About Church Growth

Before he was consecrated and made the Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity in the ACC-OP, The Right Reverend Stephen Scarlett wrote this article. It has been posted on Virtue Online ever since. At the time Bishop Scarlett was Father Scarlett, and was serving as rector of St. Matthew's Church and School in Newport Beach, California.

Church Growth and Evangelism in the Anglican Catholic Church

The Right Reverend Stephen C. Scarlett

Introduction. Archbishop Haverland has commissioned us to begin an American initiative to promote the growth of our churches and the planting of new churches. The intent is for this to complement our mission efforts in other countries.

The issue to be addressed. Some Anglican Catholic churches are growing and some have built churches. But a large, perhaps majority number of our parishes exist in a steady or declining state. The typical congregation is faithful but older. There is a struggle to replace those who die or move and an even greater struggle to begin Sunday schools and other programs aimed at youth.

Before we can look for answers, we need to reflect upon the cause of our current condition. One contributing factor is the non-evangelical nature of the Anglo Catholic tradition as we have received it in the ACC. This is not a characteristic of Anglo Catholicism per se. For example, one can read the book, Glorious Battle, by John Sheldon Reed to see the very evangelical nature of many post Oxford Movement Anglo Catholics.

What is meant by the word evangelical? The Affirmation of St. Louis calls us to an "evangelical witness." This refers to a concern for the salvation and welfare of the world outside of our parish walls. More particularly, it refers to a concern for conversion of hearts to faith in Jesus Christ and a desire to instruct believers in the faith–to "make disciples."

One reason we have not been evangelically oriented is that evangelism was not the primary cause for which the ACC was founded in events of 1977-78 in St. Louis and Denver. The primary concern at our inception was to maintain the Faith that had been abandoned by the Episcopal Church. There was great and necessary concern to define and guard the parameters of Orthodoxy.

Many of the founding clergy of the ACC had, for many years, fought the battle against both low church attacks on the fullness of the faith and heretical attacks on the essentials of the faith. They held on to and bequeathed to us a church, but it was not their vocation and gift to shift gears and evangelize in the new world the ACC faced.

Most of the clergy who gathered for the events of St. Louis and Denver (1977-1978) were raised in the 1940's-1970's, which was a vastly different religious world that we now face. It was a world in which mainline denominations were strong and people identified with them. It was a world in which many were raised in a church. It was a world in which a man could go to seminary for three years and then expect to find a job in the church upon graduation. The ACC has in many ways continued to train men for ministry in the church that was.

In the years immediately following the 1978 consecrations, two others things undermined evangelism. First, the response to the Continuing Church was less than anticipated. There was expectation that thousands would join in a wave of enthusiasm over the new, orthodox Anglican alternative. Instead, thousands stayed put or stayed home. Also, many who came brought conflict. The raging battle of their former church became the defining feature of their new parish.

Second, there were internal divisions and fights among the Anglicans at the beginning and in subsequent chapters of the history. Those who were present know that sometimes issues of principle were at stake. However, the prospective converts did not know this. In the Acts of the Apostle we are constantly told how the unity of the church was foundation for its growth. Evangelism is always undermined by disunifying conflict. It instills a contentious attitude in those parishes that are involved in the conflict. All parish energy is sapped by the conflict so that there is no energy left for ministry. The very issue itself, whatever it is, tends to instill a more inward focus.

The net effect of the things outlined above is that, while ACC parishes are typically confident about the faith they hold, the are also typically uncertain about how to share this faith in their community.

Towards an evangelical Anglo Catholicism. We must begin by putting all past disappointments and conflicts behind us. Few who would be members of our parishes care about our old battles. Even fewer care about how it was done in St. Swithins in 1955. As Archbishop Cahoon once said, "We don't have time to waste answering questions that no one is asking."

The good news is that we are also freed from these things. Because we have made our break with heresy and are clear about our theological positions, we do not have to be stuck fighting or rehashing old battles. We can present our faith to the world around us in positive terms, in terms of what it is in its fullness. This will take a conscious change. Some of our clergy and people are more comfortable fighting the old battles than doing the work of an evangelist.

