felix hominum

on church weddings for the unchurched

...a couple with limited church connections (either they went as kids, or their parents want a church wedding, or grandma said no place in the will without a church service) who are not members of a faith community.  You have essentially a private service, no one from the parish shows up (except to clean up afterwards).  At the rehersal there is always at least a few hangers-on that sit in the back row and snicker.  Sometimes they are indifferent as to what readings are picked and communion is never included (usually because of the extra 45 minutes).

I wonder why we, as the church, support the second type of service.  You can raise an argument that it is a form of evangelism, or that we should not withhold the sacraments from those who request them, but it still flies in the face of who we are called to be as church.

A marriage service in community draws the faith family around the new couple to support them in life and with prayer.  The transition to married life is developed and occurs within the "faith village" where it is then nurtured.  The union of man and woman is mirrored in the union of Christ with the community through communion.  The marriage of people mirrors Christ's mystical marriage to the church, a marriage that is realized in the communion service.

Holding a wedding for the unchurched, who are not members of your community, violates the beautiful relationship between the mystical reality and the liturgical realization of that reality.  It turns the sacrament of marriage into a fancy 'justice of the peace' event.

I used to justify this to myself by saying, "At least I have some contact with the unchurched, so this is evangelism" or "I can not know how God will work in their lives, and I do not want to be the agent of turning them away from the church."  The arguments are all hollow...

full thoughts from sameo416

Incarnational Living...

in other news, sol cafe continues its journey...

more demotivational posters for the emerging church here.

review: William Wilberforce's Real Christianity

William Wilberforce died on July 29, 1833.

In 1797 Wilberforce, a member of Parliament for the County of York,  published a small book which has come to be known as "A Practical Guide to Real Christianity."  The original title gives us a much clearer picture of what Wilberforce intended to accomplish with his work;

A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in This Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity

It was a book which immediately caught public attention.  Kevin Belmonte, a contemporary scholar of Wilberforce's text, notes that the book became an immediate "bestseller" of the time and went through five editions within six months.  15 more editions would be printed in Britain before 1826, and 25 editions would be published in the US.  It was translated into Dutch, French, German, Italian and Spanish.

A new, somewhat paraphrased edition has been prepared by Dr Bob Beltz [Ventura, CA: Gospel Light/Regal, 2007].  This new edition is simply titled "Real Christianity", and retains the thought and powerful message of Wilberforce's original text.

So on a sunny afternoon, while the felix clan is having naps, I sit down to read a most remarkable work by an even more remarkable man.  I'll do some further reviewing as I go along (I'm currently halfway through the new edition) for those who have not read this book before.  Let me give you a piece from his original introduction to the book:

I would suggest that faith is everyone's business.  The advance or decline of faith is so intimately connected to the welfare of a society that it should be of particular interest to a politician.

The book into 7 chapters:

• The State of Contemporary Christianity
• Current Ideas About the Nature of Man
• Understanding Cultural Christianity
• True Standards of Christian Behavior
• Arguments for True Christianity
• The Current State of Christianity
• Practical Hints About Authentic Faith

I'll let you know...

with a good translation, who needs Greek & Hebrew?

I have to confess that one of my goals in taking Introduction to NT Greek during my course of studies at seminary was rather low.  At the time I was also involved in a doctoral level seminar on Hellenistic Greek.  I had done a number of years of Greek through my previous programs in Classics.  However, the seminary also offered a convocation prize for the student with the highest mark in NT Greek.  Meh, so maybe the competition was fixed, but I won the prize...

Tyler over at Codex has posted a few brief thoughts on the state of language study, in a post entitled Raising the Language Bar for Seminary Studies (follow his links for some very good articles).

The sad reality is that even those seminarians who take biblical languages end up not using them — obviously with some exceptions — and if you don’t use it, you lose it. There are probably many different reasons for this state of affairs. Most seminaries appear to have lower academic standards than in the past and minimal language training. There is also a fear of language learning among seminarians. I don’t know how many times I have heard students worrying about taking Greek or Hebrew. Perhaps the biggest problem is that many consider it irrelevant — and if you look at what is considered acceptable preaching in many churches today then a psychology degree is probably more relevant than any language training!

