Dean Admits Canonical Violations in Communing the Unbaptized at Seabury Western

Fr. Montgomery also objects to the non-canonical open invitation to communion printed in our service leaflet. As ordinary of the chapel, I have articulated this policy in full awareness that it does not comply with the canonical provision about communion and baptism. One reason seminary chapels are traditionally “ecclesiastical peculiars” is so that they will have the freedom to push the edges of liturgical practice in the direction of the church’s emerging theology. There is a serious theological argument abroad these days about the relationship of baptism and Eucharist. To characterize the open invitation as “liturgical universalism” misconstrues the state of the argument. Those of us who favor open communion do so knowing that the church has historically seen one sacrament as a precondition for the other. We simply question, in the present pastoral situation, the propriety of following that practice.

Read it all

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Eucharist, Sacramental Theology, Seminary / Theological Education, TEC Conflicts, Theology

46 comments on “Dean Admits Canonical Violations in Communing the Unbaptized at Seabury Western

  1. BCP28 says:

    This is a rather weak defense of the practice of CWOB, and pulling the Oxford movement into this is insulting to the Oxford movement. They are two entirely different questions, and as I recall the Oxford movement was more concerned with a church that had made too many concessions to culture, not too few. I also question what he means by a debate happening on the subject “abroad.” The debate is largely here.

    There are many other things in this that just grate, but I will leave them alone. Praise God for Nashotah, Trinity, and now Wycliffe.

  2. m+ says:

    I’m sure the Dean has read the exhortation in the BCP and understands the concept of unworthy reception of the Sacrament. Why, then, is he (as the spiritual head of Seabury Western) so willing to play with hellfire and damnation? The Eucharist is not a game and it’s not something we play around with for the fun of it. Doing so can have serious, eternally harmful effects.

  3. Frank Fuller says:

    Ecclesiastical peculiar, indeed!

  4. Phil says:

    “What Fr. Montgomery experienced was the unfortunate consequence of our new policy of using gluten-free bread at all celebrations of the Eucharist. The Seabury community now has several members with Celiac disease (gluten intolerance), and so we have started using only gluten-free bread as an expression of our inclusive hospitality.”

    “As ordinary of the chapel, I have articulated this policy in full awareness that it does not comply with the canonical provision about communion and baptism. One reason seminary chapels are traditionally “ecclesiastical peculiars” is so that they will have the freedom to push the edges of liturgical practice in the direction of the church’s emerging theology.”

    OK, Kendall, is this a Chris Johnson parody?

    Unfortunately, this is a serious issue, but for those that view Christianity as mythology, it shouldn’t be surprising that the bread and wine would be handled like a football fan handles the last crumbs in the potato chip bag. On the other hand, given the setting, what’s being strewn all over the floor might well be bread, and bread alone.

  5. Karen B. says:

    Lots more clarity here.
    This validates what so many of us already knew and have been saying that much of the rot in ECUSA traces back directly to the seminaries.

    It certainly does seem a parody on many levels, however. The bit about “treating the sacrament with utmost respect,” all the while breaking the canons and disobeying the Lord’s example and commands regarding the Eucharist.

    Note how the Dean refuses to use the phrase “Communion without Baptism” or “Communion of the Unbaptized,” resorting instead to the more mushy, vague even sentimental “open communion” which sounds so nice and hospitable, but which could leave some readers confused as to exactly what the issue is (i.e. creating confusion between the practice of inviting those baptized Christians from other denominations and traditions, as opposed to an invitation that invites ALL regardless of whether they are baptized or not).

    But, I confess that in spite of the attempt by the dean to treat this as no big deal, I’m glad this has been openly published in TLC. It will get the attention of some who have up until now not really believed that CWOB is gaining wide acceptance within TEC.

  6. Jim the Puritan says:

    More desecration of the sacraments by the new Episcopal religion. Unfortunately for them, Scripture teaches they are drinking and eating unto their condemnation.

  7. libraryjim says:

    I thought that the company making the eucharistic wafers offered a ‘gluten free’ host?

  8. David Keller says:

    Isn’t the standard remedy for canonical violations to be inhibited by your bishop and then sued by the Presiding Chancellor and his bishop? I’m sure as soon as KJS gets around to voiding the election in Virginia she will give this one top priority.