Meanwhile, the world around us has moved on in at least some positive ways. The 60's-70's reaction against tradition has become a return to tradition in the 21st century. There are young people out there who will embrace the whole faith if it is presented to them in an evangelical way. One of the delightful ironies I have witnessed is watching a college age convert to Anglicanism bringing his evangelical church parents to the liturgy. The traditional Christian is now the rebel against the established church of the nondenominational seeker and the established religion of secularism.

The ACC is positioned to welcome converts looking for a return to tradition. However, people will not come simply because we are there. And if they do come they will not stay in a church that is content to be a museum dedicated to the preservation of period Anglicanism. We must realize that change is necessary–perhaps a revolution.

Essential aspects of parish evangelism. The following comments are not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of what to do. But the following points are central and may at least begin the discussion.

1. From maintenance to mission. The first change that must take place is a transformation from concern about church maintenance to concern about the mission of the church. Being satisfied that we rightly performed the liturgy, balanced the budget and paid all the bills for one more year is not good enough. We must want to make new disciples.

We must begin to ask questions like, What is our mission and ministry in this community? How will we go about the business of asking people to come? How will we go about welcoming them when they do? What is our program for teaching the faith to newcomers? When will we have our Bible Studies? Who will teach them? What other programs do we want to offer?

We must believe that a growing ministry can take place in our churches–that God can do remarkable things among us. Much of our ministry is undermined by an unspoken attitude that says, "This is all we can be." The beginning of evangelism among us is faith that God has called us to do something and boldness to do it in new challenging ways.

2. All genuine efforts at evangelism begin with prayer. Without a serious church-wide commitment to pray about God's will for the parish and for parish growth, all efforts will be wasted. We are saved by grace and not by works. Each parish that wants to change should identify a core group of members that is willing to address the issue. The newly formed "Missions Committee" should begin with a study of Acts 1 and 2. The early church began in the upper room praying for the Holy Spirit to come. The first thing the Christians did was to pray and wait. The first thing a parish should do is pray and wait.

At St. Matthews in the mid 1990's, we set aside Tuesday nights for prayer and discussion about evangelism. We had evening prayer with special intercessions for the growth of our parish. We asked people to fast habitually as they prayed. After prayer, we discussed things we might do. Some hair-brained and almost heretical ideas were surfaced and rejected, but a sense of common calling came out of the prayer and discussion over time. The beginning of evangelism is to begin to ask and pray about the question.

The essential question we discussed was: Since people will not understand the liturgy coming in off the streets, how can we open other doors of entry? We ended up doing various things. The Alpha Course, dinners with seasonal themes, periodic evensong and dinners and an inquirer's classes. Each parish can discern, by prayer and discussion, what things might work in its particular setting.

3. Evangelism must be rooted in personal invitation. The key to any evangelistic endeavor is invitation. You must invite people to come to your church. All church studies make it clear that in excess of 80% of all new church members joined because someone invited them. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME TALKING ABOUT ADS. Go ahead and put an advertisement in the paper and in the Yellow Pages. Put it in and forget about it. It will get you an occasional visitor. That is it.

In terms of bang for the buck, web sites are much more effective than traditional newspaper advertisements. Young people routinely shop for and find things on the internet. If you become serious about evangelism, you will also become serious about developing a first class, missions oriented website.

However, the fact remains, YOU MUST INVITE PEOPLE TO COME TO YOUR CHURCH. You encounter God at your church. Why wouldn't someone you know also find God there? (If you don't encounter God at your church, the first step is to remedy that.) Once church members become willing and prayerful about inviting people, God will provide opportunities.