When I take folks on pilgrimages throughout the Holy Land, my knowledge of Arabic has been an invaluable tool.  With a knowledge of the language I can have an experience of the people, the culture, the landscape, which I believe is deeper than that of those who do not speak the language.  I can translate for the group.  I believe it is the same with biblical languages:  with a knowledge of the languages we can have a richer and deeper understanding and experience of the people, the culture, the landscape of the Scriptures.

BabyFirstTV begins broadcasting in Canada

A TV channel aimed at babies and children under three years old has begun broadcasting in Canada.

BabyFirstTV's first broadcast was Wednesday via Bell ExpressVu Digital TV and Rogers PersonalTV.

The CRTC has approved the channel as a digital subscription service, but Bell and Rogers are offering free access for a limited time this summer...

A 2003 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a U.S.-based independent health think-tank, found 68 per cent of American children under age two watch TV or videos daily.

"Our mission is to provide parents with the best content for their babies in the most convenient manner and means, and to give all babies a positive head start in life," said Sharon Rechter, executive vice president at BabyFirstTV, in a news release.

from the CBC

Wanting to make sure that JP would not miss out on anything, I quickly checked out the BabyFirstTV program guide.  I will have to get a Baby Sofa for him to lay on; as well as a six pack of Baby Bud for him to suck back while he begins that life long habit of channel surfing.  Maybe a bag of Baby Doritos just for good measure.

Over a year ago I noted that Baby TV was up and running, but at that time it was not available in Canada.

 

should Jews build the Third Temple?

Traditionally the Temple Mount Faithful attempt to set up a foundation stone for the Third Temple on Tisha Be'av, and the police routinely prevent them from doing so. The occasion for this street theater is the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and that of the Second Temple in 70 CE, both said to have occurred on the same calendar date.

It is certainly right that the date be commemorated; but would rebuilding the Temple be an appropriate act for the State of Israel today?

Assuming there were no Dome of the Rock and no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, no Wakf and no Aksa Mosque, the pressure to rebuild the Temple would be enormous - but would it, in historical terms, be sound?

An interesting story from the Jerusalem Post. 

How addicted to blogging are you?

71%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

Apparently I'm 71%.

ht Emergent Voyageurs

How addicted to blogging are you?

ps This should serve as a warning to neophyte anglican bloggers like this guy.  Drop by and give him a word of encouragement...

draft sketches on Martha and Mary

I deleted the final sermon and kept the draft, so, meh,  here you go...

ps Tim has rounded out some thoughts on this as well.

Luke 10:38-42

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home.  She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying. 

But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me."

But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her."

This  Gospel reading is fodder for a lot of stereotypes. 

Some might look at this story and say we have a study of some not so uncommon family dynamics.  The scriptures are full of stories of siblings who experience conflict:  from Cain and Abel on down the line.  And the different temperaments and preferences of Martha-types and Mary-types will probably be played out in quite a few homes later this afternoon.

But this story is about more than just different temperaments and preferences between the two sisters.  The story, like the whole of the Gospel, is about Jesus.

10:38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home.  10:39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying.

Mary is for us a model of the beginning of discipleship:  she sits at the Lord’s feet and listens to what he is saying.  We don’t know whether there were others present, but this much we do know:  that Mary decides that listening to Jesus is more important than tasks which might need to be done, that listening to Jesus is more important than being “out of place” as a woman sitting at the feet of a rabbi, that it is, in fact, the most important thing for her to be doing at that moment.  When Jesus is in the house, and he has something to say, it’s our task to listen attentively.

10:40 But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me."

Now it is after all Martha’s house, and she has welcomed Jesus in.  There are several things happening in what Martha says, and in the description of her.

First is that she is distracted by many tasks.  Perhaps she is making a meal in accordance with the customs of hospitality.  The house has been described as “her house”, so perhaps she has some household affairs to run and manage.  But whatever it is that she thinks is her duty to her guest, surely the first duty is to pay attention to his presence.

And then she makes a request of Jesus:  “Lord, look at how busy I am, doing all these urgent things, working away by myself.  Get my sister up and get her to help me!”  Martha is probably doing things that need doing, it’s just that now is not the time to be doing them.  It is a matter of priorities:  when Jesus draws near, pay attention to Him.

But Martha does what many of us do:  Her request is basically something like this:  “Lord, make that person do what I think they should be doing.”  We sometimes learn slowly that Jesus is not really into granting those kinds of requests.

