for the existence of these views, not to continue the muddled past which was created as times and contexts have changed, and enable us to move forward, while holding onto one of our greatest assets The Book of Common Prayer as the shared prayer of this church. Olver implies this was slapdashed and needs more consideration. That is just not the reality of the overall history of the proposal, the authors involved, and the bishops and deputies in the last convention.

Unfortunately, The Episcopal Church does not have the time, money, or clarity of intention to produce a single book today. Therefore, we agree with Matthew Olver's perspective that, indeed, "yes", we had to find a way for the Episcopal Church to revise the contents of the Book of Common Prayer in steps.  However, as Olver implies, this was not to mimic the ever-expanding books of liturgies as in the Church of England. Instead, it was to make clear that the doctrinal and unity of the BCP must be maintained and that a process for relieving pressure and allowing the work of liturgical formation to move forward also needed to be dealt with constitutionally and canonically. 

An astute friend once quipped, ‘The Book of Acts is about the church catching up with a resurrected Jesus and the mission of God.’ The truth is that in our era, the Book of Common Prayer cannot keep pace with the mission underway, and we need time for that mission to bear fruit theologically and liturgically.

Olver also implies that 2022-A059, now A072, as we have it before us, rejects a systematic doctrinal revision and does so piecemeal.  That is not true. Olver's argument infers that the modifications to the marriage canon do not come out of deep thought and wrestle with doctrinal theology. Yet, they do, and several texts illustrate the work the Episcopal Church has done through convention over thirty years to build a doctrinal case for the passing of these liturgies. Indeed, those who hold to this church's traditional view of marriage might disagree and side with Olver.  We need to remember, though, that the church has made a particular decision about marriage and that those rites are going through a process of liturgical approval for the Prayer Book as outlined in previous texts – it has been approved for trial use. We also suggest that this is not true for other proposed and used texts of material that have come before the General Convention for entrance into The Book of Common Prayer – if we are deliberate in how we proceed. The fear of a crashing plethora of liturgies entering our doctrinal life is a "fear", not one founded in the 2018-B011 or 2022-A059 proposal that is now before the church for a time of consideration. It is instead a fear and an anxiety. Those against the amendment hope to share this unnecessary fear to defeat the text.

Olver and Robert Pritchard’s proposals that will also come before the constitution and canons and possibly liturgy committees will indeed create precisely the problem that they fear – multiple books. You will discover as you read is that all of the other proposals seek competing Books of Common Prayer in one form or another. The proposal I have helped to write and argue for below is the only one that keeps a solo Book of Common Prayer while maintaining the use of 1979 and older books.

It is true that in the end, the church may choose to reject the offer made by 2022-A059, now A072, to engage in careful, theological work, which allows us to overcome our church's liturgical lethargy and offer a both/and solution. This solution would allow the competing desires mentioned above to all be true during this season of revision while we give time for the church to determine if it will have both an ebook and a physical Book of Common Prayer. However, our work here creates an adaptive and doctrinally centred church liturgical life.

It is an approach approved by chancellors and carefully written in the language outlines of the constitutional language.

Please note that both 2022-A059 and Olver’s proposal retain the current and historical requirement that neither an "alteration" (which I understand to mean a change in the existing text) nor an "addition" (which I understand to mean adding text, not just a phrase or two, but a significant addition) may be made to the BCP without the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Convention. 

 

The next concern by Olver is the implication that A072 will get rid of the two-convention rule. Both 2022-A059 and Olver's proposal would add to Article X the requirement that, in addition to the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Conventions, no alteration or addition to the BCP could be made without previously – that is, previous to the first voting General Convention – being authorized for Trial Use. The good news for marriage equality advocates is that the marriage rite has already been set up this way and will not keep it from moving forward. Moreover, under the carefully proposed A072, Article X would speak only to the BCP and its alteration and amendment; it would be silent as to other liturgies that the General Convention might authorize and would leave any discussion of such liturgies to the canons. Why? Because only the liturgies in our BCP are doctrinal. 

Moreover, the authors 2022-A059 suggest a canonical amendment that would add text to Title I.1.2.n.2 addressing liturgies authorized for use. Returning to 2018 B011, this canonical change must follow the approved four-part articulation – with careful editing.   This suggestion is essential to the success of A072. The order of approval here makes the accountability work. The group of authors and I would not be in favour of approving the new A072 without the amendments to Title I.1.2.n.2. Let me explain. By contrast, under the ATR proposal, Article X would address liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and liturgies permitted for "Supplemental Use." In Olver's words and the words of the authors of the Constitution, amendments need to be precise. Olver writes and quotes from the following:

The function of a constitution is to provide "a concise statement of the most basic and important of the Church's laws," to embody "the organic law or principle of government of an organized society," and to articulate "those laws which are 'constitutive' of the nature and function of a community." (Stevick, Canon Law, 97.) Williams Jones Seabury wrote that a constitution is "a law to lawgivers." (Williams Jones Seabury, Notes on the Constitution of 1901 (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1902), 8; qtd. in Stevick, Canon Law, 97-8.) "It lays down broad powers; details are left to the Canons." (Stevick, Canon Law, 98.) Unlike the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble to TEC's Constitution is not aspirational, which is to say, its purpose does not communicate the intentions of its framers.

As proposed, this is correct, and A072 makes clear what the Book of Common Prayer is and what it is not. This keeps the "Prayer Book for the Episcopal Church is enormously disproportionate compared to other related churches"…regarding the "teachings of the church."  It also keeps other liturgies from using doctrinal power as the Constitution prescribes. This is essential. Olver’s proposal would leave such vagueness.

 

The process and limits for liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and "Supplemental Use" under the canon suggested by 2022-A059 are identical to the process and limitations set out for such liturgies by Olver's proposal, with one important exception.  Disregarding the need for missional liturgical application, Olver's submission seeks to slow down the experimental and supplemental use under the direction of a bishop. His proposal actually places more power for mission principles to guide liturgy at the local diocesan level and places them at the General Convention level. Moreover, it potentially places all liturgy at a doctrinal level. The 2022-A059 proposal to amend Title I.1.2.n.2 spells out those processes and limits in the canons where they belong. Instead, Olver's proposal spells them out in Article X of the Constitution, tremendously slowing the operation of any missional adaptation. It is not our opinion that a church as diverse and needing liturgical breadth (not doctrinal breadth) is better served by having experimental and supplemental use in the canons and not the Constitution. The proposers desire a way for the liturgy to be crafted for mission purposes. 

 

The group’s edit of Article X includes the words "is intended to be…" We disagree that it is aspirational but argue instead that it is intentional. It is not "aspirational language", as Olver suggests. Etymologically the word “intended” is to direct and move forward – borrowed from the French in the 14th century. It is to call attention to in Latin. It is a plan and a purpose. It is to direct a course of action.  The Constitution offers a course of action for the church and the people of the church to use this doctrinal text in common and private devotions.   

