When receiving the Eucharist: To be succinct, don't intinct

This was mentioned in response to another post elsewhere on Facebook, but became a general plea here. That plea is to not do intinction when receiving the Eucharist — something that is very common amongst Old Catholics and Episcopalians. The usual argument for it is that it's supposedly more sanitary.

However, intinction (dipping the bread into the wine) is actually less sanitary than simply sharing the chalice. The mouth is home to far fewer bacteria than what people carry under their fingernails, even if they've just washed their hands. And the wine's antiseptic anyway.

A friend on Facebook pointed out that the contamination from the fingernails sits on top of the wine's surface tension, so the wine's antiseptic properties don't work as well.

If you're turned off by sharing a cup with strangers, then you can simply refrain from receiving the wine. There is no rule that everyone has to receive the Eucharist in both kinds; in fact according to church tradition, Christ is fully present in both, so you can just receive the bread or the wine.

Then there's the issue of treating the Eucharist with due reverence. I know the concept of Real Presence (or the Roman Catholic version of it, transubstantiation) turns some people off or seems like hocus pocus superstition. Unfortunately, given the way some people explain it or demand others to accept it, I can fully understand why it turns off a lot of people. That said, I think it's really a kind of awareness exercise. For me, the basic idea of the Real Presence is that by saying the Eucharistic prayer, the assembled group led by a priest transforms the bread in some way into the Body and Blood of Christ — "this is my Body, this is my Blood". That doesn't mean you would see muscle and blood cells under a microscope, and that's totally beside the point of the exercise anyway. The point is what the change is for, which is that the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine take on a highly charged and potent symbolic meaning. They represent — and are — the Logos of Creation itself, the Word become flesh, and become something very precious to hold.

The idea and hope is that by treating bread and wine with this highest reverence, we then learn to treat everything else in Creation with that same reverence, be it the environment or relationships with other people or even just the food on your table — don't be wasteful in any way, but be mindful of all. The less wasteful we are and the more mindful of our resources and our selves we are, the more there is to go around for everyone, in particular the poor and needy.

Intinction, unlike simply drinking from the chalice, risks dripping wine and dropping crumbs everywhere. So it's not only not a very respectful way to treat the Body and Blood of Christ (would you want to carelessly drop Jesus on the floor?), it's also potentially more wasteful. The hope is that we learn to also not waste normal food or resources and learn to be watchful and mindful of how we treat everyone and everything.

In the Anglican liturgical tradition, there is the wonderful line after the Eucharistic prayer has been said: "The gifts of God for the people of God. Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving." To me this emphasizes what Creation itself is a gift, and we should be thankful for — and mindful of — every aspect of that Creation, right down to the last crumb of bread and last drop of wine.

Some of course will now think of oral communion, that is, having the priest place the bread on the person's tongue. I think it's worth pointing out that the early Church (such as the catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem) taught communicants to "make the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King", and then to raise the bread to the mouth, consuming it all at one go. This has the advantage of not letting crumbs go anywhere, and you can quickly check the palm of your hand to see if any are left. So receiving the Eucharist with your hands is solidly traditional in the Church, far more so than oral communion, and has practical benefits as well.

In one parish I visited recently, I noticed that the distribution of Communion felt careless. Nothing was held under the consecrated bread to keep crumbs from falling as pieces were torn off, and no one seemed much bothered about what to do with the leftovers. It made me wonder if the attendees really believed anything special had happened to the bread and wine. Yet this was a parish whose church at least notionally believes in the Real Presence. To be honest, I was very distressed at how carelessly the people there treated the Sacrament and (whether intentionally or not) Jesus Himself in that Sacrament, because the message sent was that the Sacrament itself was not much more meaningful than having tea and cookies. And half the tea and cookies end up in the trash, because, well, meh. Is this how we want to treat our Savior, or our mother Earth, or our fellow human beings? Shouldn't we instead pay closer attention, be mindful of the sacred, and carry that mindfulness into the wider world in order to make it a better and holier place?

So…a plea to my fellow Old Catholics and Anglicans. Please consider not receiving by intinction — it's not terribly respectful, and it's not even sanitary, in fact it's less so. So why do it?

Essay: "I am an Anglican"

You may recall my mentioning an essay contest from the Anglican Communion back in October. This is the text I sent as my entry. Now that the deadline has passed, the Eve of Epiphany and my 50th blog entry is as good a time as any to publish it here. Comments and pokes in the eye with sharp sticks are welcome.

