In naming my blog "The Faithful Agnostic," I have used the Greek term "agnostic" to literally to mean one who does not know; as in the saying, "The more one knows, the less one knows" or as I would clarify, "The more one knows, the more one knows that one doesn't know anything; at least, not for certain." When combined with the term "faithful," my intent is to place faith beyond the certitude that frequently comes with knowledge based and derived from ideological beliefs.. In this and my next post, I am revisiting terminology that I have used frequently in my blog: Belief, Intellect, Faith, and Intuition.
One could say that there is little difference between belief and faith or intellect and intuition, or one could say that they have very little in common. I maintain that there are significant differences which are important in understanding how we relate to others, our world, and our sense of being. At the same time, I would also maintain that there is a great deal of interplay between these terms as in intuition informing intellect and faith informing what we believe.
BELIEF AND INTELLECT
In one of my earliest posts I examined the difference between ideological beliefs and non-ideological beliefs (to review click here). What we believe is absorbed as knowledge regardless if such beliefs are based on fact, speculation, or wishful thinking. Ideological beliefs are usually based on some factual evidence, a good amount of speculation as to what those facts mean, and a pinch or two of wishful thinking regarding the efficacy of such beliefs.
Knowledge in its simplest form is anything we learn, have some understanding of, and have an ability to use. Knowledge takes in and encompasses all we encounter, experience, and learn. Intellect is our ability to employ reason to what we know or what we believe we know. Reason can help us distinguish between these two types of knowing, and therein lies the rub to paraphrase Shakespeare's "Hamlet."
We humans believe many things. I am no exception. They shape our perspective of the world and we readily obtain them when something needs definition or explanation. The fact is I'm writing this post because I have beliefs about beliefs, knowledge, and intellect. We simply cannot avoid having them or expressing them in some manner.
I try to temper any certitude about the beliefs I entertain by maintaining a healthy skepticism about them. In fact, I could adapt the saying about the more one knows to the beliefs one entertains; as in, "The more I believe in something, the more I believe that I might be wrong about what I believe in."
I know - this makes me appear uncertain about almost everything - a true neurotic about life in general. And while I admit to having more than my share of anxiety about things, I'm not a complete and utter mess because intellect is helpful in this matter. By employing intellect, don't get me wrong. I am not claiming to be overtly intellectual or being some sort of a genius. I'm neither of those things, but I can reason, and reason is important in dealing with what I believe.
Without an ability to employ reasoned skepticism to our beliefs, what we believe, if unchecked will land us in a mess, and human history is proof of that. In fact, we appear to be in a time when our ideological beliefs have polarized the world, generally speaking, into two opposing ideological camps that foster either intellectual blindness perceived as idealized elitism or willful ignorance perceived as an irrational longing for an idealized past, both of which, has led humanity into the dangerous waters of irrational nationalism, selfish objectivism, exploitive capitalism, and intentional racism.
The intellect has its limitations; particularly, if it is disciplined by a strict adherence to ideological beliefs perceived and treated as absolute truth. Treating ideological beliefs as absolute truth invariably results in the distortion of reality.
REALITY
Reality can be fickle. As I have explained in other posts, reality is largely anthropocentric and geocentric. It proceeds from a consensus of perceptions. As such, reality is both a cultural and social construct. Nevertheless, within that construct, we humans have allowed for the notion of transcendence; of knowledge beyond fact, where our creative ideas, our imagination, and our abstract theories find a safe haven. The bottom line, which is important to hold on to, is that the reality we know and interact with is largely shaped by what we know and what we do with such knowledge.
It is an interesting and dangerous phenomenon, observed throughout history, that when ideological beliefs are treated as inviolable truths promoted as fact, intelligence in all of its forms becomes a target because intelligence, if allowed to function properly, will question belief. Throughout human history, demagogues and totalitarian regimes of every kind have systematically persecuted, imprisoned, and killed intellectuals of every kind because their being intelligent threatened and threatens the ideological beliefs such demagogues and tyrannical regimes wish to impose on the masses as a reality of their making.