  9. tjmcmahon says:

    ( Please forgive the sarcasm) Apparently, there is something I have always misunderstood about the Church. I have always understood that the Church exists to serve God. Dean Hall corrects my misimpression:
    [blockquote] Finally, what is at issue here is the relationship of the church to the world it exists to serve. [/blockquote] I am left unsure as to how Communion without Baptism furthers the work of the church in “the world it exists to serve.” I am sure that it does not serve God’s purpose, but that would seem to be unimportant in the dean’s eyes.
    From the point of view of someone raised in the Oxford Movement/tractarian tradition, I will second what BCP28 (#1 above) has to say on the dean’s comments linking the concept of Communion without Baptism to the catholic movement of the 19th century- which indeed was about [i] restoring [/i] traditional ritual and sacramental practice, not abandoning, or indeed defiling, sacraments. I was not only Baptized before receiving Communion, but received my first Communion only after making my first Confession and being Confirmed. Yeah, I know I am old fashioned. But sometimes I think that is a good thing, certainly in any case preferable to sacrilege.
    TJ

  10. Dave B says:

    I am so glad TEC is upholding ancient precepts about crossing boundries and other nonsense, at least there are some standards. Truely a case of swallowing camels and straining at knats

  11. HowieG says:

    Please forgive my confusion. Is it not the teaching of the “emerging theology” that Jesus is not the Son of God and that communion is just a wine and cheese with crackers party? And, isn’t baptism just a quick bath and another reason for the wine and cheese with crackers party? (Lower case intended as to differentiate Holy Baptism and Communion from the “emerging theology”.)

    H

  12. Jason S says:

    The real point is that some pigs are more equal than others. Canonical violations by conservatives in TEC are punished and canonical violations by liberals are not.

  13. Larry Morse says:

    How often have we seen this from TEC, a rationale for relaxing all standards on the grounds that the church must change to serve the tastes of multiculturalism, rather than the multiculturalists changing their practices to conform with the church.
    Once the church relaxes its standards, there is no barrier to stop it from changing all its others since the rationale is to meet an undefined and utterly broad set of non-standard tastes. In short, this is the slippery slope we have heard about so often. And the fact is, it is so slippery there is no turning back. He is saying, “The church must go to THEM, (whoever they are) and change its colors to match their colors.” To be against this position frequently draws the charge that one is hide-bound, narrowminded, parochial, rigid, but common as this charge is, it is false, for the extreme does not set the standard. Ladies and gentlemen, we must get as far away from these people as possible. They are carrying a plague. I don’t understand. Why doesn’t the entire Ang. Comm. see that TEC is poison and simply make them outcastes and do it directly?

    Incidentally, the gluten free wafer is a good idea. Does this violate some canon or standard practice? I know some celiac people who cannot take the standard wafer.

    I wonder if the writer of this entry is aware of how intellectually dishonest he is. Or is this manipulative, a rhetorical device to justify what cannot be justified intellectually or canonically. LM

  14. Deja Vu says:

    His phrase “the freedom to push the edges of liturgical practice in the direction of the church’s emerging theology.” shows that there is an “emerging theology” which has a particular “direction”.
    But then he denies this in his sentence, “Those who complain of a dominant liberal monoculture seem, at least to me, merely uncomfortable with the theological diversity they claim to value so highly.”
    This is absurd because the people complaining are not claiming to value theological diversity, but rather are claiming to value theological integrity with scripture and tradition.
    What would he say if we complained instead of “the direction of the church’s emerging theology.”?
    My impression is that he would backtrack and deny there was such a thing, despite the fact that he used the phrase. Maybe I am getting too cynical.

  15. BCP28 says:

    A few thoughts.

    First, I do not know if it is an accident that “open communion” is used interchangable with both CWOB and the canonical revisons that allowed non-Anglicans to recieve. When my Rector told me that he heard we had been practicing “open communion” before his arrival, I pulled out old service leaflets with Canon I.17.7 printed in them.

    To be honest, I have reservations about gluten-free wafers. I understand the need, believe me. But have any of you read Louis Weil’s “A Theology of Worship?” (Weil teaches at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific and was an architect of the 1979 Baptismal Rite) See p. 113-114 and 141. Animal crackers and cranberry juice over a paper plate in a prison cafeteria become a Communion service. Pastoral theology to be sure, but we aren’t too far from a pizza Eucharist. Not surprsingly, he gives tacit endorsement to CWOB on p. 16 of the same text.

