felix hominum

can one evaluate proclamation/preaching?

There's an interesting little discussion about this topic over at Simple Massing Priest's place.

When I signed on for this thing, I was given the twofold task of "word and sacrament". Some of my thoughts on the matter are in the comments over there.

what do you do with godparents?

Most of us in this branch of the Christian family have them.  Or we have asked people to be godparents to our children.  So we either choose godparents for our children, or perhaps we have been asked to be godparents, and then the connection is lost after the morning of the baptism.  So let me share just one little tradition which has grown up in the Felix clan over the past several years:  "godparent parties".  We had one this afternoon. 

Over the past several years we have had a number of godparent parties.  These get togethers are opportunities for us as a family, and as an extended Christian family ("church") to celebrate the goodness and love of God in the lives of each of our kids.  So this afternoon we had a celebration:  a big old feast, interspersed with prayer, and singing, and games, and fun.  We try to have one on an anniversary of a baptism, or as close to the date as possible. 

While families often have "rituals" and traditions which grow up or are inherited (there was always a certain kind of food when the playoffs came in our house), we should also find space for the spiritual traditions and rituals which remind us of Jesus' call on our lives, and of his love for each of our children.  If you are a parent or a godparent, I suggest that you give it a try.  Get together, pray, sing or do whatever it is that fits.  If you are a godparent, it is one simple way of starting to fulfill your promise that you would help this child grow up in faith.  And if you are a parent, let me know of any other such family traditions which you have used to hand on the faith.  I'd like to start collecting some resources around "Christian parenting."

Vital Church Planting

A conference in Toronto at the end of February.  Here's the site.

Two of us will be heading out from Edmonton. We expect folks I know in T.O. to give us the usual Upper Canadian hospitality.  We'll be staying at Wycliffe College (an alma mater mei) for a few days during the conference.

Do Anglicans plant churches?

will rural ministry die a long slow death?

Many years ago I had the privilege of doing some summer work in a rural parish.  The parish covered 7 or 8 points (congregations, for those unused to angli-speak) spread out over what I considered to be a fairly wide area.  When I came to Alberta, I discovered that distances are measured in hours of driving, rather than miles.  "It's about 4 hours from here, if the roads are good, while you still have daylight."

As the diocese of Edmonton begins to select a new bishop, I want to ask a question. or two.  What is the future of rural ministry?  Will it be forgotten in favour of urban/suburban ministry?  Will it go the way of the family farm?  I'd like to see the candidates views on this one...

sermon notes for Advent 2: Matthew 3:1-12

Just to set the mood, let's have a look at the wilderness where John the Baptist liked to hang out...  Somewhere I have some shots of the Jordan, but I'll find them later.  I keep thinking about the pre-Christmas cleaning activity which has been going on both at home and at the church.  You know, looking in the various little nooks and crannies where dust gets hidden.  It is a season of personal house cleaning.  I remember  when Jesus "cleansed' the temple, he did so by driving out what was sinful.  So it is with ourselves - we are called to cleanse the house of God (which is ourselves) by repenting of what is sinful in our lives.  This reading reminds us that Advent is season of repentance - which is a way of preparing for the coming of the kingdom.

[1] In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, [2] "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."  [3] This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.'"  [4] Now John wore clothing of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.

The message of repentance is not unique to John the Baptist in the New Testament;  it is also the beginning of Jesus' preaching.  It is interesting to note that the kingdom comes near to us, rather than us coming near to it.  That is the movement of grace - God comes to us first. 

John seems to have feet in both worlds - the OT and the NT.  This guy will make a great children's story if you get the visuals right.  Note to self:  get some locusts and honey for Sunday...  But now where were we?  John I think is a living testament to the continuity and relationship between the two worlds.  We tend to see more the division between the old and the new, whereas John shows us the connection.  The new Elijah, the fulfillment of prophecy, the beginning of the message that Jesus takes up.

[5] Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan,  [6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.  [7] But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  [8] Bear fruit worthy of repentance.  [9] Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

Our culture is an emotive one.  I suspect many people think that repentance means feeling sorry for our sins.  Well, that's a good place to start.  But if we think feeling bad is all that repentance involves, we have missed John's preparatory message.  "Bear fruit worthy of repentance".  There is an active element involved.  Just as there is with love:  it is not simply a feeling, but an action which is expressed.  So it is with repentance.  While we focus on ourselves and our feelings, God is interested in our lifestyle and our actions.