The full phrase with which Olver regards imprecise is this: the book’s nature is “intended to be communal and devotional prayer.” The church knows that not everyone uses the Book of Common Prayer as intended, and not every person uses it as a devotional. Yet it has been something that sets the course of action within and without the church. Olver overlooks this in his argument. In this way, the intention is more than aspirational; it is a statement of rootedness in our prayer book tradition. The book is in the language of the people, clergy have been at times constitutionally ordered to say the daily office – daily. Cranmer and the reformers desired that the Book of Common Prayer become all that was needed besides the bible to stir and support reformation. Each American Book of Common Prayer included prayers for saying at home, and the Daily Office itself has become a rule of life for many baptized. Priests and bishops have so many well-worn little Book of Common Prayers given to them that observation alone suggests they were used more than on Sunday. 

Olver's stated concern is the addition of the statement in 2022-A059/A072 that reads, "The Book of Common Prayer in this Church is intended to be communal and devotional prayer enriched by our church's cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts." Olver suggests that this is wholly unnecessary. I have already addressed the nature of the word "intended" above and believe we ought to revise the term. 

His second concern with this statement concerns the time "devotional". He states that the Book of Common Prayer was never meant to be devotional. Yet, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is used by church members as a devotional text. The framers of the 1979 Book have included the daily office and compline. They included the prayers for "Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families". Also, there are the collects for all kinds of settings, the psalms, and the prayers for the sick – often prayed by the sick. While it is likely that Thomas Cranmer would not have imagined private devotional use of the Prayer Book, by the 13th century, clergy were using it as a private devotion, which has expanded wherein today, many use the book for private devotion. 

Olver's point that Cranmer might not have imagined it does not mean Cranmer didn’t mean for The Book of Common Prayer to be a tool in the hand of the church for the formation of individuals and congregations alike. We know that there are examples of families reading from The Book of Common Prayer and using it for devotion in their habitations.  If it is to continue to form us, then attention to both its devotional and worship implications for the church needs to be raised to the level of Constitutional consideration.

Prayer book commentaries have taught the baptized the importance of the liturgy – to pray constantly. And, there was published even the Family Prayer Book; a commentary for the home on the use of the Book of Common Prayer. Marion Hatchett notes in his Commentary on the American Prayer Book that ancient private prayer has always been prevalent and that the 1979 reformer (not unlike Cranmer’s tradition) sought to make the daily offices accessible and even to add simpler offices for individuals and families.  Therefore, we would suggest then that both by title, inclusion of prayers, and history it is meant for both communal prayer and individual.

I now take up the issue Olver and others have with the translation requirement. Given the concern over the diversity of context and the awareness of past colonial behaviours, our lack of respect for translation for the wider church and the many unfulfilled resolutions promising translation, the second part of the sentence was added by the group who felt strongly about justice. We as a church cannot shy away from the truth; we have yet to have a Book of Common Prayer in Navajo. A corrected Book of Common Prayer in Spanish has finally come to fruition while printed on cheaper paper than the English version. The Episcopal Church is a multinational and multiethnic church in which many languages are spoken, including Asian and African dialects. The Church's Book of Common Prayer needs to hold before the reality of being a Book of Common Prayer for all the people of our Church. This, like many arguments, seems lost within the current debate.

Matthew Olver suggests that the recent attempts to amend Article X "attempt to shift the Church's awareness that contemporary and future methods of publication may not be restricted to the form of a book. What the General Convention adopts as a Prayer Book is not a form of publication (a book) but rather the content, i.e., the text of the liturgies.  This has always been so and, in fact, was not copyrighted until recently. Moreover, even Olver points out that the church has a history of approving liturgies that have not always been readily published in book form.

The writing group and I believe we will have printed Prayer Books for the foreseeable future. If we took creation care more seriously, we would use the book and electronic media more often. The church cannot pretend that even now there is a strong use of liturgies printed in bulletins and online usage. Ebooks of Common Prayer are emerging and in gatherings it is more normal to see people using iphones and other devices. This is true in the House of Bishops. We even have ebinders now at the General Convention, so no future prayer book revisions will be seen in writing until a book is published.

As a church we need be aware that those who are legally blind, or have difficult with paper books because of physical challenges, find the eBook of Common Prayer accessible because they can enlarge the text, or even have it read to them. Inclusivity cannot be limited to ableist understandings of prayer book publishing.

Will ebooks, over decades, replace printed Books of Common Prayer? We do not know. However, the Constitution should not be shortsighted. As a constitution, it resides under the reality of the present and future context it seeks to guide. The design of Article X’s words need make room for such to happen without amending the Constitution at every convention to deal with change. 

Therefore, the logic is that the Book of Common Prayer is at once a collection of texts that can always be found in a physical instantiation that one can open and read to the name given to all readers that receive two sequential General Conventions to authorize their presence; and, that it may also be found online. This is a both/and solution that many have a problem reconciling. Yet it is time to reckon with our present reality and provide constitutional and canonical frameworks to do.

Some approved Book of Common Prayer liturgies may exist electronically before the custodian of The Book of Common Prayer issues an entirely new edition. Both liturgists and canonical lawyers have a problem with this latitude and open possibility. However, the church must hold both these ideas simultaneously (a Book of Common Prayer and an eBook of Common Prayer). This is all the more reason to be clear about what is a Book of Common Prayer liturgy and what is not. 

Another fear that many remain concerned about and Olver seeks to prevent is a new Book of Common Prayer. I have been in conversation with the liturgical leaders both past and present.  There is no urgency of a total rewrite of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. 

We are at least 4 to 6 General Conventions away from a new Book of Common Prayer being created slowly within the financial means of the Episcopal Church and given the fast-moving tech trends of our culture it could be 2035 or 2040 before we could financially fully underwrite and bring to fruition the task. A conservative estimate places a new Book of Common Prayer out 20 years or more, given convention timelines, finances, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music's ability to bring forward the new book written wholesale plus accomplishing all their other tasks.  

Olver suggests that we have to do a revison of the Book of Common Prayer as one thing knowing full well that is not possible and placing the ability for change even further. 

The final problem that Matthew Olver notes is the importance of clarifying the process of new prayer book liturgies within Article X. He notes that the concern arises from the ability to bring the new marriage rites forward for inclusion. Olver omits this from his argument and reveals in his proposed changes that he would prefer to have the marriage rites defined as Authorized Liturgical Rites. 2018 B011 suggested this, which was itself a suggestion following the past authorization guidelines for the Book of Common Prayer book rites. (I believe it is essential to get such guidelines into the canons.) There was never an intention to locate an approved Book of Common Prayer rites not printed in a new book. 2018-B011 was meant to provide a way to create diversity in liturgical use without building a collection of texts in a new Book of Common Prayer.  While memorializing the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer 1979.

