A Good Reason for Me Not to Preach Every Sunday

Jane Barter Moulaison, a theologian on faculty at the University of Winnipeg Faculty of Theology and parishioner at St. Mary Magdalene, preached this Sunday:

And I think this passage has something to teach us today about beauty and goodness. If our efforts to do the right thing with our resources do not praise God, if they are not characterized by Beauty, then they fail to be truly Good. It is only when we place Christ, the Beloved, at the Centre that we know what goodness and beauty are. Yet, we in the modern Church, have been afraid of beauty. We have measured the value of a thing only by its utility. And so, we become nervous about art and about adornment, because they do not serve a purpose. We pride ourselves on being practical. But sometimes our practicality can be a sign that we think it our responsibility to save the world. Beauty helps to remind us that the world as God created it is good and worthy of enjoyment for its own sake. Like Mary, our task is not to shape the world to our own will, but it is to respond generously to God’s action and God’s being. Our job, as Christians, is simply to rejoice in God! And such praise, as the musicians in this congregation will surely tell us, is the greatest source of beauty that the world has known.

This is only one piece of an excellent sermon. Go read the rest here.

Running List of Pubs for General Synod

Here's the list so far, check here for updates:

Tap and Grill: Well lit, big tables, good food. A little more expensive than most pubs. I usually get the Warthog on tap - which comes in a frosted glass. Watch out for classical musicians, who've been known to haunt the place after concerts. Don't watch out for them after the concert, but rather after they've had one too many crantinis. 137 Osborne Street.

Toad in the Hole: Irish pub, with Irish music on the weekends. I do remember their ability to pour Guinness well. Watch for the pub dog, who is gentle, with one blue eye and the other brown, and probably multiple cancers from the days when smoking was legal inside. And if he's passed away, RIP, Toad in the Hole pub dog. Wheelchair access is from the back. 112 Osborne Street.

The King's Head: Another great Winnipeg pub. Wheelchair access is around back, though up a very steep ramp. Down is always the harder part, especially after being plied with Boddingtons by a generous churchwarden. You can get stuck mid-wheelie half-way down the ramp, only to find yourself sitting in a puddle with your chair across the parking lot. (I didn't know a wheelchair would bounce so well off a K-Car until that night.) But don't ask me about this story. Ask the churchwarden. He was the one with a soggy carseat after he dropped me off. From the puddle, folks.

The King's Head is members only, but membership only costs $5 at the door. Find a Winnipegger with a membership, and they can sign in as many people as they want. 120 King Street.

From Karen:

Acadamy Bar and Eatery is another option. This one is in River Heights on Academy road and has a good atmosphere and it is within walking distance of Preston's home! They have good beer, but also food, coffee and tea and they often have live music in the evenings! 414 Academy Road.

Julie proposes two:

Let us not forget about Cousins, good ol' faithful Cousins, with their soggy samosas and extensive collection of plants living in the front window. The counter staff is a little forgetful, and the lighting is dismal enough to pass for intimate. Unfortunately, there are only two beers on tap: Fort Garry Dark, and something about Catfish that I usually have. Accessible right thru the front door. No steep hills at the end of the night here. Corner of Wolseley and Sherbrook.

(The Public Parson of Pubs adds: I've been to Cousins, but not for a long time. When I went, though, I occasionally heard the sound of a duck quacking. Then, on my second or third visit, the owner was clearing a table nearby, and I realised that it was him who was quacking. When I asked the Cousins regular if I really did just hear that man quack, he just shrugged.)

Oh! And there is the Fox and the Hound, on Portage near Route 90 overpass. Bring as much change as your pockets will hold...if the slots don't get you, the bikers or the middle aged waitresses with bad breath and too short skirts just might.

Dubbed "Public Parson of Pubs (In Plenary)"

To heap honour upon honour is but to humble a man.

In seminary we had a regular meeting after our community night - for reasons shrouded in the mists of history, we called it staff meeting, and we met at the local pub for a glass of beer, soda, or some other frothy beverage. (They would even blow the dust off a box of wine for the most faithful staffer on faculty, John Kater.) I had the great honour of being appointed as chief of staff, and became responsible for gathering and leading the seminarians, family members, and faculty down the street to the local pub. My pledge was to keep the custom of extended table fellowship alive and well.

But now? After the great honour of being sometime chief of staff, I have been asked yet again to gather the faithful around a glass of something good to drink. I've been appointed, by an Edmontonian delegate, as "Public Parson of Pubs (In Plenary)" for the upcoming General Synod.

I accept this appointment with gladness. And, in keeping with my new vocation, I will keep a running list of great places in Winnipeg to gather for theological conversations around something good to drink.

Keep the suggestions coming, faithful of Winnipeg!

Primate's Theological Commission Responds

After my recent bout of crankiness, I've settled down a little bit.