There is that interesting warning that we should not "sit back" and think that we are in, that we've done our part, that we are part of the covenant and that's all we need.  "Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham".  John is warning the Pharisees & co. against a sense of religious entitlement.  Perhaps the same thing occurs today in differing forms.  "I've been baptized.  I'm good for life.  No need to do anything else."  Or perhaps like the Pharisees, we might appeal to the idea that we were "born" Christian.  "Oh yes, I've been Anglican since I was born."  (That's a whole other topic...)  But you get the picture. 

Side note:  this episode raises an important question.  Can I repent on behalf of someone else?  John seems to be saying that repentance is individual, or at least for the purpose of the ministry he is doing.  We can't rely on the faith of Abraham, we have to own it for ourselves.

[10] Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  [11] "I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.  [12] His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

As I think about this, it seems to me to be a grace sandwhich - with warning on either side.  The center is the coming of Christ, with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  "Fire" seems to be a theme here, which could use some drawing out.

Afterthought:  as Advent is a season of repentance, those so inclined might take opportunity to make an examination of conscience, talk with a spiritual director, or make a confession.

sermon notes for Advent 1

Well, having completed a fair bit of preparation for a sermon based on the Gospel reading and the usual Advent themes, I decided to scrap that in favour of Psalm 122:  "I was glad when they said to me, Let us go to the house of the Lord." So the usual Thursday sermon notes won't be up for a while.  In these days of turmoil for the Anglican Church, I felt a nudge to turn the sermon in a different direction.  I'll let you know...

"For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your good."
Ps 122: v 9

sermon notes: Reign of Christ - November 25

We will be looking at Colossians 1:11-20, and Luke 23:33-43 this Sunday.  These two readings show us what seem to be contradictory notions of what it means to "reign".  The Colossians reading gives a rather glorious picture of Christ  - "his glorious power", "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation", "in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell".  The reading ends by pointing us to the cross:  "making peace through the blood of his cross".  So to the cross we go.  Here are some preliminary thoughts.

Luke 23:33-43

33 When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

Well, I suppose this is as unlikely a throne room as one can imagine.  And as for court attendants, I couldn’t think of more unlikely candidates.  So this Sunday we celebrate the Reign of Christ. On the feast of the Reign of Christ we can start with ourselves –(after all, where else do we usually start?) we can start with our own ideas of what it mean to “reign”; or what it means to be a “King”, or what we think a Kingdom is supposed to look like.  Or we can look to Christ, and see what kind of reign, what kind of kingship, and what kind of Kingdom he brings.

34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots to divide his clothing.

Here we see the foundational charter of the kingdom:  Jesus pleads with the Father to grant forgiveness for those who sin. 

35 And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!"  36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine,
37 and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"  38 There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."  39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!"

Twice Jesus is (mockingly) called “Messiah”.  Twice he is (mockingly) referred to as “King”.  Each time there is a challenge.  It is reminiscent of the temptations in the wilderness.  IF you are the Son of God, turn stones into bread, throw yourself down, worship me…  Here we have the same pattern – the Tempter has shown up again, in different form:  Let him save himself, IF he is the Messiah.  Even the criminal next to him tempts him to save himself first, and then while you’re at, it throw me in as well. (Save yourself and us!)  The old temptations return in different form.

40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?  41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."  43 He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

It is interesting that this is the only “positive” reference to Jesus and the idea of a “king”.  This criminal believes, even in these circumstances, that Jesus has a “kingdom”.  His cry  strikes me as a cry for pity.  And without further ado, forgiveness is offered and received, and there is reconciliation between a man and God, even on the cross.

This reign of Jesus, this kingship of Christ, is far different from models of kingship, governance and reign which the world offers.  The king does not keep himself safe from harm.  He does not order his followers to go anywhere he himself has not gone.  There is the question posed in the Gospel:  do you acknowledge Jesus as the "King", the "Messiah".  Contrary to their expectations, this King's business is not to "save himself" - it is to save us.

Lots to think about here:  the picture of the King on the cross, and then the description of Christ from Colossians - sort of the old "meekness and majesty" side by side.  It would be a mistake not to take the two together.  And it would be a mistake to forget that the cross is not the "final" picture we have of the reign of Christ, although it is the central picture.

I'll add or amend as Sunday draws closer (or as wisdom comes in the comment section), and in the meantime, pray that He might reign in us.

The major question I'm facing this week:

should we use incense on the feast of the Reign of Christ?

The Bishop was talking to the local Master of Hounds about the difficulty he had in keeping his vicars off the incense.
-P. G. Wodehouse

You might sooner get lightning out of incense smoke than true action or passion out of your modern English religion.
-John Ruskin

Ouch - on dealing with incompetence in the church

Ouch!