Olver's proposal implies relegating the new marriage rites to a new category that is not a Book of Common Prayer rite and has yet to be created by the SCLM and Convention. His suggestion does not exist and actually proposes creating paths for many liturgies that will create the very problem he hopes to avoid regarding the multiplication of rites. 

The Church has already decided to set the new marriage rites towards Book of Common Prayer status. We are already in a time of trial usage, and it comes before the convention. Olver’s proposal for the new marriage rite changes the midstream process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the writing group, liturgical leaders, bishops and deputies who passed what is now A072 supported the amendment because it represent a better understanding of our church's expression of common prayer. I continue, as do the authors, to support this amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, to then work and draft the necessary canons to further define our church’s process of liturgical revision. It is true that not amending Article X is in the power of both houses – to do so is also to continue a dangerous course where many do not have clarity about guidelines for liturgical use in this church.

 

Christmas Eve Sermon, St. Thomas Wharton, 2023

Sermon
Christmas Eve 2023
St. Thomas, Wharton
By C. Andrew Doyle


Lena

His wife called him
A mad scientist
Most people knew him
As Leo Auffman

One day
A whimsical notion
Came to Leo
An inventor
He would 

build a machine

He built
An 8ft square
Orange
Box

It was
A happiness machine

He and his machine
Were located in
Green Town
(Itself a place
Imagined by
The creative mind
Of author
Ray Bradbury)


Once inside
The machine
Sitting in a chair
Enclosed by
Its orangeness
Knobs and whistles
Thing ama-bobs
And buttons
The machine
Would show
You
Lovely things
Happy things
All the best things

Lena got in it

To see what it was all about


It showed her
Sunsets
Her in her youth
Her and Leo 

Dancing in Paris

(despite the fact they had not

been to Paris)

It showed her
Whatever
Happiness
she
Imagined


[pause]
We stand
Upon the eve
Of
boxes too

an eve
Of happiness
And hopes
The gift
That will make
Life just right
Boxes to be unwrapped
And opened

The only
Thing we
Really wanted

It all awaits us
Magically so

We look into
Boxes every day too

phones

computers
Boxes we carry
In our pocket
Sit on our lap

We can
work and play on them

they
show us
Endless streams
Of the things
That make us happy

They record
All our favourite
Things
Even
Fix our blemishes
For the perfect picture
To share

These boxes
Help us curate
Our lives
Displaying
To others
Everything
Neatly tied
with a bow
Festooned for
Public consumption

[Pause]

I have been
On several pilgrimages
To Israel
With some dear friends

Every time we go
We start one of our days
At a site near
The prophet Amos’
Hometown

There we
Climb
And scuttle
Down into a cave
And there
We see
It is actually an
Old manger
Where animals
Were kept
Over a
Thousand of
Years ago

We are told
About caves
And their use
Years ago

And
how
It is possible
That just such
A site
Is
Similar to the
Birthplace
Of Jesus

And
in that
Little cave
I remember
Standing there
With the walls
partly caved
In
Damp
dusty
And
Yet feeling
As though
Perhaps
I was experiencing
Something
Quite close
To holy

And there
Is a stone
manger

a Carved out
stone box
rough hewed

A manger
For feeding
The livestock

Something
Perhaps like
What Jesus
Might have
Been laid
Within

[Pause]

I imagine the
Hopes laid
Upon him
By parents

But others too

People
With whom
In that moment
The child
Had not met
And could not
Fathom

Yes
The hopes
And fears
Are met
In thee…we sing

I wonder
If you might
Ponder with
Me tonight
This very
Curious thing

Christmas
Isn’t about
The boxes we open
Or even
Our celebration

Christmas
Is not about a
New beginning
Another attempt
At the best-curated life
Or the most toys

It isn’t about something
That might happen

I hope you see with me
Christmas
Is about the
Child
That was laid
Within that
Stone box
That manger
Those many years ago

a present
Already opened
The gift already received

Consider what
The reformer
Martin Luther
Wrote:

I would not have you contemplate the deity of Christ, the majesty of Christ, but rather his flesh. Look upon the baby Jesus. Divinity may terrify a person. Inexpressible majesty could crush one. That is why Christ took on our humanity, save for our sin, that he should not terrify us by rather that with love and favor he should console and confirm us.

Tonight
Is about
Remembering
That gift
That birth

Yes,
We know the rest
Of the story

Our prayers
Hymns and carols
Will tip our hand
And seek to
Draw the end
Of the story
To the beginning
A reverse chronology
an inverted narrative
- And some folks love that

But tonight
Perhaps
Tonight
We let the
Beginning
Be

Well

The beginning

And we ponder
That this person
Jesus was
So close
So deeply connected
So filled with love
So godly
That
Those
Who gathered
Around him
Saw
Something…
Someone
They had been waiting for

[Pause]

Lena
(Leo Auffman
The inventor’s
Wife)
Arose
Out of the
Happiness box
That great
Orange thing
In their basement
In Greentown
And said

When
The box is opened
And we
Climb out
We must face
The fact that
We grow old
There is life,
Dirty dishes,
Children to be fed
…she says

She suggests
Happiness Machines
- That box of yours Leo –
Lies
And promises Things
it can’t deliver upon

perhaps
from Lena
we can learn something too

all the boxes
that promise
happiness
can’t deliver

and what we need
as people
as family
and friends
brothers, sisters, siblings
coworkers
and churchgoers
and all the rest

what we need
is actually
to marvel
at Jesus
Saviour
messiah
wonderful counsellor
prince of peace
Emmanuel – God with us

who was born
such a long time
ago
in a little town
called Bethlehem
and
who
was laid
in a stone box
open for the world
to receive

The Uniqueness of Christ

This was given to the Christian Formation Conference at Camp Allen in September, 2010.  The theme of the conference was the Charter for Lifelong Christian Formation.

Let me begin very clearly with some thoughts about what our work as a Christian Church is… in general.

"The Gospel testifies to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in God's plan for the salvation of the world.”

“There can be no greater theme - no higher calling for the church to bear witness to salvation in and through Christ." (Sharing the Gospel of Salvation, GS Misc 956, Report to General Synod Church of England, 2010, from forward, SGS)

"...The Christian story is, quite simply, the most attractive account of the world and the human condition.”

“Theology, [how we believe, how we communicate about God] is not an adjunct to the social sciences - on the contrary, Christian theology is the prism through which the social sciences make the most sense.”

“The task of Christians is not to persuade others of the truth of the gospel story through propositional argument (which, John Milbanks - Anglican theologian - claims, always carries undertones of violence) but to "out narrate" other, rival and less attractive narratives.”

“Christians must so live out their faith, in communities which embody the gospel (especially in practices of worship) that others are attracted by the sublime beauty of God reflected in the Church." (SGS, 72)

"The Church...is called to be a "community of character", embodying "the peaceable kingdom."

