So – for the last 2 days I’ve been at the Axelson Symposium at North Park University. It has been a great opportunity for continuing education. I have really enjoyed the workshops talking about creativity, innovation, and nonprofit management. The first day was spent doing a full-day workshop. It promoted organization change using assessment, visioning, and planning. I have tools that will be useful to any job or nonprofit that I’m involved with. The second day had several sessions throughout the day with the first plenary session talking about innovation in the nonprofit. I also attended a workshop on transformation that was just wonderful. She promoted creative thinking and spiritual renewal. And she gave me an idea for my sermon this week…always a bonus!
In Authority class the other day, we had a conversation about what kind of authority the authors of Radical Orthodoxy have. Having spent a great deal of time on reading and researching them (I presented on Monday on several chapters), I found that I did give them authority. I learned that they most participated in their religious communities. They are having these discussions in the midst of seeing how their communities might respond.
We got talking about Christian theologians who are not practicing Christians. I ran into this issue in England. Faculty of Divinity could not begin theology classes with prayer because of the number of non-Christians taking the classes. Yes, I understand that some of it had to do with complementary classes for other majors, but several were going into Christian theology. I don’t understand why you would want to be a Christian theologian and not be a Christian. Can I really offer a non-practicing Christian theologian as much authority as I would grant to a person worshipping and reflecting in community?
Today, we’re talking about funerals in Liturgical Practicum. There is always the question of caskets. How much do you spend? What is it so expensive? Well, there is an alternative…casket furniture. Morbid? Maybe – but think about the reusability of it! Reduce, reuse, recycle!
Yesterday, in liturgical practicum class, we discussed weddings. I asked about having the couple get married by a Justice of the Peace and then coming to the church to bless the marriage. Since I did the premarital, martial, and family counseling class at Garrett last spring, I have thought some about the whole process of weddings and getting married. Other people in my class have not thought so much about it.
I know that it’s not “traditional”. I know that some people get offended. It’s not a ditch that I’m willing to die in. But I would much rather be there in the liturgical sense, leading the community in worship and celebration of a union – of marriage – than doing the whole legal action stuff. I’d prefer to let the state take care of the legally bound stuff. I will gladly do premarital counseling, discernment, and a beautiful ceremony (within the canons of the church).
Part of the last term of seminary is practicing doing Eucharistic services. I was “priest” today. It went really well. The whole thing – stole, chasible, walk through the whole thing. I sang Eucharistic Prayer A. An interesting experience. I’m glad that I went first and had the opportunity to be done with that part. Now I can just enjoy the rest – though I will preach during one later.
I would really like to practice Eucharistic Prayer D, Mozarabic chant – but I’ll just do that later and invite people to come along. I couldn’t get it all together and feel confident by today.
I am now on my third day of classes. Hard to believe that I’m back in class. It’s slightly odd. Trevor is teaching Authority in the Anglican Tradition. He asked us to write definitions to several words: authority, orthodoxy, heresy, tradition, innovation, persuasion.
With Trevor’s voice in my head saying, “Theology needs to be public” I posted my definitions on the site. The disclaimer: Very tentative; open to change. Trevor has said that we will be building on and changing these definitions over the course. Tripp asked some hard questions about power in authority. I couldn’t resolve that tension, and therefore haven’t put anything in about power yet.
For my independent study on leadership, I am reading Good to Great by Jim Collins. It is really interesting to read about businesses that have done incredibly well due to some great leaders. What is even more fun is trying to figure out which attributes I need to take and incorporate into my leadership.
Overall, I think that it is a great book as I consider leadership within a church. It makes me ask the questions, “Why are we doing this? What’s the point? What’s the goal?” Should church be about striving to be the best? What would we be best at?
Collins makes the case that to be the best doesn’t take any more energy than just being “good” or “successful”. This is an interesting point. And after reading through the whole study, I find myself wanting to figure out how to be the best church – whatever niche that falls in for my community. The best at making disciples of Christ or the best at helping people develop their relationship with God. My fear for the Episcopal Church is that we will just continue our steady decline into oblivion.
Those things that make companies great can be used in church – how to get people on board that have energy and desire to build up something great and then how to develop the plan for what that great thing will be. Getting people on board to form a team is always difficult. The leader has to define that it’s about “us” and not about “me”. It’s going to be “our church”, not “my church”. (Yes, for those of you familiar with the phrase “it’s all about me” – it’s really not – and I really want to be part of a team that works together. It’s always more fun that way.)
Some of the business aspects bothered me. It was about building monetarily – and this is not where I’m at at all. Then, Walgreens (for which I have much more respect after this book) would move locations if they found a better one – even if it was only 1/2 a block down. This explains what I have seen in some communities. But, the lost resources bother me. What happens to the building that is now vacant? Is the company studying to find out environmental impact of this? I know that they’re not concerned – but I am.
The better story comes with Merck (194). “Merck does not view its ultimate reason for being as making money. ‘We try to remember that medicine is for the patient…It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been,’ George Merck 2d.” This comment came after the explanation that they had developed a drug that cured river blindness. The only market is in Amazon – where no one has money to pay for it. They give it away.
As they know that it’s not about the money, so the church needs to remember that it’s not about the numbers. Developing a community where people are welcome and can explore deepening their faith while reaching out to others will naturally bring people in. The church needs to decide its core values, build on them, and preserve them over time (195).