10:41 But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things;
[42] there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her."

Jesus gives Martha an answer to her question:  you are worried and distracted by many things, but there is need of only one thing.  Jesus does not tell her that what she is doing is “wrong” or “Bad”;  he simply points out to her that Mary has chosen something “better”.  It’s as if Jesus is turning a phrase on its head and saying:  “Don’t just do something, sit there!”.  Much like what the psalmist means when he writes “Be still, and know that I am God.”

Jesus knows that we want many things, that we are distracted people.  Yet what we want is not always what we need.  There is need of only one thing:  listen to Jesus, and then act.  Listen to Jesus, and then set the priorities in our lives.  Listen to Jesus, and then the tasks of our daily lives can be lived out with more purpose, more grace, more love.

[All those other things about which we busy ourselves, versus Jesus, who cannot be taken away from us.]

Mary has not spoken a word through this entire story, and yet in some way we sense that she is the heroine – the model of discipleship being held up before us as an example.  What is she doing?  She is listening to Jesus.

And why is she listening to Jesus?

Because , as the letter to the Colossians reminds us,

1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;  16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and for him.  17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
1:18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.
1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 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 his cross.

Bishop Jim Cowan (British Columbia) writes his diocese

+ Jim Cowan, Bishop of British Columbia, has written a letter to his diocese with his reflections on General Synod 2007.   I have not yet digested the whole thing, and so I won't post a snippet out of context.

Link to the pdf document here.
other letters from Canadian bishops  can be found here.

thanks to an email tip.

I know that  a number of Canadian bishops have not yet written formal responses to GS.  I look forward to hearing more from them.  As always, our first response is to uphold our leaders in prayer.

 

Caving in to multiple demands, I submit to the meme

I tout this blog as the place where memes go to die, but with tagging from both Alice the Camel and Magic Statistics, here are 8 things that most readers probably don't know about me:

1.  With the help of an accomplice who is now a respected member of our Armed Forces, I once successfully pirated a schooner in Halifax harbour.  And I still have the belaying pins to prove it.

2.  I have spent an entire summer playing nothing but the Goldberg Variations for up to 3 hours a day (buy it was only on a baby grand).

3. Although I own and play a number of guitars, my favourite instrument is the 19 ounce cue with the linen-wrapped handle. 

4.  The two  books I have read every year since  I was about 19 are Augustine's Confessions and Brideshead Revisited.

5.  I proposed to (the now) Mrs. Felix over the phone.

6.  For the last 5 years, I have told on ongoing bedtime story to my kids - "The Adventures of Jemble and Pooka".

7.  I believe the Pinot Noir is the only red varietal fit to drink, and fit it is.

8.  I want to retire to Cairo.

 

my office for the last 2 weeks

In the Footsteps of St. Paul: pilgrimage 2008

Some details have been finalized for the 2008 pilgrimage through Asia Minor;

First, the nitty gritty:

Monday, April 28 – Saturday, May 10, 2008.  Cost $4750 CDN (based on Edmonton departure: other departure locations can be arranged & cost will vary)  the cost includes travel (all flights, buses, transfers, and boats), accommodations (double occupancy, as described), all admissions and guiding costs for visits included in the itinerary, and almost all meals (not including beverages, and one lunch and one dinner in Istanbul – please see itinerary for details). The cost does not include your insurance, local tips, travel visas, personal expenses, and other items as listed above.

A brief blurb:

If you have ever wondered about the ancient world, about the life and times of Saint Paul, or even about Christian theology, then this pilgrimage is for you! We will be following in the footsteps of the great Apostle, exploring the cities where he preached, taught and wrote, and visiting the land that in many ways gave rise to our modern church. We will visit, among other places, Ephesus, Colossae, Pergamum, Laodicea, Antioch of Psidia, ancient Troy, and, of course, Byzantium.

Please consider joining us for a pilgrimage in the footsteps of Saint Paul next spring. The trip will be led by the Rev. Sally French and the Rev. Joe Walker. Sally is a licensed Christian Pilgrimage leader, and has taken many groups to biblical destinations throughout the Middle East. We will be journeying across Turkey, from Cappadocia to Ephesus, the Mediterranean Coast, Gallipoli and Istanbul.