“It is not called to prop up other social institutions, such as democracy or capitalism, however useful they may be, but to exhibit in its corporate life the radically alternative life of those who follow Christ.”

“Others will wish to join this community, not because they are convinced intellectually of its argument but because they are captivated by its example of virtuous living.”(SGS, 73)

I have taken these opening thoughts, these foundational beliefs about our work from a profound work on Evangelism which was received at the English Annual Synod meeting in 2010.

The Episcopal Church is a missionary society.

We are as our Book of Common Prayer says, "The family of God" and the "Temple of the Holy Spirit."

Every leader and every member has a story to share. Communally and individually we have the very best story of spiritual transformation to share with the world around us.

We are invited and charged with the proclamation of nothing less than the very best story that there is -- the story of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the world.

We are challenged to "out narrate" and to communicate our work of "virtuous" living to the world around us. Specifically we are called to do this work in our given mission context.

We are to be working hand in hand with Jesus Christ to transform the world around us. We are as the Charter for Life Long Formation says:

Carrying out God’s work of reconciliation, love, forgiveness, healing, justice and peace.

Faithfully confronting the tensions in the church and the world as we struggle to live God’s will.

Engage in prophetic action, evangelism, advocacy and collaboration in our contemporary global context.

Lift every voice and reconcile oppressed and oppressor to the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.

In the area of Christian Formation we are at work helping to form individuals through the sharing of story, knowledge, experience, teachings, tradition, history, and the scriptures imparting from one seeker to another the sacred story of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the world.

The essential work for congregations is to “out narrate” the world around us. And, to provide the solid foundation upon which the individual and the community rests that it may at once live life within the sacred community and make the profane world around it sacred through its virtuous action.

The Uniqueness of Jesus

Central to our work is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the prime actor in our sacred narrative.

This uniqueness rests solidly in our faith’s affirmation that God is one.

Deuteronomy 4.35: “To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.”

Nehemiah 9.6: “And, Ezra said: ‘You are the Lord, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, will all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the host of heaven worships you.’”

Isaiah 45:5-6: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God; I arm you, though you do not know me, so that they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other.”

Throughout the narrative of the Old Testament [As Jesus says in Luke’s Gospel: the law and the prophets and the proclamation of John the baptizer] the central theme is that the Lord, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah is unique because God is the one living and true God.

We proclaim this truth in the first article of the Creed and it is the response to the first question of our baptismal covenant. It is this God who upholds the universe and everything that exists within it and he is the sole sovereign of history. (Adapted SGC, 10)

From the Venerable Bede to Juroslav Pelikan, from Abelard to Justo Gonzales, from Wayne Meeks to N. T. Wright, from Augustine of Hippo to Michael Ramsey, wise men and women, theologians, desert mothers and desert fathers…regardless of who you read Christians have come to believe and proclaim that “in accordance with the promises that God had made to his people, the God of Israel, in the person of Jesus, ‘took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance’ in order to proclaim God’s kingdom and to bring it in by reconciling the whole universe through his life, death and resurrection.” (SGC 11)

Each one has passed the narrative to us. Over the centuries the proclamation of this Good News of Salvation has out narrated the secular world’s story of hopelessness. Each held “that after his resurrection Jesus ascended into heaven and at the end of the age he will come in glory to judge the living and the dead and to finally and fully manifest the kingly rule of God over all creation…” (SGC, 11)

John 1.14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, the glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

Colossians 1.19: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross.”

Hebrews 1:2-2: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, who he appointed heir to all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word.”

“On the same grounds they further believed that God exists as the Holy Spirit, the one who had dwelt in Jesus and empowered his mission and whom Jesus had poured out on his followers on the day of Pentecost.” (SGC, 13)

This is the story of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. These are the faith responses of every Christian that has come before us. This is the truth proclaimed in faith responses of the second and third questions of our Baptismal Covenant and are rooted deep in our creed.

This is our story. This is the unique story of our faith. It is profound and it is the rock upon which my faith rests. It is the particular story which gives meaning the world of chaos proclaimed by the powers all around.

You and I are purveyors of a sacred narrative. You are not volunteers. You are not Sunday School teachers. You are not educators. You and I are disciples of the one God.

Like the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are bearers of the sacred truth of God, the Living Word.

We are marked on our foreheads with this sacred story; we are marked as Christ’s own forever. Hands are laid upon us by a bishop that we may be empowered by the same Holy Spirit for a life lived in discovery, a life lived in formation, a life lived out in the world as a missionary of God’s Holy narrative.

Anyone can carry out reconciliation, love, forgiveness, healing, justice and peace. But we understand it is God’s work.

Anyone can confront the tensions in the world. But we do so faithfully trying to live out the life of God’s will and sacred narrative.

Anyone can engage in prophetic action, advocacy and collaboration in our contemporary global context. But only we can engage through the unique prophetic witness of the Good News of Salvation.

Anyone can lift every voice and reconcile oppressed and oppressor. But only we can do the work out of the particular understanding that it is the love expressed through God in Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Uniqueness of Episcopalians

We have a sacred story. We are called to out narrate the world. Yet we must also understand that we undertake this work with a particular and unique perspective within the body of Christ and the catholic or universal witness which is Christianity.

You and I must reclaim our unique Episcopal witness. We must be at work inside and outside of our church helping individuals to understand a very unique narrative. We are Christians but we are specifically and unambiguously Anglicans and more precise still, we are uniquely Episcopalians.

We must be about the business of forming people who are Episcopalians.

Yes, we are interested in formation of Christians. But we are Episcopalians and we have a unique and important version of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is articulated as our charter says, through scripture, tradition and reason.

This unique Episcopal witness is articulated through the words of our Baptismal Covenant:

• our particular manner of Sacramental ministry

• our understanding of Mission

• our fellowship

• our reading of scripture

• in worship, throughout the day, and at home

• our understanding of the importance of our monastic inheritance and spiritual formation

• our proclamation of the Gospel

• our treatment of every human being

• our particular gift for reconciliation and peace

• our work in social and cultural advocacy and just action

• our understanding of creation and the work of sustainable stewardship

• our understanding of service and virtuous citizenship

These are the themes of our story. These are the chapters of our narrative as Episcopalians.

The work…no the art of story telling…which is Christian Formation is specifically to tell the story, to tell our community’s story, to tell our story, and to teach others to tell their story.

Parker Palmer might offer us this reflection: Formation “is always done at the dangerous intersection of personal and public life.” (Parker Palmer, The Courage to Teach)

He also said, “I now understand what Nelle Morton [Nelle Morton was a 20th century church activist for racial justice, and later a teacher of Christian educators] meant when she said that one of the great tasks in our time is to ‘hear people to speech.’ Behind their fearful silence, our students want to find their voices, speak their voices, have their voices heard. A good teacher is one who can listen to those voices even before they are spoken—so that someday they can speak with truth and confidence. (Parker Palmer, The Courage to Teach)

You and I must reclaim our mission and ministry and tell the story in such a way that when those who retell it and those who hear it reshape the world into the reign of God.