    Finally, a word about Seabury-Western. It is a beautiful place in a beautiful town. It has produced so many fine priests, and is named for a hero of high churchmen in the states. This is tragic.

  16. JonReinert says:

    While horrified at the CWOB, I am mystified about the comments on gluten free wafers. Wafers in themselves are after all an innovation! Does not the BCP refer to ‘bread’ such as is ordinarily eaten?
    Jon R.
    p.s. My wife is gluten intolerant and we regularly use substitutes.

  17. recchip says:

    At our parish we have one lady who is Gluten Intolerant. Our priest has a special “wafer” which she gets. It sort of looks like a dried piece of melba toast. The rest of us receive the standard flat white wafer with the cross on it. She also has to have grape juice rather than wine (I don’t want to know all the reasons). Fortunately, we have two sets of patens and chalices. (We use the old and smaller one for her and the larger and newer one for the rest of us.)

    Also, we are REC (Reformed Episcopal Church) and one of the founding reasons was the “closed communion” of the Episcopal church of the day. At every communion we invite ALL WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT to receive. “The Gifts of God, for the people of God.” The REC is probably the most “open communion” group among the “continuing church” but we would never allow someone not baptised to receive. Actually, on last Sunday, Father had to ask a visiting young person whether he had been baptised while he(the visitor) was kneeling at the altar rail. That is how seriously we take the necessity for Baptism prior to receipt of communion. We allow the communion of people who are baptised and thus “People of God” for whom the “Gifts of God” are offered.

  18. The_Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    I graduated from Seabury Western this year, and this is in fact the truth. I was forced on principle to stop attending the Eucharist at Seabury because (amongst many other issues I had, namely that chapel was turning into the cult of Ruth Meyers) I had issues with the gluten free Communion element. This was about the final straw for me from the weird things going on in the Seabury chapel. If you think the gluten free wafers are the only thing uncanonical about what goes on in the Seabury chapel, you are sorely mistaken.

    I basically agree with the Roman doctrine on gluten in Communion bread. However, theological opinions aside, I refused to receive the Gluten free Communion stuff because it was physically unpleasant. You are given this wad of bread like dough that tastes like perverted Johnny Cake. Crumbs of the Holy Body of Christ are going everywhere. It’s just awful.

    But, to be fair to Gary Hall, the dean of Seabury, he did consult with the students about the possible move to gluten free bread. The student body voted to accept it by a large number. The argument was that gluten free bread is inclusive. I thought that was absurd because I suggested during the debates (somewhat tongue in cheek) if that was the case, then we should move to grape juice instead of wine to be inclusive of alcoholics because there are more of problems with alcohol in seminary than people with gluten problems. When I suggested that, you would have thought I had suggested we use radioactive curdled kangaroo milk for Communion Wine. There is a sound of sheer silence, and its deafening sometimes…

  19. The_Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    Oh, and about commencement (gradutation)…it was a circus. As Forest Gump used to say, “That’s all I have to say ’bout that…”

  20. Ian Montgomery says:

    Thanks for your responses. If anyone wants to read the original article it is on our parish web site http://www.stthomaswi.com/ where it is my lead article. I am currently in the UK as my mother just died and otherwise on vacation in Vt until August. Keep protesting!

  21. The_Elves says:

    Fr. Ian,
    thanks so much for sharing the link to your original article. Powerfully written. I hope any who are still reading this thread and who may not have read that when it appeared in TLC will take the time to read it.

    Grace and peace to your family at this time of loss, and a blessed vacation.

    –elfgirl

  22. BCP28 says:

    I assume this is the same Ruth Meyers that wants to eliminate Confirmation…or at least make it irrelevant.

    Thanks for your post Archer, and good luck.
    Randall

  23. BCP28 says:

    A Roman document concerning gluten-free bread is below. It parses the issue fairly well.

    http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Documents/Coeliacs/Coeliac-Leaflet.pdf

  24. JonReinert says:

    BCP28, thanks for posting the link, but of course being Anglicans we are not bound by the ruling of the Inquisition are we? However, the solution posed in the document is one we use when visiting while on holidays. It would be interesting to know what percentage of gluten remain in the low gluten wafers. The only purpose made gluten wafers we have found are corn based and a bit like a very small corn chip.
    regards,
    Jon R

  25. Brad Page says:

    I intend no deep argument here, but all this does strike me as yet another example of a “me” or even an “entitlement” culture that has run aw