We strive to provide you with both a first-class travel experience and a positive experience of Christian pilgrimage. Throughout our time together, there will be opportunities for worship, for prayer and reflection, and for spiritual direction. This is not a “package tour” – it is a spiritual journey with fellow Christians, following Saint Paul and those who went before us in the earliest days of the Church. We believe that seeing the lands of the bible is truly a life-changing experience and we are excited about the possibility of sharing them with you. Although your leaders are both Anglican clergy, we welcome people of all Christian backgrounds and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Please feel free to contact either Sally by email ,or email me if you have any questions.

Download itinerary here as pdf 

Download registration form here as pdf

ps - there is also a "footsteps of Jesus" - pilgrimage through Israel/Palestine in the works, based somewhat on last year's Pilgriamge.  Details will be posted sometime soon.

I reluctantly return to the world of "civilization"

...after having spent a number of days in a log cabin, with only a canoe for transportation.   Hauling water in buckets  is good for the soul.  Who said "Civilization is a shipwreck, from which every man must swim for his life"?  I'm thinking it was Tertullian, but I could be entirely mistaken, and I'm not going to google it right now.

holiday time

The felix clan will be heading out on holidays for a bit.  comments will be held in moderation mode til I get back at the end of next week.

In case you have any unanswered questions, just ask Him:

(Inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre - May/07)

the parish blog of St. Timothy

will be found over here.  In theory, it will be part of the online presence of St. Timothy's Anglican church, with much inspiring stuff, relevant and up to date information for parishioners & links to the local Anglican community.

Or it might gather dust.  We'll see.

Paul Potts sings opera: the kingdom is near

I first saw this over at Bene Diction's place a few weeks ago.

Enjoy.  The You Tube page lists over 6 million views, and 13,000 comments.

UPDATE:  in case you were wondering, Paul now has a major recording contract.

CBC Facebook Wish List & the Anglican position on abortion

CBC recently ran a rather unscientific poll through Facebook.  It was billed as the Great Canadian Wish List, asking Canadians to vote for their number one wish for the nation.  The variety of wishes is quite interesting, have a look at the top vote-getters.

Surprisingly (to me at least), the wish list poll turned into a bit of a contest between opposing sides on the [insert favourite term here] abortion issue.  Perhaps that has to do with the extent of networking in which those "groups" engage - making them prime for a facebook setting. 

From what I can tell, it has been almost 20 years since the the Anglican Church of Canada issued statements on the question of abortion. 

Friday November 3, 1989

12:00 noon

ANGLICAN CHURCH AFFIRMS ITS POSITION ON ABORTION

In the light of the Government's announcement of a new Abortion Bill, the Anglican Church reaffirms its position that both the rights and needs of women, and the rights and needs of the unborn, require protection.

The Church welcomes a non-gestational approach. This accords with the Church's opposition to any arbitrary division which would make early abortion available on demand. The Church's fundamental position is that "abortion is always the taking of a human life and, in our view, should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons." However, the Church's Abortion Report affirms that:

*an upper limit should be established at which "there is no reasonable prospect of viability";
*there should be a waiting period during which time counselling to women should be made available;
*other alternatives to abortion explored including "social and financial supports to meet the needs of the woman, in housing accommodation, child care, employment, retraining, welfare benefits, and income support, as well as consideration of adoption of the baby expected."

The Church further affirms that there should be a conscience clause, so that "the conscientious right of health care personnel to refrain from participating in abortion procedures be guaranteed."
The Church also is "opposed in principle" to "anticipate genetic defect in the foetus as automatic grounds for abortion," because as Christians we are "called to be the voice of the voiceless and powerless (and) must speak out when those different from or less able than the norm are to be denied the full rights accorded their fellow humans."

The Church's Abortion Report also recommends legislation to "ban commercial transactions in human genetic material;" or any possibility of deliberate abortion for purposes of "foetal cell farming" for human transplants, and welcomes the recent announcement of a Royal Commission on reproductive techniques "as a vehicle to examine these concerns and develop legislative measures."