I've settled into a saddened disapoinment. Why give up on common theological reflection now? We were doing what the Episcopal Church has yet to do - reflect on issues of sexuality as a church, through the Primate's Theological Commission, which operates within the structures of our ecclesial institution. This is to be lauded! The members of the Commission are far from theologically uniform, except that they all agreed that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. We were beginning with theological reflection together, before getting on with the inevitable politics. And this was good.

But for all their good work, the primate undermines his own commission and the Council of General Synod offers a very muddled series of resolutions.

We may not have the guts to do this right. It looks like we're reverting to politics first, and theological reflection after - an order of action that virtually guarantees that the only theological voice that is heard in the end is that of the winner, because the losers will have already been marginalised through this very political ostracization and then self-selection out of the church.

In the meantime I attended a workshop presided over by the chair of the Primate's Theological Commission, bishop Victoria Matthews. This was a little encouraging. Bishop Victoria got us started with some remarks about doctrinal development, then we looked at what we consider to be core doctrine, and after that what we consider to be adiaphora. Only after this initial conversation did we get to the matter at hand, the blessing of same-sex unions, and we did agree that this is a matter of doctrine. (We did not answer the question about whether these kinds of blessings are a faithful development of doctrine, as this question is yet to be engaged in common conversation through the structures of the church. We may hold private judgments, and we may well have voted on such issues. But we have not yet spoken together with clarity on the faithfulness of this development.) Many truthful voices were heard at this workshop, and I am thankful for this. I think we will move forward with a little more love and a little more truth. I hope that we can engage the next question, about the faithfulness of this particular doctrinal development, as we did at this workshop: theologically and as a church.

Bishop Victoria was kind enough to take a moment to converse with me about the muddled CoGS resolutions. I'm happy to see what she said in our conversation has now been released in the more formal language of a press release. (It looks like the Primate's Theological Commission is as unhappy with the CoGS resolutions as I am: see here and here.)

I am no longer all that optimistic about the place of common theological reflection in our church. I hope we have the guts to sit down together and hash this one out under the guidance of and within our instituional structures; this is where we can make some genuine statements about these issues as a church. If that fails, and we begin with the political, things will not end well, and the pubs may be the best place to find any theological conversation worth having.

Despite my saddened disappointment over the seeming undermining of our efforts at some ecclesial theological conversation, hope will never be lost. God's good graces will work within and without the church, and there is nothing we can do, in our attempts at winning or losing, to interrupt God's providential hand - though let's be honest, all atempts at winning this one politically does much to obscure God's work. We can't be sure of what the final choices will look like for us, and I still resist any brinksmanship. Christ will not abandon his church.

Pubs for General Synod

(If you are looking for the full list of pubs for General Synod, click here)

To my kind, dear lord, Lady Catherine von Bora, Mrs. Doctor Luther, at Wittenberg

. . .

Yesterday I drank something which did not agree with me, so that I had to sing: If I don’t drink well I have to suffer, and [yet] I do like to do it. I said to myself what good wine and beer I have at home, and also [what] a pretty lady or (should I say) lord. You would do well to ship the whole cellar full of my wine and a bottle of your beer to me here, as soon as you are able; otherwise I will not be able to return home because of the new beer. *

With this I commend you to God, together with our young ones and all the members of our household. Amen.

July 29, 1534
The Man whom you Love
Martin Luther, Doctor

Joe Walker, who blogs at felix hominum, has tagged me with a request to make a list of pubs in Winnipeg for General Synod. I'm happy to oblige - but you, humble reader of Winnipeg, are asked to add names of your favourite pubs as well.

Tap and Grill: Well lit, big tables, good food. A little more expensive than most pubs. I usually get the Warthog on tap - which comes in a frosted glass. Watch out for classical musicians, who've been known to haunt the place after concerts. Don't watch out for them after the concert, but rather after they've had one too many crantinis. 137 Osborne Street.

Toad in the Hole: Irish pub, with Irish music on the weekends. I do remember their ability to pour Guinness well. Watch for the pub dog, who is gentle, with one blue eye and the other brown, and probably multiple cancers from the days when smoking was legal inside. And if he's passed away, RIP, Toad in the Hole pub dog. Wheelchair access is from the back. 112 Osborne Street.

The King's Head: Another great Winnipeg pub. Wheelchair access is around back, though up a very steep ramp. Down is always the harder part, especially after being plied with Boddingtons by a generous churchwarden. You can get stuck mid-wheelie half-way down the ramp, only to find yourself sitting in a puddle with your chair across the parking lot. (I didn't know a wheelchair would bounce so well off a K-Car until that night.) But don't ask me about this story. Ask the churchwarden. He was the one with a soggy carseat after he dropped me off. From the puddle, folks.

The King's Head is members only, but membership only costs $5 at the door. Find a Winnipegger with a membership, and they can sign in as many people as they want. 120 King Street.

Any other pubs good for theological conversation in our fair city?

* As the story goes, sweet Catherine did send Martin that beer.

Liberal Brinksmanship Becomes a Reality, or, I Think I'm Getting Cranky

I'm so tired of the rhetoric of the brink. I've heard far too many times, "If this happens, the church is going to fall apart," only to find that after the fact nothing really happens. At least nothing more than the continued erosion of things like trust.