Are we “out narrating” the world?

“Robert Raikes (1735-1811) is remembered as a pioneer of Sunday Schools. He was not; however, the first person to set up a Sunday school, but rather his work pioneered Sunday Schools as a national institution.

“He became aware of the needs of those children whose parents could not provide schooling for them. In 1780 he was dismayed at the sight of children running wild around the city on Sundays and began to consider the possibility of a School. There were other schools being developed by Hannah Ball and Thomas King – all followers like Raikes of the great evangelists George Whitefield and John Wesley.

“In July 1780 a Sunday School was established in the parish of St Mary de Crypt in Gloucester. There were to be two sessions every Sunday and four women were paid to teach children to read and to learn the Prayer Book Catechism. Raikes became actively involved. He visited the children in their homes, examined their progress in reading and gave prizes for good progress.

“While Raikes wanted to provide basic Christian teaching, the first challenge was that of teaching children to read. In 1784, John Wesley noted in his Journal, ‘I find these schools springing up wherever I go. Perhaps God may have some deeper end therein than men are aware of. Who knows but some of them may become nurseries for Christians?’ (Article from Grace online Magazine,

http://www.gracemagazine.org.uk/articles/historical/raikes.htm)


The great Awakening and the Sunday school movement went hand in hand and over the centuries has become exactly what John Wesley thought: a “nursery for Christians.” That is until recently.

The Episcopal Church has reported that in 1965, there were 880,000 children in our Sunday school programs. In 2001, that number had declined to 297,000. Thus in 35 years Sunday school attendance dropped by close to 600,000 students.

Each one of us lives, and ministers, within a particular mission context.

We live in a different world: a world of Sunday sports, busy lives, busy jobs, and all with little time or space for God. We live in a world which is currently out narrating the church. The secular narrative teaches us that more is never enough. The secular narrative says technological relationships are enough. A secular narrative that promises Sabbath some day; maybe if you can afford retirement, if not after you work part-time at Wal-Mart or Starbucks.

We live in a context which largely expects us to do the work of formation as we have done it since the beginning of the Sunday school movement. But the world has changed.

I believe that the Charter’s most challenging words read, “We are to be doing the work Jesus Christ calls us to do… We are to be seeking out diverse and expansive ways to empower prophetic action.”

We have the most transformational message of hope in our culture. Moreover, the Episcopal Church offers a unique and much needed religious life of discipleship to a culture that is seeking spiritual meaning and meaningful action.

The challenge of Christian Formation today is to reinvent the manner in which we engage in the work Jesus has called us to do through entrepreneurial innovation.

I am using the word entrepreneurial to seeing before you, in your missionary context, greenfield potential.

I am using the word innovation to mean making a positive change in our current situation that brings about not only formation of the community and individual but transformation of the world through narration of our particular and sacred story.

We must renew the art of Christian Formation by reinventing, reconstructing, restructuring, restoring, remaking, re-establishing, and rebuilding what is now an outdated missionary system.

In the field of Christian Formation we must tap into our nature as Christian creatives for the health and well-being of our Episcopal Church and our local congregations.

__________________________________

There are six basic stages of innovation and I want to apply them here to the process of reinventing Christian Formation for the Episcopal Church. The stages are: generate new ideas, capture ideas, mission innovation, mission strategy, reflection and improvement, and decline. (From Vision to Reality: The Innovation Process, http://www.bia.ca/articles/inno-vision-to-reality.htm)

Decline

I want to begin with the last stage first: Decline.

The sixth stage of innovation is decline. In time, it often becomes obvious that what was once an innovation no longer fits. I have made this argument already and we have seen the case of the Sunday school movements decline.

Once in the stage of decline it becomes obvious that continuous improvement of the existing process, product, or service is no longer of value. The reality is that the former innovation has now become outdated or outmoded.

In our case it isn’t that the rules have changed. We have always been responsible for the formation of disciples and the telling and retelling of our story. It is our culture that has changed.

In the sixth stage of innovation we see that it is time to let go of the past models and set new goals to start the innovation process once again. It is time for new innovations in response to external missionary context in which we the Episcopal Church find ourselves.

In fact as I travel around I see this innovation beginning to take shape in some of our congregations. In fact, it has been changing for about a decade. Nevertheless, I believe a more innovative and entrepreneurial approach is needed if we are to out narrate the culture in which we find ourselves.


Generate New Ideas

The having clearly reached the last stage first, we begin again. We must generate new ideas.  Always begin with bible study and reflection.  Each stage needs to be bathed in scripture and prayer.

I want to be very clear here. We are not generating a new story or a new narrative. We are not becoming Universalists. We are not becoming Buddhists. We can have a very healthy relationship with our ecumenical brothers and sisters. We can have healthy interreligious dialogs. These are essential in fact in the generation of ideas. However, we are Christians who call ourselves Episcopalians. And, I firmly believe that when a person enters into a relationship with us (either by coming to church or by meeting us out in the world) they want to know who we are. Remember, formation begins with the self-knowledge and understanding of the teacher according to Parker Palmer. We already know our narrative. We are looking to generate ideas that will help us provide a narrative within our churches and out in the world.

Begin by asking people you know, inside and outside the church, the following questions or questions similar to these:

• What has God called us to do? You might look at the Charter for Life Long Christian Formation as one source.

• What is impossible to do in our congregation, or in our formation ministry, today, but if it could be done, would fundamentally change the way in which we engage in the work of formation?

Answers to these questions will help you to see the boundaries of your new mission work.

An example is that I challenged the Examining Chaplains to evaluate our process of testing new priests. Is it working? What is missing? How can we improve it? They have developed a new proposed process that engages in conversation and discernment rather than testing, and takes shape within community and in the midst of prayer.
Capture the Ideas

Stage two is the Capturing of the ideas. There will be a lot of ideas. You will need a creative team of experts and ministers to discuss the possibilities of each idea through brainstorming.

For innovation to be successful in our culture today you are going to have to bring in people who are communicators, of different ages, creative people, strategic thinkers, doers, visionary leaders and followers.

It is good to brainstorm individually, then in smaller groups, and then as a team. Collectively organize and prioritize your results.

Not every congregation is going to have a large group. It can be as few as two and as many as eight. Remember though, the art of Christian Formation is a work that is undertaken within community. This is not the work of one individual and a team of teachers…that is the old model.

You will also need to remember your missionary context. You need to discover and think intentionally about those you are trying to reach. You also must be honest and transparent about what you can accomplish given the financial and human resources available to you and your congregation or team.

A good example of this is the team that has been put together to provide a curriculum to study the Anglican Covenant. It includes skilled individuals who know how to write curriculum. It also includes parish leaders and communicators.
Mission Innovation

The next stage is the actual innovation. Review the entire list of ideas and develop them into a series of clear and meaningful statements. The team will then need to agree on which ones to explore further. Quantify the benefits of each statement and discern through prayer and clarity which ones to pursue.