The Anglican Church sees abortion as a public justice issue, challenging Canadians to build a society that affirms human life, which values children and welcomes a new generation, and which provides legal and social protection for women caught in the trauma of problem pregnancies. Such extensive social legislation, to reduce conditions which make the choice of abortion more likely, would include:

*programs and education to combat violence against women
  more affordable housing
*pay equity for women
*a guaranteed annual income, and other financial measures
*universally accessible, publicly funded day care
*an intensified national program to collect child support payments from delinquent fathers
*better educational programs about sexuality and contraception in schools

The Church does not see abortion as simply a "women's issue" but rather a community issue, which takes place on the battleground of women's bodies. Concerned that women are frequently forced to choose between marginalization and poverty or abortion, the Church believes that in many circumstances women are not "free" to choose to bear their children and so, because society fails to provide supportive structures, "abortion has become a means of 'restructuring the woman' by emptying the womb." Many Canadian women who choose not to bear their child make their decision out of alienation and hopelessness. "True choice must involve alternatives to despair" the Report concludes.

With the advent of more prevalent genetic screening, and ensuing abortions based on genetics, groups like the Canadian Down Syndrome Society have been wary of some of the directions our society is taking.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I have a question about whether or not our church is really interested in being "inclusive".  Some people don't get to be blessed.

Some people don't get to be born.

Alan Johnson released in Gaza

story at the BBC

Lord, hear our

prayer

a letter from John Hodgins & the unity of Eucharist

A Letter to the Canadian House of Bishops

In response to A Statement from the House of Bishops to the Members of General Synod (2007) and the request: “We call upon every member of the Anglican Church of Canada to continue in their faithful discipleship and the work of theological and scriptural reflection and dialogue.”

Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul,

June 29, A.D. 2007

“For you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.”

1 Corinthians 3: 18-24

(Proper 2: Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles )

Dear Friends in Christ,

In the recent Statement from the House of Bishops to General Synod regarding the issue of blessing the relationships of those who share in the sacramental life of Baptism and Eucharist there is an expression of pastoral concern but, unfortunately, there is also a threat to the unique blessing which the Holy Eucharist is for the unity of the Body of Christ.

Anglicans agree that the Holy Eucharist is the sacramental source and summit of our participation, during this earthly journey, in the life of the one eternal Christ Jesus who is the Word of God and God’s singular blessing upon humanity.

All baptized Christians are called to and welcomed at the Table of the Lord. In this great privilege we come as those who repent of our sins and seek the grace of God in our lives. Christ is the Sacrament of God and so, in the Eucharistic celebration of the Sacrament we express our unity with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the world (Solemn Declaration, 1893).

To suggest that in the celebration of relationships between individuals there is an additional blessing to be given or withheld apart from, or over and above the Sacrament of Unity is, I respectfully submit, to derogate from and potentially undermine what is the central act of Christian worship and blessing: the Holy Eucharist.

With respect to the solemnization of marriage, it is the development of Eucharistic doctrine which has given definition to the Celebration and Blessing of Marriage as we now have it. There has always and everywhere been, in the Church, a clear understanding that those who are in a state of grace (having received absolution from God through the confession of sin) are blessed in, by and through the Holy Communion which God shares with us in the one Person of Christ and which we share with one another as members of Christ’s one body.

All relationships, friendships and indeed Holy Marriage find their fullest meaning and blessing, for Christians, in this Holy Communion which is a celebration and renewal of the grace of Baptism. The dominical sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and Eucharist (Article XXV), constitute the fullness of sacramental blessing which is shared by all those in communion with Christ. Holy Communion for the baptized presupposes that the states of life of those participating are sanctified, affirmed and blessed by God. Nothing liturgically could or should be added without detracting from the unity of these sacraments which convey the life of Christ who in his person is the unique Sacrament of God’s blessing for all humanity.

The instruction to celebrate relationships in the context of the Holy Eucharist, while at the same time withholding the blessing of the Church upon such relationships, is both paradoxical and contradictory. Such celebrations would lead to confusion and leave liturgical acts widely open to misinterpretation.

The celebration of the Eucharist by the baptized community is the greatest sacramental blessing of the Church united, as it is, with the other great Gospel sacrament, Baptism. This teaching is made clear in the Anglican tradition (Article XXV). Withholding a formal pronouncement of blessing while at the same time celebrating eucharistically a relationship within the Christian Church sends mixed messages and denigrates the Sacrament by suggesting that there is another blessing to be had which is somehow disconnected from the Sacrament of Unity, the Holy Eucharist.