---

I am an Anglican

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Given the stormy seas of the Anglican Communion in recent years, I believe Anglicans the world over need to remind themselves of just why we are Anglicans, and why we should remain so in spite of our own discomfort or disagreements.

This article will provide many such reasons of my own, in hopes that others may share in them and build on them with their own. I have divided them into seven parts – an auspicious number, since it is the number of the Messiah, in Whose name and (hopefully) with Whose help I write these words.

I am an Anglican, and I ask you to read these words and join me in sharing our wonderful and glorious faith.

Part I: Expressions of koinonia and communion

I am an Anglican because I believe Anglicanism is the best hope in the world for providing a model for the unity of all Christians. If all the major denominations were to suddenly heed Christ’s prayer that they all may be one, the result would look remarkably like our Anglican Communion, with the Bishop of Rome taking on a position analogous to our Archbishop of Canterbury, as a focus of communion but not the leader of it.

I am an Anglican because our Anglican Communion is the best living reflection of the dictum quoted by Pope John XXIII and usually attributed to Augustine of Hippo: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas – “in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion.”

I am an Anglican because our church is such a large tent. Where others see weakness, division, confusion, inconsistency, and disharmony, I see a great family united in its diversity. A jewel only reveals its beauty when it has many facets, and so it is with our Communion. Only in our Anglican Communion can one find such a wide range of theology and practice, and yet somehow we stay together, with God’s help. Where there is dissent, we seek to resolve it through dialogue, not by threat of punishment; by communication, not excommunication.

I am an Anglican because we as a Communion can agree to disagree, such as on the issue of women’s ordination. Some member churches practice it, some don’t, some only partially, and there is no pressure from above to conform at an international level. Within some member churches, attempts to make careful provision for those who cannot in good faith accept women’s ordination have been made. Regardless of the success or merits of these attempts, this is a step which goes to show what lengths we Anglicans are willing to pursue to preserve our unity, something which is practically impossible in other churches. Thus we show a way forward to a future where all Christians are united not just in our baptism, but in the communion of our churches as well.

Part II: Expressions of faith in worship

I am an Anglican because of the richness, poetry, and power of our liturgical tradition. Along with the works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible, the words of the Book of Common Prayer are one of the greatest pillars of the English language, sounding immediately familiar to anyone hearing them. No other English-language liturgy comes close. No adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer by other churches, be it the Book of Divine Worship, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, or others, compares to the majesty of the original language in its entirety.

I am an Anglican because of our glorious musical heritage, from Anglican Chant to Elgar to Prichard to Wesley to Merbecke to Ellerton to Purcell to Byrd to Vaughan Williams. That tradition is second to none in the English-speaking world, perhaps even in the whole world.

Part III: Expressions of koinonia and communion in ecumenism

I am an Anglican because we welcome and engage in dialogue with other churches like no other. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is a unique invitation to all Christians to transcend our differences and to come together as one Body of Christ based on four simple ideas. Similarly, the Bonn Agreement with the Old Catholics shows the way for true communion and fellowship in a model that is unique in its simplicity, forthrightness and mutual respect. The same goes for our agreements with the Philippine Independent Church, the Mar Thoma Church, and so on. And, of course, at a local level member Anglican churches are forging ahead in joining with other churches, such as the “Called to Common Mission” agreement between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church in the United States, or the Anglican-Methodist Covenant in Britain, or the Porvoo Agreement in northern Europe, or the Churches of North and South India.

I am an Anglican because we do not declare other churches or Christians are deficient, invalid, or substandard. Instead we invite them in love to share our faith and to find common ground in humility and charity.

I am an Anglican because we invite all baptized Christians to join us at the table for Holy Communion. As Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt 7:1). It is not our place, nor the place of any institution on Earth, to judge others and decide for them whether they are worthy to receive the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Part IV: Continuity and reason

I am an Anglican because on the one hand, we have an unbroken continuity going all the way back to St. Augustine of Canterbury and the Irish Church, and through them to the Apostles themselves and thus to Our Lord Jesus Christ, while not being suffocated under the rule of a single leader or Magisterium or endless statements and confessions of faith.

I am an Anglican because we do not presume to speak in God’s name infallibly on our own. Instead, we walk together the path of Christ to find and follow God’s Will, wherever that path may lead.