  26. BCP28 says:

    Jon:

    Point taken, and I always recognize the problems of looking at solutions from Rome. (Or Constantinople, Geneva, Wittenburg…)

    At the same time, they seem to have arrived at one solution here that I personally find appropriate and pastoral. Its just a good thing that they allow people to take the wine now! 😉

    Randall

  27. Brad Page says:

    For some reason most of my previous post (#25) was deleted. The basics of what I was saying there was this”

    I intend no deep argument here, but all this does strike me as yet another example of a “me” or even an “entitlement” culture that has run awash over the Episcopal Church. Of course, through no fault of my own, I may be Gluten intolerant, BUT rather than take the fullness of the Sacrament via the Wine only (or even have a low-Gluten alternative for me), it becomes a requirement that the whole Community change to the use of potato or corn cakes for Communion. Or, say I am an alcoholic: Rather than simply taking the fullness of the Sacrament through reception of the Bread only (which has been customary within Anglicanism and RC) the uncanonical use of grape juice is made (which, btw, does not even fulfill the modest ecumenical statement on the elements to be used for Communion in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadralateral). Of course there are other examples where the Episcopal Church falls into the tar pit on this sort of thing (Hint: Homosexuality is a big one at the moment).

  28. PadreWayne says:

    Please know that I am not a huge fan of CWOB. On the one hand I stick to the Canons; on the other, I would never interrupt the flow of Communion at the rail to ask someone for their baptismal records — I will leave that to God to sort out. However…
    Karent B #5: “breaking the canons and disobeying the Lord’s example and commands regarding the Eucharist.”
    Um…the Lord’s example? I thought our Lord distributed the bread and wine, his Body and Blood, to unbaptized disciples…
    Jim the Puritan #6: “More desecration of the sacraments”
    Desecration of the sacraments? How is it that the Body and Blood are desecrated? By being placed in the mouth of [i]potentially[/i] an unbaptized person? I hardly think that the sacramental quality is lessened… Desecration to me would be to use the consecrated bread and wine, the Body and Blood, for a nefarious purpose. Erring on the side of welcome hardly qualifies.
    John Reinert #16: “Wafers in themselves are after all an innovation!”
    I agree, John! I hate them. I hate them. I hate them.
    Now that I have [i]that[/i] rant satisfied, let me say that we use them in our parish, but during Advent, Lent, and on special feasts we do use bread made by a marvelous parishioner. It’s messy (so’s Christianity!), I’m forever picking up bits off the floor to pop into my mouth (no desecration, Jim!), other little bits float in the wine (due to intincters and my not having one of those spiffy little spoons spikier churches have), but: It is [i]bread[/i]! And can we not assume that our Lord used the real thing?!?

  29. recchip says:

    If we want to replicate what our Lord used at the first Eucharist we would have to all use Matzo. (Unleavened bread). In fact most communion wafers are about as close to that as is possible without everybody choking on the dry matzo.
    I attended a church where they used bread and it was always messy. I would hate to imagine how it would work for the person to take a “hunk” of bread, hold it up for the priest to dip in the wine and then place on their tongue. (This is the proper method for receiving by intinction by the way. The oft practiced “Dunken Jesus” of having the communicant dip their own wafer/bread is not the most proper. Of course, most people just take their wafer and then take a sip from the common cup.)

  30. David Keller says:

    The best communion I ever had was a salteen cracker and grape flavored powder disolved in water. I was in a foxhole at the time–and I’ll bet you it was valid.

  31. libraryjim says:

    recchip,
    The Orthodox Churchs use a spoon and administer the bread that way. (I’m not sure of the method, perhaps someone from that tradition can enlighten?)

  32. Unsubscribe says:

    What is the rationale for CWOB? Doesn’t TEC practise “open baptism”?

  33. FrKimel says:

    In the early 20th century, the House of Bishops addressed the question of the use of grape juice in the Holy Eucharist. The HOB firmly rejected such usage as contrary to dominical institution. The same logic would also apply to the question of gluten-free “bread.” In fact, if a wafer or loaf is completely gluten-free, it is not bread, just as grape juice is not wine.

    We do not have the freedom to create “sacraments” at will. They come to us from the Lord, through dominical and ecclesial institution. For a eucharistic celebration to be in fact an authentic, valid Eucharist, it must be celebrated with those elements instituted by Christ himself–bread and wine. It’s as simple as that.