But it's usually conservatives who are the brinksmen*. But what, to my surprise, do I read yesterday?: liberal primate ++Andrew Hutchison reports, concerning General Synod possibly passing a resolution allowing the blessing of smae sex unions, that “another three years doesn’t do us any good. In the eyes of the Communion we will have crossed the Rubicon and what damage has been done will have been done.” (++Andrew is arguing against treating these blessings as doctrine, which would require two General Synods, hence the three years.)

Brinksmanship just bit conservatives in the butt!

Treating the blessing of same sex unions as a matter of doctrine, and taking the requisite time for discernment and deliberation, will only be of benefit to us and the Communion. Are we under threat of breaking communion with our fellow Anglicans around the world? To be sure. But treating these blessings as doctrinal will give us more time to do this right. (And it postpones the real brink by three years, because nothing will be categorically changed in our institutional practice until then.)

But don't mind me, I'm probably just getting cranky.

* There are probably brinkswomen, though I'm not sure I've ever heard one.

Say it A Little More Clearly, Preston

My wife tells me that I can be opaque, and she's right. So, a little more clearly:

My previous post is very much conditioned by my frustration with my primate, ++Andrew Hutchsion, who recently said concerning the blessing of same sex unions, that “we are dealing with a matter of doctrine except that all we do as Anglicans is related to doctrine; this is a matter of pastoral discipline.”

It seems that our Council of General Synod is hoping that we will ignore the findings of the St. Michael's Report, which said that we are dealing with a matter of doctrine, and that the blessing of same sex unions ought to be treated as such. But ++Andrew and CoGS wish to treat the matter as slightly less than doctrine, thereby bypassing the three years and 2/3 majorities needed to make the blessing of same sex unoins canonical.

Sorry, Primate's Commission, I guess we'd preferrably ignore your input on the matter. And sorry General Synod too, we're not going take the time to do this right.

You want my opinion on the matter? Read that previous post, but between the lines.

although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth

I'm preparing for the second in a series of workshops on anointing and healing prayer, and tonight we are going to do some reflection on the rite as it appears in the Book of Alternative Services. I thought I would look at the Canadian Book of Common Prayer (1959), and I found this rubric:

But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for
want of warning in due time to the Curate, or by any other just
impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and
Blood: he shall be instructed that if he do truly repent him of his
sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death
upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption,
earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving
him hearty thanks therefor; he doth eat and drink the Body and
Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health,
although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.

Repentance, believing in the redemption wrought on the cross, remembering the benefits of the crucifixion, and thankfulness for what was accomplished on the cross: this is a spiritual posture that results in the actual reception of communion, even of the bread and wine are absent.

Perhaps remembrance of the resurrection would lighten the mood of this particular liturgical doctrine, but talk about strong, theological, pastoral and liturgical teaching! Yes, you can have communion, even if the Curate is absent.

But this is not just a situational liturgical ethic. The doctrine of spiritual communion in the absence of a Curate is possible because it points to the significance that lies behind the sacrament, combining a strength of teaching that makes sense of a particual pastoral provision through the consideration of real life circumstance - a person is dying and the priest is stuck in the mud somewhere. So what do you do? Offer them communion anyway. It may start with a particular situation, but the provision is not simply responsive to the situation, but rather draws upon theological resources in order to make a certain pastoral response possible.

All that to say: pastoral discipline and doctrine are not so easily separated. When we do separate them, they both tend to dissolve in our hands, because pastoral responses are most sensible within the context of doctrine, and doctrine becomes intelligible through our pastoral practices. Pastoral liturgical responses are good when they draw upon a particular strand of a common tradition, because when we do that, a particular situational response becomes comprehensible to all who are held within this common tradition.

And the miracle of spiritual communion, the reception of bread and wine even in their very absence, makes sense - because we already understand the sacrament of communion through repentance and the recollection of the crucifixion and it's benefits. The recollection and practice of the doctrine of the crucifixion becomes sufficient for this particular miracle, spiritual communion.

Core Doctrine and Adiaphora

I would like to commend a particular post to all those thinking and praying for our upcoming General Synod. It is written by Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews, a member of the Primate's Theological Committee.

In answer to the question put to it by General Synod 2004, the Primate’s Theological Commission (PTC) concluded that “that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine,” but “not a matter of what is often referred to as a ‘core’ doctrine, in the sense of being credal doctrine.”

Now, I readily admit that the PTC’s conclusion is not especially profound, and I can understand why some are not pleased with it. After all, it does not clearly satisfy anyone’s prejudices.[i] But before I comment further on the categories of doctrine discussed in the St. Michael Report (SMR), let me suggest that this should be one reason why the report ought to be commended to the church. While the SMR doesn’t develop a theology of sexuality or sexual ethics, it does lay out what we think needs to be talked and prayed about in the hope that the church will be helped to overcome the supercharged rhetoric that divides us.

Read the rest here.