Not long ago we followed in a neighbouring parish a battle between the vicar and the organist / choirmaster. On paper the vicar was, of course, in charge of the parish, and had every right to sack the musician, but for complicated psychological reasons he felt compelled to minister to the man, to feed and clothe and shelter his incompetence, rather than to show him the door. We're told that it got to be so bad that there were loud arguments between the vicar and the musician during the worship service. After months of conflict, the vicar finally found it in himself to push the organist/choirmaster out the door.

It's fairly easy to tell when a musician is incompetent. People wince and cover their ears, and then they find a new church. Churches also employ clerks, administrators, and various specialty staff whose very job title is meaningless to the general public. We've been introduced to parish Lay Ministry Coordinators, Parish Missioners, Directors of Christian Formation, Liturgical Coordinators, Development Coordinators, and Webmasters. Beyond the parish level, there's a wealth of titles whose meaning sometimes eludes us. And if we can't tell what their job is supposed to be, then how ever can their job performance be evaluated effectively?

Terrible things seem to happen when church leaders project onto their staff their pastoral urge to take care of the needy, the downtrodden, and the weak. Nowhere in the parable of the sheep and the goats does it say 'I was incompetent and you employed me' or 'I was abusive to everyone but you didn't sack me'. The notion of charity seems altogether too often to be applied in church administration to charity towards one's own staff. For better or for worse, church organizations have more in common than not with ordinary business and government organizations. The secular world has it easier, in a sense, because the need to make a profit provides a means of telling quickly whether or not it is succeeding or failing. Churches can survive for decades under the stewardship of people who are pious, faithful, and incompetent, and no one benefits from that survival.

Guess where this is from, or read it all.  The original article is now archived here.

sermon notes Penetecost 20: Luke 17:11-19

Luke 17:11-19

[11] On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee.

So here we have Jesus going on his way from the northern, Jewish area  toward Jerusalem, with a pleasant meander through the rather unclean Samaritan area.

[12] As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, [13] they called out, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"

What strikes me most about these verses is the dual posture of both approaching Jesus and yet keeping distance.  On the first level, this is understandable.  Perhaps the lepers are merely keeping up their duty not to get too close to anyone, lest they spread their infection.  They know their place in the order of things. There are no explicit reasons given in the text, although some can reasonably be assumed. They are content just to get within “shouting distance” of Jesus, whom they call “Master”.  As long as he can hear their cry for mercy, that is close enough.

And yet this dual posture strikes me as something which we can all engage in.  Approaching Jesus, and yet keeping our distance at the same time.  Just get close enough to be within “shouting distance” when we need something.  Or perhaps we are so used to our position, feeling ourselves far from him and others, that we dare not get too close.  Whatever the reason, it is a tendency of human hearts to draw close and then withdraw.  Maybe we suffer from a bit of Christophobia – we don’t want to get too close to Jesus.  There is something of this sentiment in Jesus’ plea as he completes his journey to Jerusalem:  How I long to gather you under my wings, and you would not.”  Jesus is always approachable, but it is we who decide to pull back, lest we encounter the real Jesus, who as Paul says, “was raised from the dead, a descendant of David” – the Messiah.

[14] When he saw them, he said to them, "Go and  show yourselves to the priests." And as they went, they were made clean.

No healing touch or magic words come out of Jesus.  He simply gives them something to do.  The priest was rather like the public health officer of the day:  if the priest said you were cured, then you could be restored to your family, you could be restored to your community.  “As they went, they were made clean” – it is in the journey of obedience to Christ that we are healed.

[15] Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. [16] He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him.

This fellow doesn’t quite follow the rules here:  it appears that he did not makes it to the priest to get his official clean bill of health (and all the rituals associated with that process).  Maybe he would not have gotten very far in the process, being a Samaritan and all...  The gift from Jesus evokes in him a more immediate response: praise of God and thanks to Jesus.

And he was a Samaritan.
Then Jesus asked, "Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they?
Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?"
Then he said to him, "Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well."

As an aside, Jesus does not revoke the healing of the other “ungrateful” nine (“if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself”) which tells us something of the nature of mercy.  There is certainly a tie in to the epistle on this point.  The Samaritan is now made well, or whole.  The gift of Jesus has cured him, but it is faith that has made him well.

sermon notes Pentecost 18 (Year C): Luke 16: 19-31

This section of Luke seems to hit me in the wallet.