    The practice of what is now called “open communion” is a denial of the gospel. The Holy Eucharist is properly given only to those who have been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit. This isn’t simply a matter of legality and canon law. It is, rather, a matter of supernatural reality. Those who have not yet been regenerated by the Spirit are simply not capable of properly receiving the Blessed Sacrament. Hence the declaration at the presentation: “The gifts of God for the people of God.” Or as we hear in the Byzantine Liturgy: “Holy Things are for the Holy!”

    Several years ago I charged that those who practice “open commuinon” (i.e., communion of the nonbaptized) were guilty of apostasy. I stand by this judgment.

  34. Brad Page says:

    FYI: From the Chicago-Lambeth Quadralateral:

    “…But furthermore, we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity…can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

    As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:

    1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.

    2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

    [b]3. The two Sacraments,–Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,–ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.[/b]

    4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.

  35. dean says:

    One of the ironies of this story is that Justin Martyr is one of the important witnesses to the Eucharistic practices of the very early Church including the necessity of baptism before admission to communion. (If you did not read the entire piece, Seabury’s graduation took place on the commemoration of Justin Martyr and the preacher referred to him.)

    In about 155 Justin wrote, “And this food is called among us [i]Eucharistia[/i] [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.” [i]First Apology[/i], Chapter 66. He echoes the [i]Didache[/i] which may have been composed in part in the first century: “You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord’s name.” Chapter 9

    It is indeed peculiar that a dean, no matter how ordinary, of a seminary would overturn a practice established for over 1,850, or even 1,900, years by saying, “We simply question, in the present pastoral situation, the propriety of following that practice.”

    “We simply question…” indeed! What is really peculiar is that it has become ordinary in this Church for such a statement to be mistaken for for an answer, let alone for an argument. What I find so extraordinary about it all is the utter, unabashed arrogance that allows anyone who simply questions a practice to then set the practice aside, and neither canons nor nearly twenty centuries of consensus count for anything!

    Father Dean A. Einerson+
    Rhinelander, Wisconsin

  36. libraryjim says:

    CPKS
    There is a difference between “Open Communion” and “CWOB” (communion without baptism):

    Open communion = “All baptized Christians are welcome to receive communion”. In other words, there are restrictions — you have to be a baptized Christian in order to receive communion. This is what the canons state.

    CWOB = no restrictions, no requirements, no religon or any religion can come to the table. This is specifically prohibited by the canons of the church.

    and for clarification:

    Closed communion = “only those of our denomination, in good standing, can receive communion in our church”. This is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations.

  37. libraryjim says:

    Sorry, CPKS, I thought you asked about open communion, instead you asked about open BAPTISM. But I hope my definitions were helpful for someone!

    Peace
    Jim Elliott <><

  38. Unsubscribe says:

    No worries, libraryjim: clarifications are always good. My point was that if the rationale for CWOB were in any way similar to “open communion”, i.e. not wishing to deny the sacrament to those who seek it, then why not just do it properly and baptize them first? I was wondering if the problem was not just a defective eucharistic theology, but a defective theology of baptism as well. (Nothing would surprise me.)
    Christi sit lectoribus pax

  39. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Are these the “short form” or “long form” communion wafers/bread/chips? Inquiring minds want to know. Do they have the consent of the PB? And, let’s not get into the brand of wine consent issues! Now, do we use or tap or Evian for the baptismal font?

  40. libraryjim says:

    In her book [u]Seeking Enlightenment . . . Hat by Hat[/u], Nevada Barr tells how she was drawn to an Episcopal Church. (I have to paraphrase here.)

    When she finally approached the rector to ask about baptism and confirmation, she was open that she did not quite believe in the God of Christianity or the creeds.

    His response: “Oh, that’s ok, there’s plenty of time for that afterwards!”

    She said his answer both delighted (she could join a community of sorts, which is how she views the Episcopal Church) and disappointed her (“shouldn’t they take this more seriously?”).

    Yep, not only “Open Baptism” but “open confirmation” as well. If someone has the book (I read it at the library on my breaks), perhaps they could type in the passage?