4. Develop non liturgical doors of entry. As you invite, you must remember that the liturgy is not meant to convert those who do not believe. Hence, it is better to invite people to things that are more accessible as a way of introduction to the parish. When people do come to the liturgy, there should be notice given of the next inquirer's class. It should be made clear that no one is expected to understand the liturgy on their first visit, but it should also be clear that the church offers a pathway to understanding–that we want visitors to know what we know.

5. Your membership is your first mission field. The whole apparatus of the church must be oriented towards spiritual growth. The life of prayer, centered on the daily offices and the Bible lectionary, must be promoted and practiced by the clergy and leading lay people. Promote the prayer book as a rule of life, not as a quaint historical artifact. Let parish discussion center on a common dialogue about the lectionary and spiritual growth–and not about church politics.

Many people who consider themselves to be traditional or catholic are still in need of greater conversion of the heart. Many people in our churches know the outward form of our religion but not its power to change lives. Aim at internal transformation first.

For many parishes, the first step in evangelism is to look at what is going on in the parish. What is our church all about? What are we inviting people to join? How would a neutral observer assess what we are doing? Is our church the kind of church that someone can join so as to grow in faith? Or is our church majoring in the minor things? Self-assessment leading to change will be the necessary starting point for evangelism in many places

6. There must be emphasis on the Bible. The Bible must be the main source of the churches teaching and preaching, and both must be aimed at conversion of the heart. Personal Bible reading and study must be emphasized. All evangelism is Bible centered; what was worthy in the English Reformation was its biblical emphasis. One of the greatest problems with modern Christians is that they learn their patterns of thinking from the newspaper and pop-psychology and not the Bible.

7. The ministry of the church must be based on the spiritual gifts of the members. We have used the book, Your Spiritual Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow, by Peter Wagner. It was recommended by Brother John Charles. It contains a spiritual gifts inventory that enables each member to discover his gifts. A gift-based ministry follows simple logic. By finding out what gifts God has placed in a certain church, we can find out what ministry God is calling that church to carry out.

For example, at St. Matthew's in the 1990's, our evangelism committee took the inventory. We discovered that no one had the gift for evangelism.–at least not in the sense of calling crowds of people to come to Jesus. But we discovered that many had gifts for hospitality and teaching. This has been the focus of our evangelism. A church can only know what God is calling it to do by knowing what kinds of gifts he has placed in it.

A gift-based ministry stands opposite of clericalism. If the task does not require a priest, find a gifted layman. The priest should encourage the ministries of others. The priest who micro-manages every aspect of the church hinders its growth.

8. Women should be also encouraged to exercise their gifts. We are clear that there are no women bishops, priests and deacons, but the Bible is clear that women have gifts that aid the body's growth, which include pastoral and teaching gifts. Ministry by women to women is especially important. Whether we like it or not, the fact in our culture is that the mother more often that not determines where the family goes to church.

9. Emphasize what is legitimately catholic. What is catholic is what has been believed everywhere always and by all. However, many churches hold as essential and catholic certain practices that were unknown in the church before the early to mid twentieth century. What is genuinely catholic will speak to people in a genuinely universal way. But the strange invention of 1952 that has become the litmus test of a catholic is a given parish will not speak to anyone but those already there. Consider getting rid of it.

This is sacred and controversial ground, but it must be tread upon in our discussion about mission. For example, I have seen parishes insist that their way of doing the liturgy is the most "catholic" way. But the only sure thing that could be said is this "catholic" liturgy is done that particular way NOWHERE ELSE IN ALL THE WORLD. When the most peculiar thing becomes the most catholic, we are worlds away from St. Vincent of Lerin–and from mission.

10. Get rid of programs that don't work. Do not continue with a particular program, schedule or event merely because "We have always done it this way." With regard to non-essentials, be willing to turn things upside down to promote healthy change–like Jesus did. It is very helpful for a church to have an annual or semi-annual leadership meeting to review what the church is doing.

11. Build the ministry of the church around the committed and willing and do not encourage or cater to the complainers. Find people in the parish who want to see evangelism and growth and who are willing to work, pray and give for it. Build the ministry around them. Put them in positions of leadership. Discourage those whose primary ministry seems to be that of criticism or ensuring no new thing is ever done. Do not cater to them nor put them in important positions. It is not good for them or the church.