This week continues to focus attention on some issues related to wealth/possessions with the contrast of poverty thrown into the mix, a healthy dose of "afterlife balance adjustment", and an appeal to the witness of Scripture and the resurrection.  Most commentaries will also point out that this might be a reworking of some existing folklore themes or stories.

There are a few things that stick out at me in this one.  There is the contrast between dives (let's give him a name, as this is one of the few, or is it the only, parable in which the characters have names.  Or maybe that is part of the point:  it is the rich man who is nameless and it is the poor man who has a name.  Lazarus ("God helps") is named because it reinforces the sense of his personhood;  he is not invisible to God. The rich man has the Rolex and Mercedes of his day - purple clothes and fine linen;  while Lazarus has sores and a few dog licks.

16:19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.  [20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, [21] who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores.

It appears what the rich man has chosen is a lifestyle in which he does not even recognize Lazarus.  Lazarus is the sort of person to be stepped around on the sidewalk.

[22] The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.  [23] In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.  [24] He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.'

It is interesting to remember that Abraham was also a wealthy man in his day, and wealth is after all a sign of God's favor, isn't it?  So on one level we have a bit of the reversal of the popular conception that material wealth is a sure sign of God's favour.  On the other hand, Abraham was a wealthy man and here he is as the figure in paradise.  So what is the difference between the rich man in the parable and Abraham - it's not just the objective presence in their lives of material wealth.  I'm not certain I want to go too far in that direction.  At least this much is clear:  wealth and poverty are no longer the sure signs of God's favour that they were in Abraham's day.

The imagery is contrasting:  Lazarus is carried by angels (an upward image?) while the rich man "died and was buried" (a downward image?).  This I think is reinforced with the image of the rich man "looking up" to see Abraham.  And then there is the reversal:  while at first Lazarus hungered for just of morsel of what the rich man has, now the rich man thirsts for just a drop of what Lazarus has.

I also think there is going to be some more work to be done about the whole torment and agony bit.  I still think that one of the best ways of looking at this is what is found in Dante's Inferno:  God will give you the true form of what you desire, but that is a major series of posts best reserved for Lent or some such penitential time.  One of the questions this raises is the difference between true "feasting" and mere "gluttony".  If you have thoughts on what you might say (or not say) about the torment and  agony, have at it.

[25] But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.[26] Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.'

Well, this parable at least seems to take the afterlife seriously:  temporal actions (or inactions) have eternal consequences.   Abraham explains the reversal of fortune.  Question to myself:  what is God's idea of justice?

[27] He said, 'Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father's house—[28] for I have five brothers--that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.'
[29] Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.'
[30] He said, 'No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
[31] He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

At first glance I considered the rich man's words to be a beginning of some sort of redemptive thought, and maybe they are.  But the nature of his request is a] centered only on his brothers ("don't even Gentiles do the same"); b] fails to address the real problem - attitude and action toward Lazarus' peers. It strikes me that the rich man's warning is mere "fire insurance"; his concern has not actually come around to helping the Lazari of this world.  And all of these teachings are not new - they are there in Moses and the prophets.

The last reversal is the greatest - "even if someone rises from the dead".
More later.   

1 Timothy 6: 6...
6 Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; 7 for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it; 8 but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. 9 But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.  10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

on the ministry of children and fools

Do children have a ministry beyond making the rest of us feel sentimental during church?

We often talk in our church about the "ministry of the baptized", meaning that we believe every baptized member of the church to have a ministry, a vocation.  In the backs of our minds this often becomes "when they grow up and can do real ministry".  But what if children have a real ministry, a real vocation, within the body of Christ now? 

It is a subject which has been on my mind for a while - the ministry of children and fools.  Partly it also comes out of my association with people with intellectual disabilities.  I sense that there are two parts to their ministry (as there are two parts to mine).  First is the broad ministry of presence:  a more complete gathering of the body of Christ.  But I find myself, and sometimes others, seeing their ministry as only a ministry of presence - a passive ministry by which they evoke certain responses or reactions in those around them, in those "regular" members of the Church.  And perhaps for some that is the ministry to which they are called.

But what if they are called to other, more "active" ministries?  The ministry of prayer comes to mind immediately.  In our tradition, we have certain "intercessors" lead us in prayer each week, leading the "prayers of the people".  What would happen if we discerned and encouraged, say, our children, to lead us publicly in prayer.  And not in some sentimental sense of look-isn't-that-cute - now let's have someone pray whom God will really listen to.  What if those in our midst with disabilities were encouraged in ministry beyond-evoking-feelings-in-us?