    Peace
    Jim Elliott

  41. libraryjim says:

    I found a quote on a website (the author of the website applauded “Fr. Andrew’s” actions) that tells the first part of the conversation, but leaves out her reaction to the rector’s words:

    [blockquote]By March, I wished to be confirmed in the Episcopal church, though I knew I did not believe and I was not a Christian. I knelt and I wore the cross openly now, but I was not a Christian. I went to Father Andrew and told him this, told him I saw the lessons as metaphors, stories to help us work and play well with others. I told him I didn’t believe, and I wanted to be confirmed. I asked if this was okay. He said it was.[/blockquote]

    I’ll see if I can find the rest when I go to work tomorrow, if hte book is not checked out.

  42. PadreWayne says:

    FrKimel #33: “For a eucharistic celebration to be in fact an authentic, valid Eucharist, it must be celebrated with those elements instituted by Christ himself–bread and wine. It’s as simple as that.”
    Well, under normal circumstances I would agree with you. I.e., in church (or actually, [i]wherever and whenever[/i] available) bread and wine are to be used. That being said, however, I would never deny that for the guys in the foxhole (David Keller #30 — thank you for offering us that moment of witness) their celebration was indeed a valid Eucharist. FrKimel, if you were not responding to David’s comment, so be it. If you were, I would humbly ask you to tell us precisely how you determine when and where the Holy Spirit will act in the blessing of bread and wine or saltiines and grape powder dissolved in water. Such omniscience!

  43. BCP28 says:

    #2 and Fr. Kimmel:

    I always appreciate the Pontificator’s analysis. My wife and I have had a pretty vigorous debate about this issue, and in the end I told her this:

    It seems to me that a proper Eucharist needs to follow, as closely as possible, what is implied in the Scriptures, e.g., the passover meal. In that sense, the Roman rubrics are approrpiate.

    There is a larger question here of whether or not we can “bind” the work of the Eucharist and the Holy Spirit. There are many ways to do that. To say that the Eucharist MUST ALWAYS be done with the right elements (even in extenuating circumstances) seems to “bind” the work of the Holy Ghost, but to say that anything goes seems just as dangerous, if not more so. A good faith effort to do what is required…. that is, to me, how those guys in foxholes could recieve. If you want to know what I mean by good faith effort…well, look at the Roman rubrics, and if you can’t quite get it right because of lack of materials, get as close as possible or wait till a more appropriate time if you can’t do it right. I don’t think what is happening at Seabury is anywhere close. I also have my doubts about Weil’s “animal crackers and apple juice” Eucharist.

    My wife posed the “what if you’re desert island” question in regard to the Eucharist. My repsonse: just pray and start building a boat; you’ve got bigger problems than a lack of bread, wine, and a priest!

    Randall

  44. BCP28 says:

    I meant # 42-Randall

  45. libraryjim says:

    Here is the full quote (any typos are mine, all mine!):

    [blockquote]By March, I wished to be confirmed in the Episcopal church, though I knew I did not believe and I was not a Christian. I knelt and I wore the cross openly now, but I was not a Christian. I went to Father Andrew and told him this, told him I saw the lessons as metaphors, stories to help us work and play well with others. I told him I didn’t believe, and I wanted to be confirmed. I asked if this was okay. He said it was.

    I was grateful and suspicious. There was a touch of disappointment, too, a scattered illogical sense that if God were real, I shouldn’t be allowed to be confirmed since I didn’t believe. On some level, I wanted to be rejected, to have my views of Chrsitians ratified even as I found comfort following their practices.

    The Great Experiment ground to an ignoble close. I was out a bushel of dreams, a wagonload of hope, and a not inconsiderable amount of cash, but there was recompense: I had found an avenue along which I might travel in search of that “peace which passeth all understanding.”

    I returned to Mississippi and joined the Episcopal Church of the Creator near my home in Clinton. I go. I wear a nice dress. I kneel, And now I sing praises as well as lamentations, and my prayers of gratitude outnumber my confessions.

    In the years since I have been on a wonderful spiritual journey, sometimes Christian, sometimes not, but always in community with other people …and always with the grace of Sundays with music and the peculiar magic that can be found where a group gathers in His name — regardless of the name chosen to dignify the sense of something greater than ourselves.[/blockquote]1

    Why in the world was she confirmed?

    1. Barr, Nevada, [u]Seeking Englightment Hat by Hat: a skeptics path to religion[/u] [i]pages 11-12[/i], GP Putnam’s Sons, New York, 2003.

  46. libraryjim says:

    Oh, and by the way, to the elves — it sure is nice not to worry about ‘timing out’ in the middle of typing the message! 🙂