It is not surprising then that the "Intelligence Community" within the free world is under attack by those who wish to change reality to fit their personal endeavors and personal gain, regardless of the empirical data and facts that counter such egotistical endeavors.
On the other hand, pure intellect can be soulless, unimaginative, irrational, and selfish. The evil genius comes to mind - The lone individual who sees no value in others, apart from something the individual can manipulate, The individual who lacks a social conscience and believes only in prowess of his or her mind, who denies having beliefs because the individual's intellect is completely ensnared by the individual's solitary, unquestioned belief about the individual's superiority. Such individuals are rare and largely diagnosable as psychopaths.
Fortunately, the vast majority of geniuses are not pure intellectuals in the aforementioned sense. Many are highly imaginative, creative, and possess a well-developed social conscience. But I suspect that pure intellectualism is being inadvertently or willfully pursued by some individuals who lack a stable intellect and are mesmerized by and believe in the variant alternate realities produced through the internet that is capable of feeding the realities searched for by the blind intellectual and the willfully ignorant.
In this post, we have examined the connection between belief and intellect as shaping knowledge. In my next post, we take a look at knowledge derived from faith and intuition.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm.
Monday, July 15, 2019
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
THE MANTLE OF HERITAGE - A Homily
This a recollection of my unscripted, rather impromptu homily that I delivered at Christ Episcopal Church in Yankton, South Dakota on Sunday, July 7, 2019.
In the name of our loving, life-giving God, who loves each and every one of us of more than we can comprehend; who loves us for who we are in spite of what we've done or left undone - In the name of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. + Amen.
On this Fourth of July weekend, I want to spend some time talking about our heritage both as a nation and as a congregation. I want to continue with where I left off last Sunday, where Jesus told a would-be follower and disciple who wanted to say goodbye to his family before heading out that " One who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not worthy of the Kingdom of God" - seemingly harsh words coming from Jesus, but important ones for us to pay attention to.
For the past several Sundays we've been hearing about Elijah. I want to talk about Elijah and Elisha. There is so much I'd like to say about Elijah - what an interesting prophet. If you recall last Sunday's first lesson was about Elijah ascending into heaven. You know the story - how Elijah was caught up by a fiery chariot and how his disciple, Elisha said, "Father give me a portion of your prophetic abilities. And Elijah said something like, "If you see me taken up, you will know that what you have asked for will be yours." And then Elisha sees Elijah ascend in that fiery chariot and Elijah throws his cloak, his mantle to Elisha who tears his own clothes, puts on Elijah's cloak and picks up where Elijah left off, as we heard in today's first reading.
A heritage is like Elijah's mantle, something tossed to us, something to carry on; as in continuing to do likewise. One of our members informed me that last Sunday, June 30th was the one hundred fifty-ninth anniversary date of the first Episcopal service held in what would become the Dakota Territory. You talk about putting your hand to the plow and not looking back. Bishop Joseph Talbot and Fr. Melancthon Hoyt took off from Sioux City (Iowa) to minister to settlements along the Missouri river as far as Fort Randall.
The first Episcopal service held in Yankton was at the Frost, Todd & Company Trading Post. A year later, Fr. Hoyt would return to Yankton and establish this parish, being this congregation's first priest. Bishop Talbot and Fr. Hoyt picked up the mantle of the apostles and continued their work. The heritage left by Talbot and Hoyt and those who established this congregation and built this church is a mantle tossed to us to carry on and build upon the ministry of this congregation, a mantle given to the Church by Christ to go out into the world and spread the Good News.
This past Thursday our nation celebrated its two hundred forty-third birthday, the signing of The Declaration of Independence. It was a bold and prophetic statement, penned by Thomas Jefferson. It established a premise that is universal in its scope and applicable to people everywhere, "...all men (all people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It was on this untested, yet unfulfilled, aspirational premise that this great nation of ours was launched. It is what made this nation a beacon to the rest of the world. It is what has drawn people to our shores, and it is what brings people to our borders as I speak. It is a mantle that was tossed to us, a mantle tossed to all those who seek liberty and freedom.
For me, the most important document, the most important mantle of heritage that remains as an aspiration and a responsibility to carry on was written and ratified thirteen years later, the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of The United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."
