A Red State Mystic.

OH MY! WHERE has the time gone? Last thing I knew, it was the middle of January. Well, here we are at 3/8s the way through February and I haven't posted anything lately. I'm sure that part of this is due to the fact that I wrote that huge post which might have been a wee-bit of an over share. Even though a few have told me I should get it published, returning to the ole' blog is a little embarrassing. What can I say after saying that? No, my friends, not because of its subject was earthly love but because what can one say after ones says something like that? Compared to its honesty, anything after it will seem like mere child's play. But, I have always been accused of being like a child (and I don't mean in the biblical way).

ALL THAT BEING written, however, I do have a few things in the works. An exciting post on Charles Williams' Doctrine of Substituted Love and how that relates to the Daily Office. Another tantalization about Queen Elizabeth I's proclamation, "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls" and Jesus' admonition that you will know a tree by its fruit. You know, the usual. Sorry that I haven't been around much. I'll get right on them!

(Note: Skip to the middle of the video, that's when they start to chant the Psalm below.)

I ONCE DREAMED that I was in a loft apartment in a big city. It was nighttime and chilly. I looked through a high window (that had blinds on it) out onto the street. There was a deer grazing on a strip of grass between the sidewalk and the road. I stood there for sometime watching it graze in the middle of the night, in the middle of a city and, perhaps, in the middle of my heart. It was so peaceful.

"Like as the hart desireth the water-brooks : so longeth my soul after thee, O God.
My soul is athirst for God, yea, even for the living God : when shall I come to appear before the presence of God?
My tears have been my meat day and night : while they daily say unto me, Where is now thy God?
Now when I think thereupon, I pour out my heart by myself : for I went with the multitude, and brought them forth into the house of God;
In the voice of praise and thanksgiving : among such as keep holy-day.
Why art thou so full of heaviness, O my soul : and why art thou so disquieted within me?
Put thy trust in God : for I will yet give him thanks for the help of his countenance (Psalm 63:1-7, 1662 BCP)."

IF YOU WERE able to read the post I had here yesterday, you may not be able to today. After discussing it with some people I trust dearly, we thought it might be best to make what I wrote yesterday as friends-only. Which is really a shame, because it was so cathartic to write. It was one of those entirely vague posts where I lived up to Walter Wellesley's idea that writing is easy because  "All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein." Anyway, this means you have to be a LiveJournal user and be on my friend list to read it.  If you're interested in reading it, let me know and I'll pass it your way.

I KNOW THAT many of you who read my blog are not members of LiveJournal, often talking about what I write with me face-to-face, facebook or in emails. I do so appreciate you faithfully stopping by! That's why I try to keep these friends-only posts very few and far between (in fact, I think this is the third since I started the ole' blog nine years ago).Thanks again.

A FEW OF you have asked me my predictions for the upcoming year.*

Personal Predictions for 2010:

• Some good things will happen.
• Some bad things will happen.
• Most of it will be forgettable.

Predictions for the Episcopal Church in 2010:

• Someone "out there" (probably on one of the coasts) will do something "liberal": elect another openly homosexual Bishop, deny the dual nature of Christ or be entirely too "touchy-feely."
• Everyone will react to this decision, either decrying it as an act of apostasy or as a "bold move of the Holy Spirit."
• Recovering Evangelicals and disenchanted Romans will join.
• Those wanting a solid stance on anything will go where they can share solid stances with those of like-minds.
• The Eucharist will be given on Sundays.
• The Daily Office will be said.
• Babies will be baptized.
• We will throw great parties.

Predictions for the US Government in 2010:

• One party will do/say something about something.
• The other party will overreact with childish histrionics not seen since Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
• Cable TV and Blogs will continue this ad nauseum.

IN OTHER WORDS, 2010 will be more of the same.

*This is a total lie. I use it here as a rhetorical device.

(A favorite movie of mine, although the book is entirely better.)

HIGHLIGHTS FROM 2009 from the ole' blog:

• I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my infamous Ask Andy columns that were published in The Stampede, Milligan's student newspaper. It was a joy to write and I was sad I didn't start it sooner (I had the idea since my Sophomore year). My favorite one was advice on Lenten devotions. And I can't forget the one that they refused to publish! Needless to say, I am quite proud of that one.
• My post "On ______" is my favorite post of the year. When vesta_venus wrote "You have really summed up the human condition in that one," I knew I had a winner.
  