Just a thought.  And in case you are wondering who the fools are...

sermon notes for Pentecost 12; Hebrews 12 & Luke 12: 49-56

There are a few directions I had been thinking of this week.  Earlier this week we commemorated Bonhoeffer and Kolbe;  two Christians who knew what it was to take up crosses and make enormously difficult choices.  That got me thinking more about how suffering and sacrifice are often central to discipleship, as certainly as the Cross is central to the mission of Jesus.  I don't recall hearing much preaching on the Cross (or delivering such) unless it is Good Friday or some such day, but I sense that these reading call it to attention.

Luke 12:49-56

[50] I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed!

We have two images of Jesus’ baptism in the Gospels.  The first is his baptism in the river Jordan.  We stand as observers and hear the voice of God declare that Jesus is the chosen one, the Beloved.  It is often this first image which we think of when we hear the word baptism – the reassurance of God’s love.  It is the image we most often turn to when we have baptisms in our church.  We think of baptisms as benign at worse or joyful at best.

When Jesus speaks of baptism, his baptism, it is a powerful, even frightening and dangerous event.  In Mark 10, Jesus also spoke about his “baptism”: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.’ And he said to them, ‘What is it you want me to do for you?’ And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’

When Jesus talks about “baptism”, he does not speak about white dresses, presents from godparents and a light lunch afterward.  He speaks of the cross:  that “stumbling block” which somehow is at the center of his earthly mission. [And he also points to the resurrection, which is fully the time when “it is completed”.]

12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!  52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three;  53 they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

My first thought of course is that we don’t need Jesus to divide families – we are perfectly dysfunctional as we are.  How many families already experience such division – but over things much less important than the gospel of Christ?

These are words which we cringe to hear:  Jesus the reconciler, the peacemaker, bringing division.  We tend to forget that becoming a follower of Jesus sometimes has this literal cost.  I can think of places I’ve traveled where becoming a Christian carries an enormous cost, certainly to the point of dividing families.  We are so far removed from these situations that we think they don’t exist.  They are historical or foreign to us.

Jesus calls us to examine our loyalties.  These and other passages in which he challenges us:  if there is a choice between allegiance to family and allegiance to Christ, will we follow him?

The reading from Hebrews gives us examples of others who were “baptized” with this baptism of Christ.  Though they lived before his time, they too “took up their cross” by faith.  They suffered.  They died.  And they by faith looked forward to "a better resurrection" [11:35].

“looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.”

There's lots  to fill out here, but my sense at this point is more and more leaning toward focusing on the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus:   it's not just for holy week anymore.  As the reading from Hebrews reminds us, the picture of the glorified Jesus at the right hand of God is via the cross.

I'll let you know.

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

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.

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.

where to write my sermons...

One of the things I most enjoy about pastoral ministry is the people I get to meet when I'm writing sermons.  I know for some the idea of "sermon" is a bit old school, but we'll leave that for another post.

I love to work on my sermons in public places:  cafe's, hangouts, places where people naturally gather.  I find that this has at least two advantages, no, make that three.  First, I get to have the sort of beverage I like.  Second, I like to write sermons in a place where I am reminded of, well, people.  It is helpful to me to consider the variety of creatures who pass in front of my table, or corner of the cafe:  some on their way to work, others to school, joining up with some retired friends, cellphone on ear making deals, some looking cool, others looking lost. 

I find that working on a sermon in a public place helps me, well, remember who this message is for.  Yes, it is for a specific congregation, but it is also for everyone.  It simply reminds me of the glorious things created in the image of God all around me.  He loves them as they brush by.

I also quite enjoy the 'accidental' relationships which begin in such places:  the person who asks what I am reading or working on;  the opportunity to sit down and begin a conversation, or a friendship.

I'm wondering if the clergy office should be banned in favour of something more missional...

how does God guide us?

The kids asked if I would speak at some sort of retreat kind of thing about how God guides us.  Just to show that I don't leave everything til the last minute, here are a few thoughts around which I might gather a talk or two, and raise some questions.