This preamble is both a mantle and a lens by which to measure how we as the people of this nation are doing. It is what I personally use to discern how well our elected and appointed officials are doing:
Are we, through them, establishing justice? And by justice, our forefathers weren't talking about punishment, but rather were referencing the Hebrew prophets who advocated for the poor, the oppressed, and those unable to support themselves.
Are we, through them, insuring domestic tranquillity? Are we, through them, keeping the public square safe?
Are we, through them, providing for the common defence?
Are we, through them, promoting the general welfare?
Are we, through them, securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?
Our founding fathers struggled in establishing this nation. They acted out of faith and hope. They put their hand to the plow and didn't look back.
They established the framework by which "our democracy" functions, The Constitution, that great distillery by which the will of people is derived and discerned from the mash of our collective voices.
It is so easy to take the blessings of liberty for granted. None of us present today have known a life without them, but many in this world have never experienced what we have. But what we have is not a gift but rather a mantle tossed to us by those who came before us. Freedom is not to be taken lightly. St. Paul described freedom prophetically in last Sunday's second lesson when he wrote to the Galatians:
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence,but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:13-15)
Amen.
In the name of our loving, life-giving God, who loves each and every one of us of more than we can comprehend; who loves us for who we are in spite of what we've done or left undone - In the name of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. + Amen.
On this Fourth of July weekend, I want to spend some time talking about our heritage both as a nation and as a congregation. I want to continue with where I left off last Sunday, where Jesus told a would-be follower and disciple who wanted to say goodbye to his family before heading out that " One who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not worthy of the Kingdom of God" - seemingly harsh words coming from Jesus, but important ones for us to pay attention to.
For the past several Sundays we've been hearing about Elijah. I want to talk about Elijah and Elisha. There is so much I'd like to say about Elijah - what an interesting prophet. If you recall last Sunday's first lesson was about Elijah ascending into heaven. You know the story - how Elijah was caught up by a fiery chariot and how his disciple, Elisha said, "Father give me a portion of your prophetic abilities. And Elijah said something like, "If you see me taken up, you will know that what you have asked for will be yours." And then Elisha sees Elijah ascend in that fiery chariot and Elijah throws his cloak, his mantle to Elisha who tears his own clothes, puts on Elijah's cloak and picks up where Elijah left off, as we heard in today's first reading.
A heritage is like Elijah's mantle, something tossed to us, something to carry on; as in continuing to do likewise. One of our members informed me that last Sunday, June 30th was the one hundred fifty-ninth anniversary date of the first Episcopal service held in what would become the Dakota Territory. You talk about putting your hand to the plow and not looking back. Bishop Joseph Talbot and Fr. Melancthon Hoyt took off from Sioux City (Iowa) to minister to settlements along the Missouri river as far as Fort Randall.
The first Episcopal service held in Yankton was at the Frost, Todd & Company Trading Post. A year later, Fr. Hoyt would return to Yankton and establish this parish, being this congregation's first priest. Bishop Talbot and Fr. Hoyt picked up the mantle of the apostles and continued their work. The heritage left by Talbot and Hoyt and those who established this congregation and built this church is a mantle tossed to us to carry on and build upon the ministry of this congregation, a mantle given to the Church by Christ to go out into the world and spread the Good News.
This past Thursday our nation celebrated its two hundred forty-third birthday, the signing of The Declaration of Independence. It was a bold and prophetic statement, penned by Thomas Jefferson. It established a premise that is universal in its scope and applicable to people everywhere, "...all men (all people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It was on this untested, yet unfulfilled, aspirational premise that this great nation of ours was launched. It is what made this nation a beacon to the rest of the world. It is what has drawn people to our shores, and it is what brings people to our borders as I speak. It is a mantle that was tossed to us, a mantle tossed to all those who seek liberty and freedom.
For me, the most important document, the most important mantle of heritage that remains as an aspiration and a responsibility to carry on was written and ratified thirteen years later, the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of The United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."