Be clear about your mandate. Are you working on Formation with adults or children? Are you working on Stewardship as a Formation program? What is your mandate?

Ask yourselves: how does this innovative idea fit with the strategy and mission of your church? Innovation can go wrong here. Good ideas which will not further the mission can take up space from essential ideas that will further the mission of formation.

What are the expected outcomes? How will you measure your success? What are the short term goals? Are they achievable? You are working now on the feasibility of your innovative idea. This is important to the whole process. We might remind ourselves of the story from our Gospels about the man who sets out to build a tower without counting the cost.

A good example here is of the process used by the Episcopal Foundation of Texas and the Quin Foundation to plan and structure the new Strategic Mission Grant process. They had to both figure out how to pool the money, design a process of giving the money away, communicating the application procedures, reviewing the grant requests, covenanting with the recipients, and how to do accountability visits.

Mission Strategy and Implementation

Mission strategy and implementation begins in the fourth stage. It usually means a re-think of an existing process and ministry. Once you have settled on the major innovation and even a basic strategy you must work with all those who will be involved in the change and figure out the details.

This is not the same as looking at an existing process and improving it. We don’t need a better Sunday school program. It is describing what a future process will look like and virtually walking it through to its conclusion.

The team will first develop this "picture of the future." You might begin by making a list of the basic assumptions about the way things are done now and begin to see how things will be different. This is the part where most innovative concepts die. They either get launched without fully thinking through this piece or the innovation looks too difficult and so is abandoned and a decision is made to simply repaint the rooms and add new carpet.

Writing or drawing a flow chart or using some other illustrations will enable your team you have to get a look at the entire "future process."

This part of the process is exemplified in the Executive Board’s Mission Subcommittee which reviewed and worked with me on the staff structure and development of the new office of Life Long Christian Formation. Their work with me looked at all the potential areas of conflict, overlap, budgeting, scope of the ministry, and in the end helped me with developing a process for searching for the new Canon.
Reflection and Improvement

Once the missionary innovation is in motion, it is necessary to continuously examine it for possible improvements.

I think a process of review and reflection needs to be in place before the roll out of the initiative. If it is not clear what the matrix of success is, who will evaluate, and when determinations about ongoing work and there is no clear time line given the innovation will have problems.

One of two problems will arise. The innovation will fail because it was not adaptive to either the changing process of delivery or the changing context within the setting. Or the process will go on forever with the assumption that it is still needed and necessary for the survival of the organization.

What are the gaps? What is missing? Where are we misfiring? What are the barriers and blockages that are making the innovation less effective? Are there changing benefits, costs, risks necessary to improve and refine the missionary innovation?

Then the team must recommend and apply the improvements.

A good example of this is the innovation of mission congregation reports. It was important during the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century for the bishop to know what was going on in the mission congregations. Therefore, they were required to give reports on their ministry. The report was written and sent to the bishop on a semi-annual basis. This report evolved into a form and the form was required on a monthly basis. The process seemed to be improving, except that the form required too much information, was not turned in electronically and consequently wasn’t being used by most of the mission congregations. Moreover, the bishop and the staff knew what was going on because of new oversight responsibilities by the Canon for Congregational Development. When a new staff organization was developed in 2005, they weren’t being done at all. Today the diocese receives a brief email report with only a few questions from mission congregations receiving money from the diocese for their ministry. The process was reworked and improved based upon the changing nature of the context.

Conclusions

The Gospel testifies to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in God's plan for the salvation of the world.

You and I as Christians are challenged to "out narrate" and to communicate our work of "virtuous" living to the world around us. Specifically, we are called to do this work in our given mission context.

We are to be working hand in hand with Jesus Christ to transform the world around us.

You and I, as uniquely created Episcopalians, must reclaim our mission and ministry and tell the story in such a way that when those who retell it and those who hear it reshape the world into the reign of God.

The challenge of Christian Formation within the Episcopal Church today is to reinvent the manner in which we engage in the work Jesus has called us to do through entrepreneurial innovation.

I pray that God, who has given you the will to do these things, will give you both the grace, and the power to perform them in his name. Amen.

Sermon Preached at Prayer Service for Immigration Reform

In the first book of the Bible called Genesis God speaks to Abraham and says, “Leave your country, your family, and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you. I will bless you and make your descendants into a great nation.”
God calls people to leave where they are and go and make new community.

God called Abraham and Sarah.

God called Moses.

God called Joshua.

God called the judges.

God called the kings.

God called the exiles.

For Christians God sent Jesus and called the apostles and Paul and the first followers whose names are recorded in the books of the New Testament.

God calls.

God beckons.

God makes new community.

My family came from England and from Ireland. One almost drowned along the way, others made the journey with ease. All faced life threatening and life giving challenges in a new world. All of them faced a nation that promised new life regardless of the cost of arriving or the cost of staying on these shores.

They came with hope for a future and for something better for their life. Many believed that God had in store for them better things.

Perhaps your parents came too or you came. You and I have arrived here today because the mother of exiles, these United States, promises: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

We are, as the author Jon Meacham has writen, a nation that believes in God and believes in providence; the working out of God’s plan.

We know that God invites, God beckons, God calls out to his people and says: “Go to the land that I will show you.” We know this because we have experienced it ourselves.

God has called us, beckoned us into community.

God is constantly renewing the face of the earth. God is constantly doing his work through the efforts of his holy people. People called to work together, hand in hand, beyond the divisions of homeland and language, for the betterment of creation.

God intends us to be built into a virtuous society, a society who works for the benefit of all of God’s people and not ourselves alone.

When the followers of God have journeyed out into the deserts of life they have called upon God, do not forget us. And, I say God does not forget.

God does not forget his tired, his poor.

God does not forget his huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

God does not forget the fearful or the anxious.

God does not forget the fallen.

And, God does not forget the imprisoned.

God does not forget. God does not turn his eyes away. God remembers his people and their journey. God does not forget, God remembers you and he remembers me.

And when God looks down upon us and sees us in our lives calling out for him. God answers. And, there are many ways in which God answers. One of the ways in which God answers his faithful people calling out to him for rescue and to be saved is to send others.

Did not God send Moses to his people in Egypt? Did not God send Isaiah to comfort his people in Babylon? Do you and I not remember the names of those who God has sent to us to call us by name, to offer us the hand of God, and to lift us out of the dirt and ashes of our broken lives? You and I remember their names.

Those saints of God are generations of immigrants who have gone before us and were not content for their own success. When others arrived they remembered their experience and choose not to act out of fear but to help our immigrant fathers and mothers find their way in a strange land. They did this, these saints of God, because they heard the words of Isaiah calling: help the oppressed.