• how did God guide in the OT?  It is said of both individual (Abraham) and nation (the Israelites) that they "journey by stages".  I find that an interesting phrase.  What was the role of the Law?  The Prophets? Wisdom?
• are there hindrances to responding to God's guidance?  fear, sin, etc  (this is where my own personal expertise comes in handy)
• how does God guide in the NT? What is the role of other christians?  the Spirit? prayer?
• responding to that angst-laden "what is God's will for my life"  (short answer:  to believe)

I expect several insightful comments filling in and expanding all of the above, which I can then cut and paste into a few 20 minute presentations...

review: Through the Bible, Through the Year (John Stott)

Through the Bible, Through the Year:  Daily Reflections from Genesis to Revelations (John Stott)
Baker:  2005

Stott follows many others in writing a devotional book which offers readings and thoughts for each day of the year.  He departs from others in the organization of the themes.  The book is divided into 3 sections, taking the reader through the Old Testament, the Gospels, and then the remainder of the New Testament.  Stott explicitly makes use of the calendar of the church year.  Many “devotional books” begin with January 1st, possibly in an attempt to either capture the Christmas shopping market, or cash in on New Year’s resolutions.  Stott’s book begins with the first week of September, which serves as a nod to the beginning of the Church year in the Orthodox tradition, as well giving the reader ample time to consider the direction of the Old Testament toward the birth of Jesus.  There is also a “Trinitarian” approach to reading the Scriptures.  Each section seems to highlight, if you will, one person of the Trinity, while all are mentioned throughout.

The system is fairly straightforward: we begin in the first week of September, and follow along by days (not dates).  Each week has a particular theme.  He gives the reader a verse for the day, with a brief meditation.  At the end of each meditation are suggestions for further readings from the Scriptures to set the verse and meditation in its greater context.  His thoughts range from reflections on the text, to historical background, to issues of personal faith.

The first section covers the months from September to December.  He first gives an overview of the Old Testament, covering the topics of Creation (13), Fall (29), through to the Patriarchs (45), the Exodus (53) and onward through the Monarchy (77), the Wisdom literature (85ff), the Prophets (101ff) and ends this section with the Nativity.  This first section of the book gives the reader an overview of the major themes of the OT, and of the life of Israel as a nation.  Clearly the interpretive theme is directing the reader toward the climax of the appearance of the Messiah.

The second section covers the months from Christmas through Easter (January-April), and topically it ends with the resurrection.  Here the focus is on the life of Christ, giving the reader an overview of the four Gospels.  Topics move from the various responses to the Nativity (151), Jesus’ entry into public ministry (167,175), a selection of parables (183ff), extended treatment of the Sermon on the Mount (191) and the Lord’s Prayer (199).  Stott then focuses on the events of the last week of Jesus’ earthly ministry – the Upper Room (231), extended treatment of the Crucifixion (239-263), and he ends with the Resurrection appearances and reflections on the meaning of that event.  The dominant themes in the section are clearly those related to the Cross and Resurrection.

In the third section of the book, Stott moves from Pentecost to the vision of the New Jerusalem.  He covers material from Acts, various Epistles, and ends with Revelation.  In this section Stott guides his readers through the birth and growth of the nascent church, with emphasis on missionary activity (3210, Paul’s journeys (329, 337), the “major letters” (Romans, Corinthians) and one whole month of the devotional cycle reflecting on the meaning of the Book of Revelations – a bit of an antidote for a case of too much “Left Behind”. This  section points the reader toward the consummation of the Christian journey as a full vision of God’s glory, with His redeemed people.

The book is well above average in its genre.  There is material for the mind and the heart, and encouragement to put faith into action.  Those who know John Stott’s writings will find familiar emphases on the Cross, the Resurrection, and Spirit-driven evangelism.  Stott is squarely within a particular tradition: Evangelical Anglicans have looked to him as a sort of elder statesman for some time now.  This book is a welcome resource in the world of evangelical devotionals. 

I can see myself spending time with Mrs. Felix in these pages.

related post:  have your kids ever caught you at it?

discipleship, marriage & holy matrimony

Of all the themes which are discussed around the topic of marriage, the most neglected, but perhaps the most important, is the role of marriage in the mutual formation and encouragement of Christian discipleship.

I think we have lost that important aspect of the Christian concept of marriage.   Our language has changed so that what is romantic is utterly divorced from what is practical.  Yet marriage is an utterly practical state of life.  Over the past number of years I have seen many couples in love.  I have seen many young folks plot a future together.  And I have even been privileged to be present at the exchange of a few sets of vows.

Marriage is being called upon to bear many burdens.  Yet too often we fail to ask how this state of life, with this particular person, is entered upon with a view to each becoming the human beings God calls us to be.  That is what I mean by encouragement of discipleship.

It is not a question which is always asked in the throes of "being in love".  But it is something which differentiates the civil marriage from what used to be called holy matrimony. 

At its heart is a profound awareness that the other is first and foremost God's beloved, before she or he is my beloved.  If we can play with the parable of the talents and the absent landowner, the spouse is the treasure given into my stewardship for but a time.  What will I do with this treasure who, in truth, belongs first to Another?  How do I "increase"?  Or do I bury it, and leave it as I found it?

reminder to self:  tomorrow marks 10 years for Mrs. Felix & myself.

death & pinot grigio

Prelude

“I wish I had your faith”, he said at one point.