This preamble is both a mantle and a lens by which to measure how we as the people of this nation are doing. It is what I personally use to discern how well our elected and appointed officials are doing:
Are we, through them, establishing justice? And by justice, our forefathers weren't talking about punishment, but rather were referencing the Hebrew prophets who advocated for the poor, the oppressed, and those unable to support themselves.
Are we, through them, insuring domestic tranquillity? Are we, through them, keeping the public square safe?
Are we, through them, providing for the common defence?
Are we, through them, promoting the general welfare?
Are we, through them, securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?
Our founding fathers struggled in establishing this nation. They acted out of faith and hope. They put their hand to the plow and didn't look back.
They established the framework by which "our democracy" functions, The Constitution, that great distillery by which the will of people is derived and discerned from the mash of our collective voices.
It is so easy to take the blessings of liberty for granted. None of us present today have known a life without them, but many in this world have never experienced what we have. But what we have is not a gift but rather a mantle tossed to us by those who came before us. Freedom is not to be taken lightly. St. Paul described freedom prophetically in last Sunday's second lesson when he wrote to the Galatians:
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence,but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:13-15)
Amen.
* * * * * * * * * *
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
Monday, July 8, 2019
THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL THE FAITHFUL
Note: What follows is an article I wrote for my church's most recent edition of its monthly newsletter. While written with the small parish I am a member of in mind, it may resonate with what other small congregations are facing or currently coping with. This post serves as a follow-up on my posts on the Priestless Parish.
From the First Epistle of Peter:
“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. ... ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God.
1 Peter 2: 2:1-3, 9, 15-17.(KJV abridged)
When we started the search process for a new rector more than a year and a half ago, our Bishop made a comment, something to the effect, that he expected our church (our congregation) to look different in five years. Something else that caught my attention during the search process came as a question that apparently all search committees and all prospective candidates are asked to answer, “What are you doing to prepare for the church of the future?”
The message that comes through our bishop's expectation and the preparation question is that change is in the wind. The world is changing. The Church is changing, and the message is clear that Christ Episcopal Church must change or it will be swamped and lost in the sea of changes taking place all around us.
What the ecclesiastical structure of the Church has not done a very good job of throughout the centuries is promoting the priesthood of all the faithful. We hear mention of it from time to time in vague homiletic tones, but the concept of the faithful taking seriously their priestly role has not been emphasized as it should have been, but that is changing; particularly, in the Episcopal Church. We, the laity, need to take this priestly role of ours seriously here at Christ Church; especially now that we’re coping with uncertain times.
We need to discuss the changes that are around us and are affecting us. We need to discern how and what we must change in order to present Christ in a changing world. By being serious about our priestly role, I am not talking about going around wearing a “dog collar” as the English call the wide white band worn by many Anglican priests or taking on specific liturgical roles that ordained priests perform. It’s about becoming servants in a very literal sense.
We need to face some difficult realities that have contributed to shrinking congregations everywhere. Part of the reason congregations shrink and die is because they don’t exercise faithfully in exercising their faith. They say they need a priest or a pastor because they’re so use to being served pew-side. They want a priest who will serve them; to give them interesting sermons that don’t upset them, to give them communion, to baptize their children, to marry them off, to bury their dead, and to be on-call whenever any need arises and, above all, are good at not making many demands on them. And when the priest doesn’t live up to those kind of expectations members can become quickly critical and “snarky;” especially, if they don’t like the priest changing the things they have become comfortable with. They expect the priest to take their snarky criticisms without complaint because the congregation is paying the priest’s bills.
They say they want leadership, but then rarely follow the priest’s lead, unless it suits them. Eventually, ennui sets in and the church dies. If that sounds familiar and we don’t want to end up becoming a thing of the past, we shouldn’t expect that getting a priest will fix those types of problems. It’s up to us.
Let’s face it: We need to become the servants who serve, and by that I don’t mean throwing money at things as being equivalent to serving. Yes - money is a reality we all must deal with and deal with wisely but being part of this royal priesthood literally means serving others, person to person and person by person. It means getting our hands dirty – reaching out to the perceived untouchables in our midst – touching the dead in order to bring them to life. That’s the way of Jesus, and that’s what the priesthood is about; presenting the face of Jesus Christ to the world around us.