I am an Anglican because our church does not try to explain the unexplainable, as in the case of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, preferring as Richard Hooker did to simply accept that sacraments are mysteries and let God do the rest.

I am an Anglican because our church does not presume to second guess science. Instead, Reason is one of the three pillars of our faith, along with Scripture and Tradition, and Church and science live together in harmony, not as rivals, but as complementary pieces of the Truth. Indeed, the motto of the Anglican Communion is the words of Our Lord Jesus, written in Greek in the windrose that symbolizes our Communion: ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς (“the Truth shall set you free,” John 8:32b).

I am an Anglican because I am proud and delighted to be in communion with scientists like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon, Robert Hooke, Lord Kelvin, and Sir John Polkinghorne, as well as with the members of the Society of Ordained Scientists or the Episcopal Church Network for Science, Technology and Faith in the USA.

Part V: Communion of saints

I am an Anglican because we adopt and honor Christians of all denominations as our saints. It is hard to imagine any other church having Martin Luther King (Baptist), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Lutheran), Óscar Romero (Roman Catholic), and Elizabeth Romanova (Russian Orthodox) commemorated together as statues on the walls one of its most significant churches, as we do on Westminster Abbey, together with “our” modern saints like Manche Masemola and Bishop Janani Luwum.

I am Anglican because we choose to honor certain saints even when it means admitting and highlighting mistakes of the past made in our church’s name, such as Thomas More, John Fisher, and Charles King and Martyr.

I am an Anglican because we join with all the saints in a great communion transcending death each time we celebrate the Eucharist, while not sliding into plain superstition or cults that divert from Christ Himself.

Part VI: Manifestation of the Church Catholic

I am an Anglican because I believe the Anglican Communion is a full and complete reflection of the ideals of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church Fathers. It contains the full essence of the koinonia, the community of the early Church, in its episcopal governance in apostolic succession and with territorial jurisdictions, with bishops acting together as equals. The Church has no head but Christ Himself, and in His name the leadership is shared by all bishops together. All bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome, are the true successors of Peter.

I am an Anglican because as Hippolytus of Rome wrote in his Apostolic Traditions, our bishops are commonly “chosen by all the people,” not appointed from above by a distant prelate with little or no consultation of the full body of believers. In this way truly all the parts of the Body of Christ play equally important roles in its vitality and continuity, regardless of whether one is clergy or lay. By this, the Holy Spirit works through each and every one of us to our fullest potential, and it also has the virtue of preventing any one individual from taking the Church in a way it was never intended to go.

I am an Anglican because our priesthood and bishops are closest to the descriptions we find in the Epistles, especially when it comes to having families: In the letter to Titus, bishops are described not as celibate or monastic, but being “the husband of one wife”. The Church Fathers clearly believed all Apostles except John were married and had families, which is supported in numerous parts of the New Testament (e.g. Mark 1:29-31, Matthew 8:14-15, Luke 4:38-39, 1 Timothy 3:2+12). One example is in 1 Corinthians 9:5, where it says: “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” Even the so-called “first Pope”, Peter, was himself married, as mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, and at least one Pope, Anastasius I, was succeeded by his own son, Innocent I. Even as late as Pope Honorius (died 1287), there were Popes who were married and had children. Therefore there is no logical reason on the basis of Scripture or Tradition that married people should be excluded from Holy Orders at any level.

I am an Anglican not because Anglicanism is a “Catholic alternative” to Rome, but because it is a true living manifestation of the Church Catholic: a priesthood of all believers where all are one in Christ. As it says in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”, and in Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”. Thus the whole body of Christ takes part in all decisions in its synods of all believers, rather than being beholden to the decisions of one man or a tiny elite.

I am an Anglican not because it is “Catholic and reformed” or “reformed Catholic”, but because as a local church celebrating the sacraments, in particular the Eucharist, the Anglican Communion is a full expression of the Church Catholic without excluding other churches from being the same. So too are we a full manifestation of the Church just as each person of the Trinity is a full manifestation of God. These are the central aspects of how the Church Fathers describe the polity of the Church (cf. Leuenberg Documents 11, p. 93), therefore from the view of the Church Fathers’ ecclesiology, we are not “reformed” Catholic, nor are we “part” of the Church Catholic, we are Catholic.