It’s over!!!!!!!! And it’s time for bed to get rested up for day #2. So far…so good. For those of you praying – THANKS! It’s working!
Part of the whole ordination process is a big test. The General Ordination Examination is given every January. It is a requirement for ordination to the priesthood. This next Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, I will be writing essay answers for 8 hours each day. You can look at sample questions if you’re curious to know the kinds of questions that I will be asked.
I am back at Seabury for the exam and staying in a guest suite. It is nice to be back with friends, but weird after being gone for 6 months.
So, this is an issue that I’ve been thinking about for a while. I’m really interested in talking about the theology of what comes after our earthly life and how we see that portrayed in our liturgy and in the things that we say to grieving people.
Often, I hear things that I think are just awful – “God needed that person in heaven”. But, looking at other sources, even the comment, “That person is celebrating with God today in heaven” seems to be wrong.
Catechism, “The Christian Hope”, BCP 1979, 861-862
Q. Why do we pray for the dead?
A. We pray for them, because we still hold them in our love, and because we trust that in God's presence those who have chosen to serve him will grow in his love, until they see him as he is.
Q. What do we mean by the last judgment?
A. We believe that Christ will come in glory and judge the living and the dead.
Q. What do we mean by the resurrection of the body?
A. We mean that God will raise us from death in the fullness of our being, that we may live with Christ in the communion of the saints.
These (and the rest of the questions in the section), point to a theology of the resurrection of the body. Another seminarian once told me that this is the theology. So, we don’t die and meet Jesus right away.
But what about the collects used in the burial office?
“Accept our prayers on behalf of thy servant N., and grant him an entrance into the land of light and joy, in the fellowship of thy saints;” (BCP 470).
“Receive him into the arms of thy mercy, into the
blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious
company of the saints in light” (BCP 483).
Are we really saying then that we are praying these prayers for an event in the future? I’ve never heard them this way. I’m worried about this from a pastoral perspective. Obviously, not everyone agrees about what happens (and we can never know), but I feel like I kind of missed some major point somewhere along the line.
At his father’s funeral, Stanley Hauerwas says, “But the great good news is that he has joined the other saints of God’s kingdom gathered around the throne. He is among those who now worship God, continually sheltered as they are by one who alone is worthy of worship. He has joined the great communion of saints, that same communion that we enjoy through God’s great gift of this meal of genleness…” (In Good Company: The Church as Polis, 1995, 48).
The BCP and Hauerwas don’t line up for me. Others have suggested to me that there is a delay between the death and the moment of meeting God but “it doesn’t matter, we’re dead – we have no concept of time” or “God’s time happens instantaneously, there is a break, but there isn’t”.
I would appreciate some feedback on this. Are there other sources that I should look at? Is there something that I missed?
I was able to attend a lecture by John Polkinghorne. He was really interesting to listen to. The lecture is part of a series on “Perspectives on the Mind”. In his great way of trying to use science and Christianity to explain each other, he talks about systems and the need to look at the whole system (as opposed to just part of it). This brought up the idea about person-hood. He says, “I am more than an end – I’m a person – and I’m influenced by people around me. Relationships that I have influence my ‘personhood’”. This I thought was very interesting based on several conversations about how blogs might or might not make community. Can we count interactions on the internet as being influential to who we are? I did ask at the end – and Polkinghorne thinks that the answer to this is, “yes.”
I found another idea very interesting. He was working up to it (for basically his last sentence). He had talked about how the soul is also a complex pattern. It has information and it accumulates and develops (hence, the “personhood” changing when interacting with others). If the soul is an information-bearing pattern, then it will decay with death. There is no natural immortality. The soul, not interacting with others, will decay to nothing. The only hope is faithfulness of God. God will hold in divine memory the pattern of my “soul” and then will bring about the re-embodiment in the eschatological event.
Wow! Um…still not sure that I think this, but it was definitely a thought-provoking speech. It would also seem to change our discussion during funeral sermons.
One of the coolest parts about being in seminary/theological college is the ability to eavesdrop on conversations. A memorable conversation occurred between John Dally, Ruth Meyers, and Bob Finster during GOE prep last year. They were a great model of theological discussion – asking questions of each other, talking about experience and knowledge and references. Any conversation between Trevor and AKMA is (usually) worth listening to.
My most recent eavesdrop was between David Ford and Markus Bockmeuhl. They were discussing the 4th Gospel – authorship, intention, sources. Not planned, just random conversation over tea after a seminar.
Another random experience – I ran into Walter Bruggeman’s wife at church last week!
There are several seminars that occur here. Scholars are able to present their papers (usually chapters of books that are going to come out). Some discussion happens at the end. Yesterday, we were discussion Sanctification. Baptism came up (which is related to another post coming soon). I posted some of the questions with some debated answers. Anything to add?
1. Why did John baptize?
There seems to be a big debate about this. I had no idea. Maybe continuing Jewish cleansing rites? A new exodus – taking people into a “new country”? (this ties John’s baptism directly to the Jordan – can’t happen/doesn’t need to happen in other places)
2. Did Jesus baptize?
Yes – why else would we do it now?
No – didn’t need to when away from the Jordan…OR…had to wait until after the resurrection and ascension and then the Holy Spirit coming.
A random one:
3. Which veil was torn at the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:51)?
the inside one – but no one could have seen it.
where were others?