12. Realize that evangelism in an Anglican context takes patience and perseverance. Our model will not be the doubling of a church every year. The commitment to pray for growth must be seen as a long term commitment. The conversation about evangelism must be ongoing. The horizon of answered prayer may be years. You will ask God to lead you in evangelism. God will ask you if you are serious by testing your perseverance.

13. We must put a significant emphasis on education. Our late Archbishop Stevens said that, in his experience, "a parish never rises above the educational level of its clergy." Clergy who have read for orders or have been educated in unaccredited Anglican houses of study should consider going back to school to pursue a master's level theological degree. The opportunities in each area differ, but most parts of the country have seminaries where classes can be taken in the evening and on line. Many of our clergy need more education in the areas of scripture, history and pastoral theology among other things. Many will not be effective in missions in our culture without more training.

In the first generation of the Continuing Church, many were hurried into ministry, with inadequate education, because it was thought that church needed someone "right now." In many places much damage was done. In other places, the lack of education limited the growth of the mission or church. In every case I am aware of, a better result would have been achieved by insisting that the person take the time to get the education. In our situation, the best model may be some program of Anglican Studies leading to ordination as deacon; and then an extended diaconate of several years while the man finishes an accredited master's degree. This policy is, of course, way beyond the concern of the missions committee. But we are kidding ourselves if we ignore the connection between clergy education and the potential of our parishes.

Lay education should also be stressed. There are educational opportunities for lay people in various seminaries. We should aim for active lay ministries.

Towards a method of implementation. I hope for input from others to greatly refine the comments made above and to expand the discussion into other areas with the goal of having a sort of how to book for the ACC.

It is probably necessary to have some regular gathering to focus on these things. However, the new form must not be the grab bag of ideas that characterized the old evangelism congresses. Rather, the new form must be presented by those who know what needs to be done and how to do it. Any new church-wide gathering would be preceded by a gathering of clergy and laity who would work out the form of training in advance. Or, it may be that the new form will be worked out in particular churches that are willing to do new things or in newly planted churches.

Some clergy may be hostile to the initiative for a while. That is okay. Nobody should be forced to do anything. However, by emphasis, this hostility should decrease and eventually disappear in ten to twenty years. The churches that are not interested may not be around that long anyway.

Concluding thoughts. The necessary revolution is not primarily about the faith or the liturgy. The revolution we need must deal with attitudes and habits of behavior that surround our practice of the faith and our worship. We must cease being content to be what we are for ourselves and realize that Christ has brought us into being to be the light of the world. The call to evangelism is a call to walk away from the mirror and to begin to look out the window at the world around us.

Self defeating

The question about why some Continuing Anglican churches seem doomed never to grow needs to be faced squarely. As I said in my recent post Three Assumptions, a significant proportion of the people, at least of the clergy, have allowed themselves to become "a very late model version of Anglo-Catholicism that has little in common with the real thing." Part of this inexplicable phenomenon is some crazy idea that Anglicans have no reason to be Anglicans at all (and yet they persist). After all, once they have dismissed their heritage with its formularies, presenting instead an open rejection of the very Anglicanism they claim to Continue, representing no conviction that endorses their own tradition, they are a pitiful sight. No wonder they cannot build anything, or attract a significant portion of new members.

The ignorance I have encountered from a frightening proportion of Anglican clergy (with frighteningly little to show for their efforts) concerning the writings of Anglican fathers and luminaries, is often compensated for by the propaganda they have swallowed from outspoken  proselytizers for one or the other of the Two One True Churches. In place of reading the English Reformers, they are very up to date on all the articles and blogs about English Reformers by those who treat all Anglicans as a mission field in need of conversion. Instead of knowing the works of genuine Anglican thinkers, they are very conversant on the works of open adversaries who labor tirelessly to distort, conceal, twist and otherwise deceive ignorant and gullible people to lead them away. 