I am an Anglican because our Catholicity is reflected most clearly in the fact we celebrated the sacraments in the vernacular centuries before it became common practice in the Roman church, allowing all to participate fully in the sacramental life of the Church. This has sadly been forgotten in other churches, which continue to uphold dead languages as a gold standard, so that few even understand what is being said, whether it is Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Greek or Aramaic. The irony is that the Latin Mass, today so bitterly defended by Western traditionalists versus the vernacular, was instituted originally because the people of Rome didn’t speak Greek, which at the time was the only language used. Latin was the vernacular at the time, so for the same reason the old Roman church celebrated in Latin, we celebrate in our own languages without question or controversy.

Part VII: Homeward bound

I am an Anglican because I searched for years for a church to call home in a place where all churches seem to be slowly dying, with widespread church closures and empty pews, and where committed Christians are now in the minority. In no other church outside our communion partners did I find the same Catholic essence, such as the emphasis on the Blessed Sacrament of Communion or the historic episcopate, combined with the comprehensiveness that is so integral to what it means to be Anglican. In no other church do I clearly see the past in unbroken tradition, the present in being accessible and relevant to the people of today, and the future in its supple institutions and vibrant activity so finely balanced. Once I found a place to live as an Anglican again within our communion, I came home, and that is where I shall stay.

I am an Anglican. I am home, and I hope you come home, too. +

John Grantham
25 November 2011
Hannover, Germany

+Michael of Rio Grande and the Personal Ordinariates

The Episcopal News Service is carrying an interesting pastoral letter from the Rt. Rev. Michael Vono, who is the current Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande, one of the more conservative dioceses in the Episcopal Church. The letter is a reaction to the appointment of his predecessor to lead the Roman Catholic personal ordinariate for disaffected Anglicans. Read it all here.

I think it's a lovely way to view this development. Yes, it is irksome in that it feels like Rome is trying to poach believers, but at the same time it also gives breathing space and thus a chance for reconciliation down the road.

It also, by the by, works to undermine the centuries-old trend towards increasing centralism and enforced uniformity in the Roman communion, with the Latin (or Roman) Rite gradually replacing various other older rites and with a clearly preferred place above the other remaining ones. Having a new liturgical use on such a wide scale may hopefully begin to reverse, or at least slow down that trend. Well, here's hoping anyway.

When heresy really is heresy: The Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta and a bizarre draft resolution

As mentioned before, I would generally place myself on the liberal side of the middle of the Anglican spectrum. That said, it may come as a surprise to those who are more conservative and who disagree with me on things like women's ordination that I do, in fact, place great value in Tradition and ecumenical councils – I merely come to different conclusions on some issues. I'm quite willing to use the H word when I see it – heresy.

Jansenism

This is one reason I am so uncomfortable with our parish's choice of a patron saint, as mentioned previously. (I decided I can at least live with it, since she was chosen for her reforms and personal spirituality and not for her doctrine or associations, but I'm still not very happy about it.) While the Jansenists generally were maltreated and persecuted, and I certainly don't approve of any of that, I also agree quite firmly with the verdict that Jansen's teachings were in fact heretical.

I was particularly irked at our church's consecration in September by the speech of a professor of theology at the end of that service, who basically ignored the entire content of Jansen's or his supporters' writings and described the Jansenists (without naming them as such) merely as a persecuted minority. She also claimed that theologists today are reappraising Jansenism, that the verdict at the time was overly harsh, and so on.

Dunno, but the doctrine of free will so central to what it means to be Christian for anyone of a Catholic bent (that includes the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that I can't get my head wrapped around the idea that someone denying free will, claiming that God predestines some (indeed most) of us to suffer eternal damnation with no chance to do anything about it, isn't a major problem for the faith.

Gnosticism

I feel the same way about the Gnostics. For some time it has been in vogue to view the Gnostics as misunderstood proto-hippies and kinda-sorta-feminists as portrayed in The Da Vinci Code. Yet I think all you need to know about the Gnostics and their view of women (and thus of humanity) can be summed up in the Gnostic so-called Gospel of Thomas:

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

I don't see how you can remotely think of the sexes being equal while believing something like that. Yet it is precisely in some of the more extreme liberal circles where the very same people who ardently support women's ordination also want to reappraise Gnosticism. The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling.