In our parish survey, a number of us said we need more people. Is it because we need people in the pews who will throw enough money in the offering plate so we can afford a full-time priest to serve us?
The bigger question is: Do people beyond our doors really need us?
Do we present Christ as a real presence and as an answer to what others are longing for in their hearts and in their lives?
We said we’re inclusive and welcoming, but are we?
Or are we inclusive and welcoming to those who look like most of us, act like most of us, and are opinionated like most of us. Because the reality is most of the people like us already belong to our church or are in another church.
Who are we not reaching?
We should view and use this interim period as God giving us the grace of time to figure out our ministry as a congregation. We should be doing this right now.
We need to embrace our roles as priests – as servants– as the face of Christ in our community. We need to sincerely want and earnestly pray for the fire that is God’s Holy Spirit to motivate us, to engage us in ministry beyond the doors of our church, and to push us beyond our comfort level in order to reach those who have not yet been reached. We need to embrace them in the name of Christ and build the Kingdom of God in our midst.
We can’t afford to keeping looking back to what was or longing for people who left our church and seeing them as an answer to our empty pew (financial) problem. They are always welcome here as children of God, but we who are here in the pews on most Sundays need to move on and take ownership of our priesthood and become the people God intends us to be.
God’s love for us and our small congregation is far more than any of us can imagine. God can and will work wonders among us and work wonders through us – right now if we start putting our “hands to the plow” without looking back as Jesus advised in the Gospel of Luke to those who would be his disciples.
**********
Norm
Monday, July 1, 2019
THE PRIESTLESS PARISH - THE MEANS OF GRACE
I am picking up with my series of posts on The Priestless Parish after offering my views on the sacraments as the means of grace. If you have not read those posts, I invite you to do so now [Part I and Part II].
Since my last post, the small parish I belong to had an interested candidate make the trip from Texas to South Dakota to check my small parish out. We liked this candidate very much and unanimously offered a call to become our next rector. Unfortunately, the candidate chose to be the rector of a different parish. In the candidate's refusal notice was some noteworthy advice; foremost of which was that we did not come close to offering the candidate (freshly out of seminary with student loan debts) what the parish the candidate agreed to be a rector at was offering.
This is a reality my parish must come to terms with, as we have not heard anything from the diocese about someone who we can consider for this position. Our rector's position has been vacant for more than a year and a half. In addition, our interim priest has also retired. So we are truly a priestless parish at the present time, and it is uncertain whether another priest or seminarian will be willing to take a serious look at us.
Furthermore, when asked for a list of supply priests, our small South Dakota diocese directed us to look to the Diocese of Nebraska for supply priests. Of the eleven supply priests on their list only two showed interest in helping us out. To do so they may end up having to drive well over one hundred miles to get here. Doable on occasion and during the summer months, but not regularly or when the weather turns cold.
In this post I will offer some thoughts on how our small parish or any small parish like us maintains a sacramental ministry without a priest.
SACRAMENTAL LIFE
When it comes to the sacramental life of a parish, most parishioners see the sacraments as something they receive rather than something they offer. This is definitely true when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar - Holy Communion. While most liturgical churches have been using lay servers to distribute the elements of bread and wine as the Body and blood of Christ to the communicants for some time, the consecration of the these elements remains strictly in the domain of the ordained priest or pastor.
The question being addressed here is what happens when a supply priest or pastor is no longer available to serve a small congregation on a regular basis or not at all? Does a congregation that had a regular eucharistic life just put up with whoever they can get, whenever they can get someone, and go without the sacraments for long periods of time or does the congregation take seriously their role as members of the royal priesthood of all the faithful and begin utilizing this sacrament as Jesus did?
Christians claim that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion. By that they mean Jesus took broken bread and took a cup of wine and declared them to be signs and symbols of his body and blood. Something that has been lost on most Christians throughout the centuries is that on the night Jesus instituted this sacrament every person in that room would have understood that Jesus was using bread and wine as an intimate symbol of his own being, his own body and blood given and poured out to and for others kenotically because the flesh and blood Jesus was standing right in front of them.