In the early Church it is attested that men and women seeking to marry one another would first declare themselves to the social community and then come to share in the celebration of the Eucharist (Notes on Marriage in the Early Church, Robert Berringer). Their participation in Holy Communion was considered to be an expression of and sharing in the single blessing which is the life of Christ in the Church, his body, given for the life of the world. Any blessing pronounced by a bishop or priest is always understood to be an extension or articulation of the single blessing which is Christ, who is one with us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

In time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and over centuries, the official role of solemnization and recording of vows was assumed by the Church in many places. The Celebration of Marriage was instituted as “a public service of the Church” (BAS p. 526). For the first half of Christian history, however, many contend that the only blessing of Christian marriage and other relationships of professing Christians (holy orders, religious life, etc) was in the context of the Mass.

For good reason, only those committed to Christ in faith would celebrate their professions or states of life at the Eucharist with the clear understanding that only that which was inherently blessed by God and in conformity with sacred Scripture and tradition was to be celebrated in the Sacrament of Unity. Christ is the Sacrament of God. In the Holy Eucharist we share communion in Christ’s life and blessing. This is the single and unified source of liturgical blessing in the Christian community. No blessing may be added which is not inherently present within the dominical Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The suggestion that a further blessing may be added or withheld from those in a civil union or other relationship, apart from the blessing that is inherent in the Holy Eucharist, is to confuse the issue and to detract from Christ’s unique blessing. To presume that a bishop or priest might somehow add to the Sacrament or withhold pronouncing God’s blessing upon any person, state or relationship beyond what is celebrated in the Eucharist is to suggest a development of doctrine which is not within the jurisdiction of any single body of Christians.

As John W.B. Hill has pointed out in his essay, A Theology of Blessing and Liturgies of Blessing, “The mere pronouncement of a blessing can be seriously misunderstood if we forget that we are a eucharistic people. Blessing is not a power we wield but a gift we celebrate.” To be theologically consistent, then, the blessing of God celebrated in the context of the Holy Eucharist is complete. No other blessing may be added or withheld.

In summary: Provision for a celebration of relationships which presumes or indicates that the Holy Eucharist is lacking in some way and so may allow for or require a further blessing by a priest or bishop is fundamentally contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Such a provision inherently undermines the doctrine of the Church with regard to Sacrament. The concept of ‘blessing’ as set apart from or in addition to the expression of God’s love and friendship in the Holy Eucharist contradicts the nature of the Sacrament.

The notion of an additional blessing pronounced or withheld apart from the Eucharist celebrating a relationship is not in conformity with the formularies of the Church. For example, the BCP and BAS both allow for the celebration and blessing of a marriage outside of the Eucharist but the BAS rubric clearly states that “Where both bride and bridegroom are entitled to receive communion, it is desirable that the form of service in which the marriage rite is incorporated in the celebration of the eucharist be used.” (BAS p. 527). There is no provision, however, for the celebration of the Marriage Eucharist which precludes the blessing of the relationship because blessing is inherent within the Eucharist. To sever or undermine the unity of Eucharist and blessing contradicts the very nature of the Eucharist which is the fullest expression of God’s blessing.

In fact, Eucharistic celebrations of the sort proposed in the Statement would easily be misunderstood as attempting to do indirectly what has not been approved. At the same time, withholding a blessing, would indicate that such an extraordinary blessing (outside of the Eucharistic celebration) is in some way superior to, or in addition to the singular blessing of God in Christ which is celebrated most completely in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

For these reasons I respectfully request that the instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships in the Statement to General Synod (2007) be withdrawn.

John L. Hodgins

Chatham , Ontario

remnants: byzantine monastery

Byzantine era monatery ruins

Mount Tabor

holiday reading: An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

I have two choices: mow the lawn or read a book.  So I've picked up the copy of An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Pagitt & Jones, et al.:  Baker 2007) which has been laying around collecting dust for the last few weeks.  It is a collection of essays by names familiar to those who have been following/practicing the "movement" (for lack of a better word) which has come to have the tag emerging church over the last little while.

Speaking of communities of immense sanity, it's almost time to play some music with the local L'arche gathering.  I think that next time we have an Anglican General Synod, we should elect one of the core members of L'arche to run the program for us.