Mind you, I have no problem with someone believing Jansenism. That is anyone's right. I would even happily go to the altar with them if they did and receive Communion, nor would I do anything to exclude them from the Church. Dissent is always allowed, and even should be protected and welcomed: Dissent is a necessary part of the dialectic to seek the Truth. But once that person starts to push to change long-held and explicit teachings of the Church as defined in ecumenical councils, even if only by implication, my alarm bells start ringing. Loudly.

Pelagianism

So you can imagine my disquiet when I read Resolution R11-7, a piece of proposed legislation (!) for the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta. The text reads in its entirety:

Whereas the historical record of Pelagius’s contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance, and
whereas an understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition, and
whereas his restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, grace, free will, and the goodness of God’s creation, and
whereas in as much as the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans,

Be it resolved, that this 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta appoint a committee of discernment overseen by our Bishop, to consider these matters as a means to honor the contributions of Pelagius and reclaim his voice in our tradition. And be it further resolved that this committee will report their conclusions at the next Annual Council.

Wait, what...?!

I could hardly believe my eyes – that anyone could submit such a resolution with a straight face. It sounds like something The Onion would publish as satire, not a serious proposal. What next, reappraise Aleister Crowley?

It is true that, based on some of my thoughts and positions on free will and grace, many Western Christians, in particular Protestants of a Calvinist or Lutheran hue, would accuse me of being Semipelagian. Then again the same people generally like to accuse the Orthodox Church of the same, so I feel I'm in good company. (See the Orthodox concept of theosis.)

But here is why I think Pelagianism is such a danger for the Church and for belief in general: It essentially teaches that we are not hard-wired to sin, and that it is possible on one's own to achieve spiritual perfection without the action or support of God, or of anyone else for that matter. If these things were true, then there would essentially be no purpose to the Church at large – why bother if we don't need to try in order to free ourselves from sin? If we are already free from sin, what is the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross?

The heresies of the unloving God and of hubristic humanity

Orthodox teaching on the subject of justification and sin is really quite simple to understand and, I think, common sense. I think it could be summed up with two words: "Nobody's perfect". (Well, except for Jesus, of course.)

I strongly disagree with extreme Calvinist views where humanity is described as being "depraved", not least because that implies that God somehow created something that He either wasn't able to improve or control, or never intended to improve in the first place, both of which are impossible for me to swallow. I cannot believe that a loving God would create a living thing expressly for it to suffer the fires of Hell, without giving him or her a chance to turn oneself to God and accept Jesus in their hearts so that they really can change things with God's help. That just sounds incredibly cruel. And pointless, too.

At the same time, the opposite extreme of Pelagianism seems equally implausible – it implies that we began spotless and only choose to do bad or good things based on circumstance. Yet I think that anyone who studies the human condition will come to the conclusion that we are at heart intrinsically prone to be selfish, greedy and cruel when left to our own devices – all you have to do is observe how children act in a kindergarden towards each other to prove that we aren't little angels from the beginning. Without some firm and loving guidance, children generally turn into little monsters. That's really all orthodox doctrine is saying, that we need that firm guidance as well, throughout our whole lives. Compared to God, we are all children, no matter how old we are. It's hubris to think otherwise.

Walking in love as Christ loved us

The thing is, Jesus repeatedly emphasized our collective responsibility to aid one another in our spiritual journey, and described Himself as The Way – not a goal, but a path with no end, and one with a heavy burden: to take our Cross and follow Him. As mere human beings, we cannot and will not ever achieve true perfection in this life, but we can still walk that path towards perfection. To do that we need Christ to guide us, and we need each other to support one another along that path. This is precisely why the Church exists as a gift from God, to support, encourage and sustain us along that difficult and arduous path to the end of Time. Like it says in Ephesians, we must walk together in love as Christ loves us. It is our only hope of saving ourselves from war, disease, hunger, greed, injustice and all the other ills that afflict humanity from its earliest days.

Mind you, I am quite happy to entertain the idea that Pelagius himself was misunderstood. In fact what few of his writings I am aware of, he seems to have felt just that, while (to my knowledge) the things he was accused of teaching or claiming are not documented in his extant writings, so it is quite possible that he as a person was unjustly accused of the doctrine that bears his name. But in any such examination of the history involved, we have to also be incredibly careful to continue to stay away from the doctrine of Pelagianism, whether its name is justified or not, and most certainly not to legislate such change before the case has been made and accepted by consensus.