Jesus established that whenever this ritual is done in remembrance of him, the people participating in it; receiving it become one with him, one with each other in him, and one with God through him. It is not about literally changing bread and wine into his actual body and blood of Jesus. To render what Jesus was doing that night as such is nothing more than an attempt to perform some type of ecclesiastical alchemy.
Holy Communion is not transubstantiation or consubstantiation; rather it is the participants willfully desiring to become the presence of the risen and rising Christ in the world through the ritual ingesting of these signs and symbols of the man Jesus who lived and died as a flesh and blood one of us and who emptied himself on a cross to make room for us; in whose forgiveness of those who crucified him forgave the world with his dying breath. This is what we are called to remember and are called to be; one with this Jesus who was raised up by God to be the Christ. Holy Communion; as such, is what I have described in my previous post as ENSUBSTANTIATION.
WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE GATHERED
As always, I do not pretend to have an inside track to know what God is up to, but in my reading of scripture God is frequently seen cutting things down to a manageable size and recreating what was into a new what is. Pruning comes to mind; cutting things back to a reset point in order to encourage new growth. We are well into what is being described as a Post-Christian era where pruning back seems to be the order of the day.
The need for a priest in my small parish is completely linked to Holy Communion and being served sacramentally. It is almost near impossible for members of my congregation to think of Holy Communion as something they can do for themselves. Yet, I see no reason why they can't; apart from a bishop saying no, but that's a discussion for another post. There is nothing in scripture that would prevent such a thing from happening.
Frankly, not much need change regarding the ritual practice in an Episcopal parish, apart from the rubrics in our prayer book. The major shift is in understanding what the sacraments mean; in particular, Holy Communion. The formula for a change in practice is written in the New Testament itself.
The fact is that the celebrant consecrates the elements in the stead and on the behalf of the people gathered. Holy Communion should never be consecrated or instituted by one individual but rather by two or three if there is a desire to maintain a liturgical structure to this ritual. The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus telling us that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is present. What this Gospel is telling us is that the real presence of Jesus is found in the communal experience of those gathered in his name.
Holy Communion implies a communal experience; a shared experience ritualized by the community itself. The rite involved should require the whole congregation serving as celebrants. The point is that lacking a priest should not become a factor whether a parish has and maintains an active sacramental life. In fact, I would recommend that parishes with priests should be required to involve one or two lay people as co-celebrants when offering sacraments to signify that all present serve as celebrants. The Body and Blood of Christ is a communal presence, given by Christ to those willing to become the presence of Christ in the world. As suggested here, Holy Communion is a two-part ritual: Consecrating bread and wine as signs and symbols of Jesus's body and blood and instituting the recipients as one with all of humanity and one with God, in, through, and with the risen and rising Christ. Holy Communion and Holy Baptism are intended to be moments of transfiguration, of seeing and embracing a vision of the world through the eyes of God as Jesus did on the cross.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
Since my last post, the small parish I belong to had an interested candidate make the trip from Texas to South Dakota to check my small parish out. We liked this candidate very much and unanimously offered a call to become our next rector. Unfortunately, the candidate chose to be the rector of a different parish. In the candidate's refusal notice was some noteworthy advice; foremost of which was that we did not come close to offering the candidate (freshly out of seminary with student loan debts) what the parish the candidate agreed to be a rector at was offering.
This is a reality my parish must come to terms with, as we have not heard anything from the diocese about someone who we can consider for this position. Our rector's position has been vacant for more than a year and a half. In addition, our interim priest has also retired. So we are truly a priestless parish at the present time, and it is uncertain whether another priest or seminarian will be willing to take a serious look at us.
Furthermore, when asked for a list of supply priests, our small South Dakota diocese directed us to look to the Diocese of Nebraska for supply priests. Of the eleven supply priests on their list only two showed interest in helping us out. To do so they may end up having to drive well over one hundred miles to get here. Doable on occasion and during the summer months, but not regularly or when the weather turns cold.
In this post I will offer some thoughts on how our small parish or any small parish like us maintains a sacramental ministry without a priest.