You see, his young daughter had recently died.  So we sat for almost half a day, sipping pinot grigio on the patio of the café and talking about, not death, but life.

Early on in my seminary days a professor said something to me which has stayed with me almost daily.  “People need faithfulness, not cleverness”.  In my mind I struggled against cleverness, praying.  All the while we talked, and the universe shrunk down in size to the length and height and breadth of one particular person.

Interlude

St. Augustine recalls in his Confessions his many tears over the death of a friend.  Augustine was at that point in time the follower of a religion which did not hold that a person, as that particular person, would be “resurrected”.  His friend was gone, as a person, forever.  Sometimes, despite our best efforts, it really does come down to one question.  The pain of answering no to that question is too great to bear, or at least to bear alone.

"So why do you believe?"

I wonder if the ministry of Jesus with wine and food was not always feasting.  You get these images and pictures of Jesus laughing and living as he drinks wine at Cana, as he sits at table with the sinners and publicans.  I wonder if sometimes the conversation turned, as it did the last time he drank wine on this earth, to other things.

Postlude

Truly I tell you,
I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine
until that day
when I drink it new
in the kingdom of God.

Mark 14:25

send your wife away!

No, really;  send her away.

I mean that in the good sense.

There comes a point in every healthy marriage (with children) when you realize that one of your roles as husband is to be the guardian of your wife's sanity.   Not that Mrs. Felix is going crazy, mind you.  Oh dear, I'd better try to explain.

One of the gifts which we try to give each other is the space to get away.  Sometimes the young and the starry-eyed think that every waking moment must be spent together.  Which maybe is okay, and it is the way to go for some folks.  But there is also the need to be refreshed, especially when life is busy and sleep is a rare commodity.  And sometimes the gift that we give is not so much ourselves, but a chance for the other to be herself or himself.  The gift of time, and space, and quiet.

So Mrs. Felix is going on a bit of vacation to the east coast for several weeks this July, taking #1 and #4 with her.  The pater familias of the Felix clan has a lovely place in Nova Scotia, overlooking the ocean.   So grandpa and grandma will do the necessary pampering, and help look after our eldest and our youngest.

Which means, of course, that I'll be looking after these two for three weeks in July.

• casseroles may be dropped off any time between July 3 and July 25
• baths will take place only in the context of "the sprinkler" on hot days
• household cleaning supplies may be dropped off on the evening of July 24

on choosing Godparents

It's a fairly narrow topic, and one that is of concern only to those who meet the following criteria:

• You have a kid that you want to get baptized
• You belong to a church that baptizes babies
• Your relatives are coming so you want to get the kid "done"
• You think that baptizing the baby will make him/her less fussy, by an infusion of grace
• You want to pick Godparents like some people pick their wedding party - sort of a token to say that you're my friend/ best loved uncle/got drunk with me in college

So assuming you meet the above criteria, how should you go about selecting Godparents?  We are in the position of having to go through this process for the fourth time in 7 years.  Since we have accumulated such a vast amount of experience, I thought it only fair to share this wealth of insight with those of our readers who find themselves in need.

One of the first things that I want in a godparent for our kids is prayer.   Above all else, I want our kids' godparents to be people of prayer.  I think prayer is the lifelong gift which a godparent gives.   Above Christmas and Easter presents, confirmation books, birthday cards or whatever else you can think of.  When you choose a godparent, choose a person of prayer.  I believe that the people we have chosen as godparents for our first 3 kids are, at heart, people of prayer.

Asking someone to be a godparent is not the same as asking them to have a place of honour at a banquet, or showing them in some way that you like them.  It is about asking them to have an active participation in the life and growth of the child as member of the Kingdom, a disciple.  It is a (hold your breath) responsibility, carried out with love, which lasts for a lifetime.

Later:   horror stories from the baptismal font...things I've seen in person

the beginnings of youth ministry

The Church Fathers had a distinctive approach to youth ministry.

Now, don’t jump to conclusions. I haven’t uncovered any evidence that St. Ambrose led teens on ski trips in the nearby Alps. Nor is there anything to suggest that St. Basil sponsored junior-high dances in Pontus. (There’s not even a hint of a pizza party.) In fact, if you check all the documentary evidence from all the ancient patriarchates of the East and the West, you won’t find a single bulletin announcement for a single parish youth group.