They heard the words of God speaking to their hearts saying: you were once a stranger in a strange strange land. You remember and you are called by God, this is what our immigrant fathers and mothers heard, you are called to help people into society with dignity, and respect. You are to help them become part of your national family…for they are part of my family -- the family of God.

Immigrants have always built up this nation and benefited us as a nation and as people of faith, by bringing their willingness to hard work, their entrepreneurial spirit, their diverse cultures, and their ethnic foods. Our culture is an immigrant culture.

It is true that immigrants are being demonized today because people are afraid of changing demographics, economic anxiety, border violence, because the system is broken.

These fears are not new fears. They are the same fears that greeted the Irish when they arrived. These are the same fears that greeted the Asians as they arrived. Today these fears greet the immigrant Hispanics, the new Africans, the islanders, and those from the Middle East.

God has never asked us to act out of our fear. God has always called us to act on behalf of the newcomer and the stranger. We know what we must do. We must on God’s behalf see one another as immigrant brother and sister – as family.

We are advocating and praying for reform because we are God’s family.

We are simply advocating for family unity.

We are advocating for reform that allows documentation of immigrants and their families with a path to citizenship.

We are advocating for affordable process.

We are advocating for an environment where people are safe in their community no matter what their legal status is; and that they have the ability to work with our civic authorities to provide for healthy communities.

We are advocating that policies should respect human rights by beginning with humanitarian values. We are advocating that we respect the dignity of all persons.

We are simply saying that we have a moral obligation to provide refuge and to welcome the stranger.

You and I have a responsibility to remember that we were once strangers in a strange land and that we are called by God to care for those now sent into our care.

We must do this because we understand that they represent God. The immigrant and the immigration issues we face today are our greatest challenge as a nation. How we answer the questions posed and the advocacy required will show what we are truly made of.

At the end of the day we can have great slogans, great beliefs, and even be one of the most powerful and greatest nations in the world.

If we do not help people find freedom and liberty…and we do not do this with kindness, and hospitality and love then we may loose the heart of our nation. Indeed, we will have lost the heart of all of our faiths combined.

It is God that calls us into a diverse community, a family of God. It is upon God’s mercy and providence that we depend. And, it is upon God’s call to help the stranger that we discover our journey into God’s kingdom.

God spoke to Abram and said, “Leave your country, your family, and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you. I will bless you and make your descendants into a great nation.”


by The Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle, Preached at Immigration Reform Prayer Service, Catholic Charismatic Center, Houston, Texas

Hear the sermon preached in Spanish, with the last 1/4 in English  here:  http://www.adoyle.libsyn.com/

News following the Immigration Service:
http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-religious-leaders-immigration-reform-story,0,3910843.story

http://www.click2houston.com/video/23811580/index.html

http://www.khou.com/home/Interfaith-prayer-service-focuses-on-immigration-reform-95739914.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/7039827.html

Jesus Talk: Having Testamints in your Pocket or Rediscovering the Art of Discipleship

 

Dan Kimball, author and pastor at Vintage Faith church in Santa Cruz, California, wrote:

Jesus is everywhere. I recently walked into a gas station to pay for some gas and saw some Jesus bobble-heads for sale on a shelf. I was kind of surprised to see Jesus in the gas station, but there he was, three or four of him standing in a row. As I waited to pay for the fifteen gallons I had pumped into my rusty 1966 Ford Mustang, the Jesus bobble-heads silently stared at me, all politely smiling and nodding in unison.

Not too long afterward, I visited a major clothing chain store. Near the entry was a display for the Jesus Action Figure. Probably a dozen or more Jesuses hung in nice plastic packaging that declared, “With pose-able arms and gliding action!” While I stood there looking at them, a woman in her early twenties grabbed one from the rack. She enthusiastically said to her companion, “I love these!” and off she ran to the cash register with Jesus under her arm.”

I love Jesus and I love all things Jesus. But it really is amazing how many people love Jesus but don’t love the church. If we are going to reclaim the art of discipleship we are going to have to reclaim it in the midst of our world and our culture in America. We are going to have to reclaim discipleship from a dying Protestant Christianity as it exists today. We are going to have to reclaim discipleship from the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church. We are going to have reclaim discipleship even though there are theological and practical stumbling blocks.

I am a missionary and I want to work within a missionary church alive within a growing missionary field, in relationship with disciples who wish to follow the way of Jesus. I believe that Christianity, particularly Anglicanism through the lens of the Episcopal Church, has something fundamentally unique to offer those who are seeking to follow Jesus. I believe and am committed to an Episcopal Church and an Episcopal Diocese in Texas that is actively making the world a better place tomorrow than it is today. I believe that our church and our people, you and I, are called to be partners with Jesus Christ restoring the world around us.

I have invited several friends to visit with us about their views and their experience and so we will hear stories from the mission front about God, Jesus, Christians and communities. We will look to the past through the lens of our Gospel (Mark, Luke, and John specifically). And, we will think about methods and models for our future. Tonight I want us to begin to reclaim the art of discipleship, by: understanding the world and culture in which we are living; understanding the challenge organized religion faces in this culture; and, understanding the stumbling blocks that lie before us as Episcopalians. Many of us here have been having these conversations about emerging topics of interest. We have been listening and engaging in a conversation of “generous orthodoxy,” “off road disciplines” and the “renewing of our heart.” But it is time to bring it home to the Episcopal Church.

(intro to “The Art and Method of Discipleship,”The Blandy Lectures, SSW, 2009)

Technorati Tags: Blandy Lectures,mission,Christians,Jesus Episcopalians,Discipleship

There’s a Reason They Call It “Working” The Program

(continued from previous post "When Work of Ministry Just Isn't Working"

Some of you may know, I began "working the program" of Al-anon about twenty years ago. I started this work as a result of finding my life and ministry in a pretty bad place. On a regular basis, I read my One Day At A Time, went to meetings, got a sponsor (God blessed me with a good one!) and started working the Twelve Steps.

Step One: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

I breezed through this step. That was easy enough and true and apparent. I got it, and I got it immediately. I thought, "This program is pretty good. I can do this."

Step Two: Came to believe that a Power greater than our-selves could restore us to sanity.

This was a little harder. I could get that God was greater than me, but I wasn't thinking clearly at all; I had been trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results, and I wasn't so sure I couldn't take care of things based on my own power of reasoning. I worked at it until I came to realize the crux of my dilemma: either I really, truly believed that God had the power to do this for me or I didn't. I decided God had the power to restore me. After all, isn't that the meaning of redemption? It took me several hard weeks of work to fully accept this truth.

Step Three: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

Now here was an embarrassing problem. I'm an ordained priest! I could do theology, talk theology, preach the Gospel, read Holy Scripture, lead the Eucharist, and do all manner of priestly things. But I wasn't sure I was ready to turn my "will and my life over to the care of God." Especially, I wasn't sure I wanted to submit to the God that I understood at this particular time of my life.