SACRAMENTAL LIFE
When it comes to the sacramental life of a parish, most parishioners see the sacraments as something they receive rather than something they offer. This is definitely true when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar - Holy Communion. While most liturgical churches have been using lay servers to distribute the elements of bread and wine as the Body and blood of Christ to the communicants for some time, the consecration of the these elements remains strictly in the domain of the ordained priest or pastor.
The question being addressed here is what happens when a supply priest or pastor is no longer available to serve a small congregation on a regular basis or not at all? Does a congregation that had a regular eucharistic life just put up with whoever they can get, whenever they can get someone, and go without the sacraments for long periods of time or does the congregation take seriously their role as members of the royal priesthood of all the faithful and begin utilizing this sacrament as Jesus did?
Christians claim that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion. By that they mean Jesus took broken bread and took a cup of wine and declared them to be signs and symbols of his body and blood. Something that has been lost on most Christians throughout the centuries is that on the night Jesus instituted this sacrament every person in that room would have understood that Jesus was using bread and wine as an intimate symbol of his own being, his own body and blood given and poured out to and for others kenotically because the flesh and blood Jesus was standing right in front of them.
Jesus established that whenever this ritual is done in remembrance of him, the people participating in it; receiving it become one with him, one with each other in him, and one with God through him. It is not about literally changing bread and wine into his actual body and blood of Jesus. To render what Jesus was doing that night as such is nothing more than an attempt to perform some type of ecclesiastical alchemy.
Holy Communion is not transubstantiation or consubstantiation; rather it is the participants willfully desiring to become the presence of the risen and rising Christ in the world through the ritual ingesting of these signs and symbols of the man Jesus who lived and died as a flesh and blood one of us and who emptied himself on a cross to make room for us; in whose forgiveness of those who crucified him forgave the world with his dying breath. This is what we are called to remember and are called to be; one with this Jesus who was raised up by God to be the Christ. Holy Communion; as such, is what I have described in my previous post as ENSUBSTANTIATION.
WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE GATHERED
As always, I do not pretend to have an inside track to know what God is up to, but in my reading of scripture God is frequently seen cutting things down to a manageable size and recreating what was into a new what is. Pruning comes to mind; cutting things back to a reset point in order to encourage new growth. We are well into what is being described as a Post-Christian era where pruning back seems to be the order of the day.
The need for a priest in my small parish is completely linked to Holy Communion and being served sacramentally. It is almost near impossible for members of my congregation to think of Holy Communion as something they can do for themselves. Yet, I see no reason why they can't; apart from a bishop saying no, but that's a discussion for another post. There is nothing in scripture that would prevent such a thing from happening.
Frankly, not much need change regarding the ritual practice in an Episcopal parish, apart from the rubrics in our prayer book. The major shift is in understanding what the sacraments mean; in particular, Holy Communion. The formula for a change in practice is written in the New Testament itself.
The fact is that the celebrant consecrates the elements in the stead and on the behalf of the people gathered. Holy Communion should never be consecrated or instituted by one individual but rather by two or three if there is a desire to maintain a liturgical structure to this ritual. The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus telling us that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is present. What this Gospel is telling us is that the real presence of Jesus is found in the communal experience of those gathered in his name.
Holy Communion implies a communal experience; a shared experience ritualized by the community itself. The rite involved should require the whole congregation serving as celebrants. The point is that lacking a priest should not become a factor whether a parish has and maintains an active sacramental life. In fact, I would recommend that parishes with priests should be required to involve one or two lay people as co-celebrants when offering sacraments to signify that all present serve as celebrants. The Body and Blood of Christ is a communal presence, given by Christ to those willing to become the presence of Christ in the world. As suggested here, Holy Communion is a two-part ritual: Consecrating bread and wine as signs and symbols of Jesus's body and blood and instituting the recipients as one with all of humanity and one with God, in, through, and with the risen and rising Christ. Holy Communion and Holy Baptism are intended to be moments of transfiguration, of seeing and embracing a vision of the world through the eyes of God as Jesus did on the cross.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)