Want Something To Read?

If you want to read something about the Episcopal Church other than my thoughts, here are a few books that I've found helpful for me or others who've had questions.

Robert E. Webber's Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why Evangelicals Are Attracted to the Liturgical Church is an easy to read little book that expresses some of my experiences, though some of what he has to say is still quite 'evangelical,' which I would not now consider myself to be. In the first part of the book he explores such themes as liturgy, sacramental theology, and ecumenism (I would have at least added social justice concerns to this list); the second part consists of six personal stories of people who made this journey.

Christopher L. Webber's Welcome to the Episcopal Church: An Introduction to Its History, Faith, and Worship and Urban T. Holmes III's What Is Anglicanism? are more serious yet brief introductions, touching on the major themes of this particular Christian tradition.

If you want an academic (yet very readable) introduction, you must read the standard--Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight's collection of essays entitled The Study of Anglicanism. This book contains essays ranging from "Tradition, Fathers and Councils" to "Ministry and Priesthood" to "Anglican Morality" to "Church-State Relations."

If you want an Anglican flavored (yet highly ecumenical) daily devotional book other than the Book of Common Prayer, I suggest Lesser Feasts and Fasts. This book is arranged around the liturgical calendar, giving a short historical blurb about the saint whose feast it is, along with an appropriate prayer and scripture reading. This is a great way to familiarize oneself with figures in church history, such as William Laud, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Macrina, Augustine, and Teresa of Avila.

An Embodied Priesthood

The Episcopal Church (like other structured denominations) is often mistakenly thought to be purely clergy driven without much involvement of laypeople. Some think this is embedded in a theology that requires the people to come to God through the priest as opposed to a 'biblical' priesthood of all believers. I'd like to start with a brief exploration of a theology of priesthood.

In my understanding a theology of priesthood stems from Jesus as the great High Priest. Christ is the one salvific mediator to God, because he is God enfleshed. From this stems the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Each person who has been anointed with the Holy Spirit in baptism is equally able to approach God through Christ. This first part is what typically gets emphasized in Protestant churches. But more important in my estimation for a theology of priesthood is that each Christian represents Christ to another. I do not mean that another human is needed for salvation. There is no need for a salvific mediator besides Christ, but we do encounter God through our relationships with other people. Christianity is an embodied religion, one that begins with God's incarnation in human form, and continues with all Christians potentially embodying that divinity to their neighbor.

Stemming from this (I would say more full) doctrine of priesthood of all believers is the Pauline view that each Christian is gifted differently. Some are prophets; some are teachers; some are priests; some are caregivers; etc. For the sake of order (and mere existence of the church) some are given a special role to lead the church. Early in the first few centuries of the church this came to be understood as a threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon. These clergy do not have a special relationship to God. However, inevitably these clergy do represent Christ in a special way to other people. This is true because these leaders have special gifts and special training. But this is true even more because these leaders have been chosen from within and by the church as a whole. If we're honest, I think we'll realize that the same thing happens with preachers in those churches that repudiate 'clericalism.' This representation is only natural, because Christianity is an embodied religion. This representation of Christ in the church's leaders is grounded in the idea that Christ is embodied in each and every Christian. The priesthood of all believers doesn't mean there can't be priests; it means we all function to represent Christ to each other in the ways we are gifted to do so.

While there must be leaders, the leaders to do not take away the people's ministry of reconciliation. They merely take a special role in presiding, organizing, leading, teaching, and caregiving. But it doesn't mean they are the only ones doing this.

I got back about a week ago from a week-long Stephen Ministry Leadership Training Conference in Orlando, Florida. I was asked to be one of the co-leaders at Trinity to help set up Stephen Ministry in the congregation. In a nutshell, Stephen Ministry is a cross-denominational lay caregiving ministry. While clergy are like firefighters dealing with crises from day to day, it is often difficult or impossible for them to have a sustained caregiving relationship. And yet some of the most difficult times for people come days and weeks and months after their spouse has died, they have gone through a divorce, been hospitalized, become unemployed, or experienced some other trauma. Of course, caregiving is something that should be happening in churches already, but it often doesn't happen deliberately, or is done poorly. Stephen Ministry is a deliberate and structured training program to equip lay people for ongoing caregiving. A Stephen Minister goes through 50 hours of training with topics such as listening, caregiving for people in specific situations, and learning how to recognize when an issue is one that needs professional attention. Once Stephen Ministers are trained and commissioned, they meet with one person (of the same gender) for one hour per week, listening and being present through difficult times. Stephen Ministers are also involved in supervision sessions and continuing education. However, all specific issues are kept extremely confidential. My role as a Stephen Leader will be to help train other laypeople as Stephen Ministers in the initial 50 hours and then help provide ongoing supervision and continuing education.

I am excited about the opportunity to help begin a ministry that grows out of a healthy view of embodied priesthood. This is just one way in which the idea of the priesthood, or representation of Christ to others, of all of us can be reaffirmed and practiced.

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer

My recent silence is mostly due to the 692 page biography I've been reading about Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived from 1489 until he was burned at the stake by Mary Tudor in 1556. Since one of my comprehensive exams this July/August will be over an important figure in liturgical history, I chose the one that has had the most influence on Anglican liturgy. I've spent so long reading this book and it's all I can think about, so I'm letting you endure a little of my burden.

Cranmer is something like the equivalent of Martin Luther for Lutherans or John Calvin for Presbyterians, though he was not as theologically foundational or prolific. Cranmer contributed generally as an influence towards reforming theology and liturgy in England, and yet was reluctant to overreact against everything that smelled of Catholicism. For example, Cranmer was able to criticize the supposed idolatry of praying to statues, yet retained gestures and vestments. He was not the kind of iconoclast that John Calvin had been. While Cranmer rejected the Pope's authority, he did not reject church tradition altogether. He spent much of his time studying the writings of the ancient church fathers and even desired to create a General Council that would unite all Christians across geographical borders as the ancient ecumenical councils had once done. Cranmer's cautiousness was picked up by later Anglicans who made this via media (middle way) between reform and catholic Christianity a major characteristic of Anglican Christianity.

There are many things about Cranmer that bother me, like his belief that the Crown was the head of the church, his persecution of religious dissidents, and his predestinarian views, among other things. Thankfully, the Anglican Church has not viewed Cranmer (or any one historic figure for that matter) as a its symbolic leader, but has looked rather to the broader living tradition of universal Christianity.

But every English speaking Christian owes Cranmer a debt of gratitude for his most important and lasting contribution. Cranmer was largely responsible for The Book of Common Prayer, which was the first book of worship ever written in English. Before Cranmer worship was entirely in Latin, with the common people understanding very little, if anything. Cranmer took the Latin liturgy in use at the time along with other ancient sources and heavily modified them in his translation to fit Protestant theology. While very little is completely original to Cranmer, his English prose translation became the standard for English religious language. You would recognize many phrases in The Book of Common Prayer, because they have survived until today in every denomination, such as the typical English wedding liturgy. I think it is fair even to say that after the King James Version of the Bible, The Book of Common Prayer has been the next most influential book on modern English.

What is so attractive to me about The Book of Common Prayer is that Cranmer used the ancient sources of Christian liturgy as foundational, but was willing to reform some of its theology to conform with what has been universally believed and held in common from the earliest centuries. This beautiful and thoughtfully translated work has proved its genius by its endurance for 445 years.