Yet the Fathers had enormous success in youth and young-adult ministry. Many of the early martyrs were teens, as were many of the Christians who took to the desert for the solitary life. There’s ample evidence that a disproportionate number of conversions, too, came from the young and youngish age groups.

How did the Fathers do it?

They made wild promises.

They promised young people great things, like persecution, lower social status, public ridicule, severely limited employment opportunities, frequent fasting, a high risk of jail and torture, and maybe, just maybe, an early, violent death at the hands of their pagan rulers.

The Fathers looked young people in the eye and called them to live purely in the midst of a pornographic culture. They looked at some young men and women and boldly told them they had a calling to virginity. And it worked. Even the pagans noticed how well it worked...

some interesting stuff from here

diocesan gathering - stewardship

This weekend I am giving a workshop at a diocesan gathering.  The title for the conference has to do with "Stewardship".   If anyone has a ready made presentation, please send it along.  Personally, I've always felt that the best examples of 'stewardship', or at least diligent tithing, was to be found in cults.  Any thoughts?

how I hope I am being shaped

I think one of the first times I met the then future Mrs Felix she was singing in tongues or something like that.  It might be said that we still have our own personal flavours...be that all as it may.   The impetus for this brief reflection was a conversation over at the sol cafe.

This is only a partial answer to a series of questions, but in general, what are some of the ways in which I believe God has and is shaping me? This is a rather technical sort of post - blah, blah blah yes there is all that most important stuff about people and community, but the reality of those things is hidden perhaps by the language of what I'm trying to relate.

Well, speaking of formation, the ways in which I trust God has shaped me are found in what the Anglicans call a "rule of life" - sort of a personal and yet corporate kind of Christian formation. The center of my spiritual formation is the practice of "daily offices" - an old monastic tradition of prayer and Scripture reading at various times of the day. I was introduced to it about 23 years ago.

We are essentially formed by God's choice to live and act in us through his Spirit. This is one way that I believe God has done this with me. I open up the floor for others to join in and tell how they believe/trust/suspect that God shapes and forms them, if they even see that as part of whatever is happening...

The goal? purpose? achievable spiritual commodity outcome of a rule of life is to be shaped by the various ways I/we trust that God wants and intends to shape us. So from my liturgical Anglican spirituality, here is an outline taken from the Book of Common Prayer:

Every Christian man or woman should from time to time frame for himself a RULE OF LIFE in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel and the faith and order of the Church; wherein he may consider the following:

The regularity of his attendance at public worship and especially at the holy Communion.
The practice of private prayer, Bible-reading, and self-discipline.
Bringing the teaching and example of Christ into his everyday life.
The boldness of his spoken witness to his faith in Christ.
His personal service to the Church and the community.
The offering of money according to his means for the support of the work of the Church at home and overseas.

<>

At some point I want to delve into the topic of prayer a bit more, and this is just a start. 

"Lord teach us to pray";  how has he taught you?

the practical pastor: children in church pt 1

I fear for my children on Sunday morning.

Let me explain.  I have heard countless times from well meaning parish priests (myself included) that it is okay for children to wander around the sanctuary.  This is often done in an attempt to lessen or eliminate any sense of embarrassment that parents of toddlers and small children may feel when their wonderful offspring do what comes naturally and decide to go exploring.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but that misses the point.  I have never felt embarrassed if one of our kids (we currently have three, ages 6,4,2) gets up from a pew, despite our best intentions, and charges up the aisle to the front of the church.  What I have felt is what every parent feels if their child runs off in a public place.  It is not about embarrassment, it is about safety.  A church is a dangerous place for a wandering 4 year old.  Particularly an Anglican church.  Most of the churches we have worshiped at have free standing candles;  they have altar cloths which can easily be pulled down, they have any number of beautiful things which may be attractive to you and I and a 4 year old, but are only dangerous for the 4 year old. 

If I am "working" on a particular Sunday morning and the the rest of the felix hominum clan is in the pews, my wife is basically coming to church as a single parent.  Note to self:  further reflections on the practical dynamics of single parents coming to church is on the way...   But for now, although it may go against all common opinion, and current pastoral practice, I proclaim the parish equivalent of the African proverb:  it takes a parish to raise a child, especially during worship.  As you see my child wander, or running, or charging to the front, you may think:  oh, don't feel embarrassed.   What I really feel is:  I need to get him before he hurts himself - there is a world of danger to a young child in a traditional church building.   

Yes, this is very incomplete and there is a great deal to be said on the topic, and so I have introduced a new category in which I hope to more thoroughly address a few of the very practical considerations of this whole business of being fishers of men.