I hope that this resolution is shot down, or at least amended in dramatic fashion to distance the church from the doctrine of Pelagianism. I can only shake my head in disbelief that anyone felt it necessary to even submit it. It's one thing for Anglicanism to be comprehensive and inclusive. I think it's part of the beauty and strength of Anglicanism that we generally don't try to define every aspect of faith in detail. But It's another thing entirely to effectively say "anything goes" and challenge what few standards we do have. No matter how expansive or inclusive the faith, it still will have boundaries at some point.

An appeal

In closing, I would like to address an appeal to the people of the Diocese of Atlanta: Please consider what you would be saying with this resolution if it passes. Please think of what signals you would be sending by accepting it, and how you would be cutting yourself loose from the conciliar church just for the sake of rehabilitating one man, no matter how noble the motive behind that wish my be. Please remember the three Anglican pillars of Scripture, Tradition and Reason – and that this resolution challenges Tradition by definition. With all due respect and Christian love and charity, this resolution is simply wrong, pointless, a waste of time (what does it do to help people in need or to further Jesus' message?) and should be defeated.

Just what is a gay service, anyway?

A few days ago, the German Old Catholic diocese posted a story on their site celebrating "five years of gay-lesbian services in Karlsruhe". Here is a translation of the text into English:

For the past five years, the Old Catholic parish in Karlsruhe has been host of so-called "Queer Services", which take place every two months in the Old Catholic Church of the Resurrection in Ökumeneplatz. To celebrate this anniversary, Bishop Matthias Ring will take part in the service on 9 October 2011 at 6 pm. The ecumenical project team that is preparing the service is pleased to welcome the bishop of the parish who church has been the venue of the services from their beginning, with no charge for the use of the church or the parish hall.

I'm not going to get into the thorny issue of homosexuality and Christianity here. Suffice it to say that enough heat and light (more heat than light) has been generated in the blogosphere to fire a thousand suns.

But I am perplexed at just what a "queer service" is supposed to be. Which isn't surprising, because I also don't see why it is necessary to have extra "women's" services or services for singles or whatever. The thing is, I find this phenomenon to be very unhealthy, because it turns the Church into little more than a fragmented collection of interest groups each trying to get their special share of attention, and tailoiring "their" services to their own needs -- which practically by definition will be alien, or at best strange, for others. It is a kind of auto-ghettoizing, whether intentional or not.

Yet the Church has always been quite clear that Christ is the Savior of all people. We have no record whatsoever in the New Testament of special meetings just for, say, Judeans or tax collectors or unmarried women over 35 with a car (sorry, chariot) and two cats. On the contrary, we are told explicitly that in Christ, there are no Jews or Gentiles, no male or female, all those divisions are overcome in the form of the Holy Church of God. Every attempt is made to have rich and poor, man and woman, all walks of life represented in each and every gathering. Paul's Epistles repeatedly berate the early congregations for not including everyone and not treating them scrupulously equally, and encourage every effort to bridge and transcend, not cater to each and every person. No special treatment, just one in Christ.

The major concept behind any service, regardless of denomination, and in particular in the Eucharist, is to attempt to create a vision of the Kingdom of God in our limited space. That is impossible if you begin to customize services for particular interest groups. Yes, I'm sure it is useful for marketing and publicity reasons. Yes, I know gays, women, etc., have all been oppressed and treated badly for centuries and could use a bit of special attention and care. Yes, I know that traditional forms of liturgy tend to be male- and Euro-centric and may have little to say to women or children or whomever. That's all well and good. But special services for individual groups is simply the wrong way to go about it.

Certainly the Church should reach out to groups who are or have been marginalized, and should do what it can to welcome them and to reach them with God's message of love and hope. Certainly things could be done to modify the liturgy or practice to accomodate as many people as possible, and attempt to include as many as the Church can.

But the truly exciting, breathtaking part of Jesus' message is not "take us as we are", but "that they may be one". That is the ultimate vision we get in Galatians 3:28 -- There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And again in Romans 10:12: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. Or most spectacularly in Acts 10:10-16,34-36:

About noon the next day,
as they were on their journey and approaching the city,
Peter went up on the roof to pray.
He became hungry and wanted something to eat;
and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
He saw the heaven opened
and something like a large sheet coming down,
being lowered to the ground by its four corners.
In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures
and reptiles and birds of the air.
Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’
But Peter said,
‘By no means, Lord;
for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’
The voice said to him again, a second time,
‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’
This happened three times,
and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.
Later, Peter began to speak to the disciples:
‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality,
but in every nation anyone who fears him
and does what is right is acceptable to him.
You know the message he sent to the people of Israel,
preaching peace by Jesus Christ—
he is Lord of all.’