One very liberating fact that such self-loathing Anglicans need to learn, and learn yesterday, is to stop swallowing everything dished up by the opposition. The Two One True Churches have their own Tokyo Roses broadcasting fear and defeatism over blogs, in books and in publications. Stop listening to it. If you want to know what Anglicanism is, learn it from Anglican sources - in fact, from primary sources. I do not care what some Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox blogger, author or editor has to say about the Anglican formularies, nor their own distorted version of history (besides, I have heard it all before). I have a really novel idea; why not study those formularies themselves? Why not read Anglican teaching from the great luminaries of our own tradition? 

Another liberating fact is that there is no such thing as a Roman-Orthodox consensus on Anglicanism. Not that I would care if both of the Two One True Churches did agree; but, their apparent agreement on anything, beyond a few basics, is mere fantasy. First of all, Rome and Orthodoxy have never agreed about Anglican orders. At one time, between 1922 and 1976, Orthodox bishops, with the full authority of their respective churches, allowed their people to receive the sacraments from Anglican clergy (i.e. until women's "ordination. "Yes, I know all about Kallistos Ware's endeavor to explain away the facts of history between 1922 and 1976. It was a noble effort, to the degree that denying facts can be noble. The simple reality is, his very, very scholastic and academic effort just does not hold water).

But, long before then and to this day, the Orthodox are forbidden to receive sacraments from Roman Catholic clergy. That is because any current denial of our orders, or argument against classic western theology, is simply an extension of their rejection of Roman Catholicism, and their tendency to condemn everything western. As such, it cannot amount to an agreement, unless someone says that the Orthodox rejection of Rome equals agreement with them about anything. It makes no sense.

If, however, you want to find the truth of genuine consensus that Continues the truth as received, believed and practiced by the Universal Church before the Great Schism, you need look no further than the Book of Common Prayer. There you have it. The Evangelical and Catholic Faith of the Universal Church has been preserved, including what few things Rome and Orthodoxy actually do agree about, namely ancient things we have never denied or rejected.

Or, if you prefer, you can tell everybody why you have no confidence in your own church's doctrine and practice. This method has been used for over thirty years, and it is obvious where it has been used consistently. It is obvious because nothing much remains to show for it. I prefer the contrast I see among churches where the people are happy to be Anglicans, and where they have made it clear that they are not a  mission field.

Fr. Nalls et al on clergy education

The Rev. Charles Nalls, SSM , The Rev. Mr. Jason Dechenne, SSM, and The Rev. Richard Sutter, SSM have written a paper about clergy education, a subject we have discussed here .

From the beginning of the traditional or “continuing” movement, the question of a qualified, educated and well-formed clergy has been most problematic. Untrained, poorly trained and/or poorly formed deacons, priests and elect have caused difficulties in evangelization and, indeed, simply maintaining existing parishes. A proliferation of unaccredited or specious seminaries, as well as the willingness of men to “train” in these entities, has cast the movement into further disrepute. Even in instances in which continuing Anglican bodies have attempted organic seminaries, results have been inconsistent and the popular image is one of the “diploma mill.”

This paper proffers some suggestions for remedying the formation-education crisis in a cost and time effective manner, using existing, accredited educational sources.

The rest of this paper is available by clicking here.

...with all thy mind

Anglican mission work has been successful in college towns to a degree that many church traditions have not. One of the chief attributes of our ethos is that we seem to thrive where the mind is challenged. Traditional Anglicans have never feared the arena in which intellectual prowess is required to defend the Faith. We have never feared the progress of science, the difficult questions of philosophy, the theory of evolution, or debates with atheists. In order to evangelize in the modern world it is necessary to have a tough and strong faith that stands up under the pressures of modern thought. But, in very recent years we have been given an ironic challenge: To withstand modern prejudice of the most "enlightened" kind as it comes to us from the age of higher illiteracy- the sort of illiteracy that only a very modern college can provide. In a time when people earn degrees that demonstrate no true education, but rather an amount of indoctrination, the time has come to recognize that modern education itself will collapse unless it is revitalized by its historical source, the Christian Church that created it in the first place.