And so here it came: the dark night of the soul. Here was that moment when a man decides what he is made of. Here is the moment when he decides what he really believes. As any good procrastinator will tell you, you can stretch some things out pretty far. My avoidance of this step, led to my whining about the step, which led to my deepest sorrow over seeking God who seemed to have abandoned me. My sponsor listened to me. My sponsor talked with me. My sponsor allowed me to really work this step, to wrestle with it and didn't try to fix it for me.

One night after a particularly difficult meeting followed by one-on-one time with my sponsor, I went home, sat on the red couch and poured out my trouble to my wife, JoAnne. JoAnne said, "You need to get out of this house and its distractions. You need to leave the comfort of this couch and go up to the church. You need to pray and sit with God until you get this soul work done." So I said, "Ok." I couldn't really argue, and it was a good idea. I went to the Church. I entered this holy space and I prayed. I prayed on my knees. I prayed sitting down. I cried. I talked to God. I yelled. I was quiet. I was quiet, some more.

Coming Up: After the Darkness ...

When the Work of Ministry just isn’t Working

There was a certain time in my life when things were not going well for me in my ministry.

• It was the time of the tragic Texas A&M bonfire: I had been forced by circumstances to deal with this trauma, to witness the deaths, and to minister to the friends and families of those who had died. I was one of many clergy providing pastoral care; the Catholics were the first to arrive and Sandi Mizirl, our own campus missioner, did a yeoman's work with the families at the hospital. I had stayed on the site to visit, to pray, and to be present with the police, firemen, and other rescuers who were seeking the young people still trapped beneath the fallen stack.

• It was a time that I was struggling under the weight of my own ministry goals, forgetting for the moment, the lessons I had learned about shared ministry. I was spinning a lot of plates, most of my own creating, and they felt like they were going to fall any minute.

• It was a time that my relationship was very strained between me, my father, whom I love, and my family.

• And it was a time that I was in solo flight. I did not have a clergy support group or anyone with whom I felt like I could confide my struggles. My prayer life was in the dumper. Life was hard, and I was making it harder, and I wasn't reaching out for help, though help was all around me.

Eventually, I had no choice but to change a couple of things as a course correction; some changes occurred naturally, some by my invitation. Most of these changes revolved around reaching out to others. I found a counselor to help me better understand myself. I found a clergy group to gain new ministry perspectives. I moved into a relationship with a monastery in order to renew my prayer life. And I got into Al-anon.

This course correction did not have immediate, but rather long term effects.

Coming Up: There's a Reason it's called "Working the Program"

Current Prayer Current Reading

I am enjoying my return to routine in the office this fall.

My daily prayer life seems to be returning to normal: morning prayer, special intercessions for family, friends, coworkers, clergy and their families and parishioners. I follow the daily lectionary and have been posting on twitter reflective passages coming out of that reading. I follow the ordo of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, which is the calendar for the psalms, feasts, and fasts.

I am also reading as part of my meditations in the morning the Archbishop's (ABC) meditations from Lambeth called: God's Mission and a Bishop's Discipleship. I have already read this short wee bookie once, but it is really good so I am at it again.

I am working on Luke's Gospel for a new Hitchhiker's Guide to be out this fall. I also picked up N. T. Wright's new book Justification. That is really good. He really stirs the pot in this one.

On the fun side I just finished The Big Rich and am working on The First American, This is England, Biography of Bishop Greg, and Here Comes Everybody (second read).

What are you reading?

The Work of Glorifying God Extends to How We Treat One Another

On the blog experimentaltheology Richard Beck posted a reflection called The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity, wherein he wrote: "The trouble with contemporary Christianity is that a massive bait and switch is going on. ‘Christianity’ has essentially become a mechanism for allowing millions of people to replace being a decent human being with some endorsed ‘spiritual’ substitute."

As an example he recalls waiting tables: "The single most damaging phenomenon to the witness of Christianity in America today is the collective behavior of the Sunday morning lunch crowd. Never has a more well-dressed, entitled, dismissive, haughty or cheap collection of Christians been seen on the face of the earth."

Beck’s article implies that the first followers of Jesus were about transformation and being different, better human beings, examples of a better way of treating one another within a larger culture. Perhaps the change has occurred since most of the earliest followers of Jesus were those who served rather than were served, in America the opposite is probably true today. (Beck is the Associate Professor of Psychology at Abilene Christian University. The entire article can be found at http://www.experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/).

Beck’s observations are not novel, though they may be difficult to internalize. We can either be angry then dismiss the observation, or we can honor them as a reflection of how some Christians act and therefore how many Christians are perceived.

In rereading The Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, I was reminded that the first use of "Christian" in the Bible is as a noun and not as an adjective. Author Rob Bell makes a good case for this. Being a Christian is about being a particular way--a better person--a decent or good human being. Traditionally we have called this "virtue."

It reminded me of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. One of Paul’s shortest, the letter is addressed to the infant church at Colossae in the Lycus Valley in Asia. This was a new congregation started by followers of Jesus, inspired by Paul’s mission to Ephesus and it was in trouble. There was some false teaching going on.

Scholars believe this false teaching distinguished itself within the church community of Colassae directing individuals to hold, act and impart certain teachings in order to be considered true members with the real tradition. The emphasis in Colossae focused on particular practices necessary to receive the unveiling of heavenly mysteries. What strikes me as interesting is in the midst of pressure to discern rightly Paul reminds the Colossians that the traditions that matter are those given by Christ himself and that they should engage in following the traditions embodied in the life of Christ.

Paul teaches them (3:12) the way of Jesus, the manner of being followers of Jesus. Not surprisingly the work Paul offers the Colossians as spiritual disciplines might be the type of spiritual development that would actually make us better, more decent, human beings. Paul says we should be compassionate, kind, humble, meek, and patient. We should think of others and support them. We should forgive one another, in the manner that God forgives us. We should be loving. Paul says that the love of Christ binds everything. Christ’s peace dwells in our hearts if we allow it.

Paul concludes this portion of his letter by saying, "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (3.17)
Paul reminds me that the work of the Church is to first, glorify God through the singing of hymns, prayers, psalms, and remembering the breaking of Christ’s body for the world. What we learn from Paul, and soon discover in our own life, is that this work of glorifying God extends to how we treat one another: family, friends, neighbors…waiters, waitresses, and those who wait on us…the servants of all. We participate, as partners with Christ, in the restoration of creation by acting as Christ in the world, that includes restaurants and with people we don’t know.
Becoming a virtuous person, a "decent human being" is our personal Christian work and it is the work of discipleship where we help others live a more virtuous life.

This Fall, let us be willing to engage in spiritual disciplines, ministries and worship that change, that transform who we are…that make us better people. As C. S. Lewis once remarked, let us be about the work of restoring and recreating one another as the embodiment of Christ in the world. That is the work of the Church, each of our congregations and each and everyone of us.