The vision of us all being one in Christ is what the ultimate attraction is and should be, and we should never lose sight of that, least of all for short-term goals such as pandering to ever-narrower special interests in hopes of filling the pews. The more we divide ourselves, the harder we make it to unite and to make that vision a reality.

No matter how well intended, using a church service to deliberately draw distinctions between us -- even if intended as a stepping-stone to something more -- turns this vision upside down, and ironically delays the ultimate realization by cementing division, rather than bridging it by providing a common home. By providing a service with a label, it reduces its participants to that label. Our home is Christ, not our own ghetto.

There is a perfect example of this -- V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Anglican bishop. From all I have been told and have read, he is a very spiritual and kind person. Aside from his sexuality, he seems to be quite orthodox and even a bit inventive in communicating difficult issues. And gays were understandably happy to have one of their own in such high office. But think about it. +Gene is nothing more than "the gay bishop". You see him on TV and in magazines all the time being interviewed about being gay, but never on the finer points of Christian morality or charity or any of those other things, except perhaps as throwaway questions at the end of the interview. He has been quite effectively reduced to being just gay, and all else is ignored. "Queer services" accomplish the same thing -- an own goal if there ever was one.

Ultimately we all have to ask ourselves: Do you want the people who come to your services to celebrate God, or their own sexuality or gender or skin color? Do we go to church to worship God, or ourselves? Is the Church a vision of the way things are, or of the way they should be?

Women's ordination: The real question is...

I wrote this in German as a post on the blog "Frech. Fromm. Frau.", but felt it is useful as a worthwhile summary of my views on the issue of women's ordination. Here is a translation into English, slightly edited.

As a child, I experienced the controversy in the Episcopal Church USA over women's ordination, which was emotional and at times bitter. My mother was a diocesan delegate at the time and took me along to the plenary sessions. I can't remember much of the content, but I will never forget the very tense and angry atmosphere.

In the end, many opponents of women's ordination left the Episcopal Church and formed their own splinter churches, usually referred to as "Continuing Anglican" churches. Many of these are now forming a new anti-church, the Anglican Church of North America, or ACNA.

Thus after those bitter times, women's ordination was "legal", but it took some time before female priests became a reality for most people. After all, it takes time to educate and examine potential candidates. So you could say I experienced the whole development of women's ordination live.

For me, women's ordination is simply reality. Granting women holy orders is thus quite possible, period, end of story. Female priests are an enrichment of our lives -- insofar as one is open to the possibility.

I would say that they are not merely priests with XX-23 chromosomes. Women as priests bring change with them, and that is to be expected. However, I would also say that their gender had less to do with the changes relative to Roman Catholic priests than the fact that most are married and have children. That is the critical difference between Roman Catholic and Anglican or Old Catholic priests, not their gender. I am convinced of it.

There is also the question of whether such changes can be accepted by the grassroots. Here are the strongest arguments against women's ordination. It has little to do with Holy Scripture or dogma. Instead, it has everything do to with acceptance. The arguments for and against women's ordination are plainly smokescreens for what the individual people want -- otherwise one or the other side would have won the debate long ago and it would no longer be an issue. Instead, it grows.

If one tries to force their own idea through against the will of the grassroots, then schism is pre-programmed. You have to be honest enough to accept that as reality, whatever your theology. The only question is how this schism is handled or discussed. The model of "flying bishops" in the Church of England was a messy compromise, but it did work rather well for a time, until that compromise began to crumble because of pressure from the left, and until Rome decided to try luring conservative Anglicans across the Tiber.

Naturally you can dismiss the necessity of open discussion and just say the church is being held hostage by conservatives (or liberals). Maybe there is even something to that. But in the end, we must all ask ourselves the question: What is more important? Equal treatment of man and woman? Or the unity of the Holy Church? It is highly unlikely that both will be possible in the foreseeable future. And that is the question that everyone who discusses the issue must ask, and answer honestly, before any discussion can be productive.