A few years ago I spoke with a young woman who was majoring in English at the University of Maryland, and listened to her describe what she had been taught in a class on the works of William Shakespeare. Did she learn to appreciate his ingenious economy of words? Did she understand the meaning of his stories, whether the tragedy of Hamlet, a man who could not make up his mind, or the irony of MacBeth -how the promises made by the weird sisters were deceptive in their accuracy, and brought about their own punishment? Did she understand the guilty abdication of King Lear and the fruit of his sin visited on his own head? Did the comedies provide for her any pleasure, such as A Midsummer Nights Dream? The extent of her understanding of Shakespeare was simply this: She learned that it was important to detect the bias of "white male literature." The course was not intended to educate, but to do the very opposite. Instead of helping the mind to learn and grow, the course stifled the mind with irrelevance and the higher illiteracy of "enlightened" bigotry.

Saint Paul wrote to the Church of Rome that they needed to offer themselves to the Lord; that this was their reasonable liturgy of prayer that involves the whole of life poured out to God. But, in order to do so, they had to renew their minds (Romans 12: 1, 2). To think as a Christian is not easy, especially in this era. We live in a time in which many people catch their opinions (or, as they say, their feelings) the way that one catches a virus. To assimilate the bias of modern “civilization” requires no effort, because we are surrounded by sound bites and other forms of subliminal propaganda. Ideas are fed into our minds before we know what has happened, and we never had to think. The use of Right Reason, along with Scripture and Tradition, as the authoritative way to learn and know the truth, is an art and discipline that takes effort. It requires the effort of refuting wrong ideas, and the more serious task of learning the truth.

In many ways, to think with a Christian mind is as defiant as human flight. It seems unnatural to wrestle the powers of gravity, to take off and soar, and then to land. Indeed, a pilot must intend at every moment of flight to keep the airplane up, and must work to do so, or it will come crashing down. That is what it is like to think with a renewed mind, that is, with a Christian mind. It requires intention and effort to defy the gravity of the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, which uses every means to abolish thought. Thank God that we have been given help. We have at our disposal a rich collection of writing that is suited for our times, with keen intellectual prowess and prophetic insight, yet written for the common man.

We cannot expect the young students of this age to grapple with our theologians, such as Francis Hall and Eric Mascall, until they have learned to think (which may require unlearning many anti-intellectual habits of the modern university system). We do have writers who can reach across the divide, however. And, as always, one name stands out in particular. Chief among the most relevant and helpful of modern writers was the great Anglican thinker, C.S. Lewis.

A great deal of attention has been drawn to his fictional works, by, of all unlikely sources, Disney studios. And, indeed, his fictional writing is excellent. In addition to the Narnia stories, his space trilogy contains one of the greatest English novels of modern times, That Hideous Strength. Even in works of fiction, his Christian philosophy is expressed in the clearest of terms, containing the prophetic element by which his critique of modern (or post modern) anti-culture becomes more relevant as time passes, than during his lifetime. Yet, even more helpful still, in any honest endeavor to sharpen mental faculties, is his non-fiction, which comprises the bulk of his extant published works. In order to jump in and benefit from a good collection of his best thinking, no better book with which to begin is the collection of essays published under the title God in the Dock.

In one volume, the reader is given a sample of Lewis as theologian and philosopher, as moralist and social critic. His religious devotion and literary knowledge contribute to the overall understanding of the man, and of his renewed Christian mind, in such a way as to help the mental pilot who is only just learning to keep his mind soaring above the gravity of a fallen world. Of course, before making the effort of reading Lewis- easy to do as he combines light reading with heavy thinking in a most engaging style- the decision to fly must first be made. One must first decide that it is the religious duty of Christians to learn and to think. But, remember, flying, though requiring intention and effort, can be quite pleasurable.

