What's in your mailbox?

The mainline church I attend would not expect Communion to be celebrated without a clergyperson officiating. “Order” seems to be important. I do not personally agree that ordination is a requirement for the celebration, but understand that others have that opinion, one which I think is an anachronism surviving from pre-Reformation, Transubstantiation days.

But, despite that tradition which limits Communion and where and when [and by inference, with whom] it can be celebrated at least a little, we, like what seem to be most congregations in the United Church of Christ, seem to want to go out of our way to encourage participation by everybody, even by those who are too young and too skeptical to know what “remembrance of Me” might mean.

But now a church in England [not the Church of England] is offering mail-order Eucharist. The Open Episcopal Church is now sending Eucharistic wafers out by mail. There is a handling fee, although it seems modest and they insist that they are not charging for the wafers.

They note that many people just cannot or will not get to church.

The creeds refer to the one catholic church ‑holy and universal, spanning all time and nations – of which those who cannot get out of their abodes would be members, members who should still have access to what God and the Christian community have to offer. However, it makes me wonder how much awe and reverence a wafer received in the mail [and I don’t know British mail, but I assume not received on Sunday] inspires or how much sense of Christian community this brings about.

Television has long been accused of making us a more non-social world and these days the internet receives the same accusations, not without reason.

We do Communion in our church the first Sunday every month and on special liturgical occasions [e.g., Maundy Thursday] and my attendance is little affected by that schedule. Communion services are not the reason I attend church, although I know that many of my fellow congregants do think it important. I guess I attend to listen, learn, and pray with others, to receive a message, and to socialize a bit in a way that one cannot do that by television or on line.

Link: Host by post

Church and State in the UK: Church of England acts against British party

The General Synod of the Church of England has passed a motion that bans clergy and lay staff from being members of a certain British political party.

There are a lot of things about Her Majesty’s politicians and the system in which they work that I neither know nor understand and the British National Party does seem to be a party fueled by racial prejudice, a party which seems inappropriate for Christian people to participate in.

Two observations come to mind immediately:

1. Are there any large American denominations which go so far as to tell their clergy and staffs that there are political parties to which they dare not belong?

2. The Church of England is a state church. Its head is appointed by the Queen and general taxes authorized by the Parliament are used for its support. We Americans do not understand this concept well, but doesn’t it seem just a bit of a conflict of interest for the church to be meddling in politics this way?

More information available at http://www.christiantoday.com/article/cofe.synod.passes.bnp.membership.ban/22484.htm

No Starbucks, no pastor?

Time has an article [Rural Churches Grapple with a Pastor Exodus, by-line Dan Viema; dateline Crookston MN] about the crises rural churches are facing getting and keeping pastors.

A lot of this problem comes from obvious reasons. Small congregations of non-affluent people, often people who are becoming older, have difficulty affording men or women with professional degrees who have come out of theological school with significant debt. Many of these new clergypeople have spouses whose work has helped them get through school and much of this work is of a relatively high professional level and comparable work may not be available in rural or small town areas.

I doubt that there is any simple solution. Combining parishes or sharing clergy may work sometimes. Accepting less than fully educated and credentialed ministers may work sometimes also, but both solutions bring about problems of their own.

But what I find amazing is the article tells us that for the first time a majority of seminarians do not come from rural areas. An expert from Kansas City is quoted as saying “A town without a Starbucks scares them.”

That statement scares me a bit. We have all heard probably for most of our lives about apostles, saints, missionaries, evangelists, pastors, prophets, brothers, priests, and nuns who have undergone real and extensive inconveniences [many not so minor and some fatal] to spread the Gospel and tend to the needs of the faithful.

But no Starbucks?

Please give us a break.

NEWS: Wesley diaries

People in the various Wesleyan traditions [UMC, AME, CME, AMEZ, Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist, others] may be upset. It is probably too early to tell. But it has come out that Charles Wesley kept a secret diary written in a secret code for twenty years and an Anglican scholar has now deciphered it.

The work is scheduled for publication soon. There may [apparently will] be some embarrassments. But I would suggest that we remember what we have had to remember so often lately, that the message is often stronger than the messenger.

And we will have to check up on this later. Philadelphia Bulletin story

We can discuss best those matters we phrase best

The role churches have in matters in how to react to homosexuality and those who might engage in homosexual acts is a matter of discussion in several religious communities, Christian and others. My church and its denomination have gone one way, most go the other but many of them are asking questions. I am sure that many on both sides are praying that they have interpreted correctly and that most of the people of good will on both sides understand the complexity of the matter.

But it seems to me that the question has always been, “Does God really condemn homosexual thought and/or conduct?” and not “Has God changed His/Her mind on this matter?” The first question seems to ask whether two millennia of church thinking might be in error. The second question seems to imply that God has no fixed standards.

But Kermit Rainman of Focus on the Family is quoted as saying, "Gay activists and their allies have made no secret of their strategy to convince Bible-believing Christians and Jews that homosexual behavior is no longer sinful in God’s eyes." [link]

The United Church of Christ says that God is still speaking. Mr. Robinson's seems to be saying that God changes the message on the way. Somehow I would rather discuss the first question than the last.


[There is a third possibiliy that one churchperson mentioned to me a few years ago, which would be to conclude that the Bible does not condemn lesbian sex but does condemn male homosexuality. I don’t know how many scholars or theologians conclude things this way and of course it really is somewhat irrelevant what the numbers would be, but it seems that even if one takes this position that one still cannot how the question is phrased. And I wonder if the thinking isn’t a bit flawed.]