Getting back to the need to save education from the bigotry, intellectual laziness and indoctrination of this age; just as I said about seminaries I say about the university system in the modern world. We must not simply equal the accredited institutions of alleged higher learning; we must surpass them. In very practical terms, students need history and classical languages, since linguistic roots are essential knowledge to anyone who wants to understand serious thought. Why would I even bring this up among Continuing Anglicans who are trying to grapple with the problem of clergy education, and keep their own churches afloat? Who better?

Clergy Education Part II

The last time we took up this subject, I had mentioned that two needs exist. 1) A practical way to deliver the advantages of a seminary education to men who cannot quit their jobs and run off to school, and 2) defining acceptable standards that go across the current jurisdictional lines.

At this time only one seminary exists in the Continuing Church movement, namely, St. Joseph of Arimathea Seminary in Berkeley California. This seminary serves the Anglican Province of Christ the King exclusively, and the credit for its building goes mostly to now retired Archbishop Robert Morse. In a previous post I stated that all of the good qualities that, in the past, were associated with Nashotah House, are found at this seminary. The academic program is excellent, and the life that a student is expected to live, centered on the daily life of prayer that begins and ends in the chapel (with a Mass in the middle of the day), is as fine as can be.*

In general, throughout Continuing Church bodies, the priests who did not transfer from ECUSA, have needed education that is as fine as the standards once held by the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican churches in other countries. From what I have seen of the quality of seminary education in the Episcopal Church in the United States, I can safely say, it is not what it once was. Along with spiritual decline has been intellectual and academic decline. The current standards of the Episcopal Church seminaries have become pathetic, and that includes Nashota House (and, I do not know how much this is the case in other countries. I do suspect that many of them, C of E, Canada, etc., have been in decline as well). It is not enough to say that we must equal those seminaries: We must surpass them.

And, here again is the problem that most seminarians are not young men straight out of college, but men in their late thirties, usually already in their forties, with wives, children and mortgages. In the APCK, such men are expected to find a way to live in Berkeley, no matter where they have been living. The archbishop was a combat veteran of World War II, and a young college graduate who was ordained in the 1950s. The model he was accustomed to does not fit these times in a practical way. The trend today, clergy who are older and more experienced in life, is a good trend; but, it means we must deliver clergy education by the older model: Reading for Orders under the guidance of the Bishop Ordinary, with as much hands on training as is required. Yet, we must have standards that are generally known and accepted.

In comments from an earlier post, a reader from Down Under, Sandra McColl, mentioned the areas in which clergy must be educated. Her list was so good that I am breaking the commandment and stealing it (well, not exactly. She consented to this appropriation of her intellectual property back in July).

1)"...a subject dedicated to the best of the Anglican theological tradition (Hooker, the Caroline divines, the non-jurors, the Oxford fathers, assorted chunks of Mascall and Farrer)..."

2) "Greek and Hebrew..." The Bible languages (most seminaries in the Episcopal Church never taught Hebrew by the way, just Greek. My knowledge of Hebrew has made me the odd man out, especially as I was taught S'phardic Hebrew at a Jewish college.)

I will add, some Latin, the liturgical language of our Western tradition.

3) "...music: both a survey of the Anglican musical tradition and practical training in basic skills such as singing the note that the organist has just played for you, reading chant and modern musical notation..." This may seem unimportant to a few Low Churchmen; but St. Bede records just how important this instruction was considered to be in his day.

This third point leads to a bigger one: A very detailed knowledge of liturgy, both the liturgy of the Mass and of the daily offices of Morning and Evening Prayer that come from the Benedictine tradition and that are of the essence of the Anglican life of prayer (the Prayer Book is not just a book of services: it is a simplified Regula for all of life).

I add these:

4) Church history (Not just Anglican history).
5) Pastoral ministry, including the practical instruction it takes to be a good confessor, a good instructor for confirmands, etc.
6) Sacramental theology
7) Practical business matters of church administration and finance.

Furthermore, the student must be instructed in his own spiritual formation through daily prayer and his pursuit of holiness and the formation of godly character.

Now, how do we go about the practical business of making this education available to men where they live? How do we set in place the confidence that high standards are being applied as a norm that crosses the current jurisdictional lines?

* I have been critical of the APCK in general, despite its orthodoxy and the fine spiritual quality of most of the clergy that I have known. My criticism has never been about the seminary program, but about the unpredictable behavior of bishops. My statements should serve as a warning to any man who is seeking Holy Orders in the APCK, that he must be prepared economically. He must be ready for any sort of capricious decisions that will, if he is not financially secure, suddenly and without warning remove all of the support that a postulent should expect from his bishop and diocese. He is on his own, and the needs of his wife and children must come first.

Clergy education

In a series of at least two or three posts I want to open (as I had promised a few weeks ago) the question of clergy education. One of our readers, upon seeing this subject raised in comments, put forth ideas that are due some very serious attention, along with other ideas that I had discussed with individuals in private correspondence before my recent move. Before discussing ideas, however, I want to use this first posting on the subject to raise questions and identify problems that should be overcome.

First of all, even with my very real objections to missteps by bishops of the Anglican Province of Christ the King, I must still correct a notion, put forth in comments, that the St. Joseph of Arimathea Seminary in Berkeley has been producing what a reader called “90 day wonders.” The program takes two years of full time study, and would take the usual three but for the apparent need for clergy ‘in the field” to do the work of the ministry. So I was told by Archbishop Robert Morse late in 2005. Having seen the seminary in action, I know that the academic program there is quite excellent (far superior to what any of the ECUSAn seminaries is doing these days), and that it is combined with the requirement that students must attend, in the seminary chapel, Morning Prayer, a Mass at noon, and Evening Prayer each day. Archbishop Provence (recently made Archbishop of the APCK) once told me that any student who missed the prayer services could not attend classes that day. I believe that this approach is good and healthy, as the student learns the importance of daily prayer, and becomes grounded in a community of prayer as part of his education and preparation for the sacred ministry.

But, many of the men who have felt the call to ordained ministry, and who have been accepted into the seminary, have faced the difficulties of giving up jobs and of relocating their families to the city rightly called “Bezerkeley.” In short, except for men who were already priests (like Fr. Edwards and me) and who transferred into the APCK, the only route to priestly ministry, that is, the only route for a postulant to holy orders, is through that one seminary located in a disreputable town all the way out on the West coast. Forgetting, for the moment, that experience has proved that the APCK is, at best, a very bad place for any man to gamble the economic welfare of his family and future, due to increasing episcopal mistreatment of faithful clergy, the question of practicality arises.

Back in the 1950s, when Robert Morse was a young man who had served his country in combat during World War II, the average seminarian was just that- a young man. It was not uncommon for the students in seminary to be recent college graduates in their twenties. Today this is not the case. Frankly, it is probably a very good thing that most men who prepare for ordination are in their forties, with wives, children, jobs and mortgages. Add to this the fact that seminary itself is a very recent development in history, and that even through most of the nineteenth century the average postulant would “read for orders” under the direction of the Diocesan Bishop (or someone appointed by the bishop). Therefore, how practical is the seminary model in this day and age? Perhaps the seminary must continue, but only as one method of clergy education with the option of at least one more method. That other method would be to restore “reading for orders" under episcopal direction. The danger in this proposal, of course, is that a genuine problem of “90 day wonders” becomes even more of a problem. Furthermore, the problem could arise that different standards of education could cause uncertainty between jurisdictions and even between dioceses within jurisdictions.

The need exists, due to the times in which we live, for a program that can be taken on the road, that is under the direction of bishops in each diocese of each jurisdiction, but that has recognized standards that cross the boundaries, and that promote confidence on the part of everyone.

More will come in this series. For now, I am throwing these questions wide open to the readers The Continuum.