• Following closely, would be the post "On the Purgation of the Soul." Intensely personal and entirely vague all at the same time -- just the way I like it!
• Then, there is my response to and new understanding of the Roman Option.

ENOUGH OF THE self-aggrandizement. Expect much more of the same in 2010 from A Red State Mystic: some humor, some depth, all with an overriding sense of vanity. You know, just normal blogging!

AT LUNCH AFTER Church today, the topic of Butler, Tennessee came up in the conversation. Butler was an entire town that is now underneath Watauga Lake, which is just down the road from Johnson City. In the 80's during a draw down of the Lake, the town once again saw the light of day -- some of it still creepily intact. In my mind, it occupies that space that just tingles my spine at the very thought of it, like a "haunted" house. As I said at lunch, there ain't too many places like that in Indiana. Just look at this video taken during the 80's! Creepy!

I USED BUTLER as a Sermon illustration for my Homiletics class at Milligan. Butler provided the perfect dovetail image to the Transfiguration as our eyes are opened in the Kingdom of God. Below is that sermon, if anyone is interested. (Looking back on it, I can see that it could have used some major streamlining. I remember thinking that as I wrote it. But this sermon had to be at least fifteen minutes. Good glory to God, nobody needs to preach that long. Let alone me, who has a tendency to wander.) Put it on if you need a nap!

Sermon on the Kingdom of God from Andrew Ford on Vimeo.

A HAPPY ST Stephen's Day! At Evening Prayer tonight, I decided to sing the hymn appointed for St. Stephen's Day in the 1982 Hymnal (#243). After several attempts of trying figure it out with solfege, I gave up and sang it to House of the Rising Sun. By the way, this is a really nifty trick. If you know a handful of tunes for the most frequently used meters, you can bypass the written tune (which can be terrible) and go for one you know well. The ones I know for this meter are House of the Rising Sun, New Britain (aka "Amazing Grace"), Land of Rest (which I simply adore) or even the Gilligan's Island theme (all CM tunes). Since this hymn is CMD, you just sing the tune twice for each stanza! Feel free to give it a try!

THE WORDS ARE fantastic and thought I'd pass them along:

"When Stephen, full of power and grace,
Went forth throughout the land,
He bore no shield before his face,
No weapon in his hand;
But only in his heart a flame
And on his lips a sword
Wherewith he smote and overcame
The foemen of the Lord.

When Stephen preached against the laws
And by those laws was tried,
He had no friend to plead his cause,
No spokesman at his side;
But only in his heart a flame
And in his eyes a light
Wherewith God's daybreak to proclaim
And rend the veils of night.

When Stephen, young and doomed to die,
Fell crushed beneath the stones,
He had no curse nor vengeful cry
For those who broke his bones;
But only in his heart a flame
And on his lips a prayer
That God, in sweet forgiveness' name
Should understand and spare.

Let me, O Lord, thy cause defend,
A knight without a sword;
No shield I ask, no faithful friend,
No vengeance, no reward;
But only in my heart a flame
And in my soul a dream,
So that the stones of earthly shame
A jewelled crown may seem."
--Jan Struther (1901-1953), alt.

A BLESSED AND Merry Christmas to you all.

I'M SURE THAT you are busy: either heading to some festivities or returning with a full stomach and unwrapped gifts. I don't intend to take up much of your time, as we know this Feast backwards and forwards. We know the chocolates, the greenery, the carols, the candlelight; we know the pageants, the Yule Log on WGN; we know "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus . . ." and the like. We could do it in our sleep and, in fact, some of us do.

WE KNOW THAT this is the feast of the Incarnation, when divinity took on flesh in Jesus Christ. This is the feast when the Heavens drop down as the earth rose to bring forth a Savior. This is the Feast when God chose a humble Virgin in order to redeem the world. This is the feast we know so well. We know it so well that perhaps we do not stop when one of the Creeds writes about how Christ is fully God and fully man. We certainly do not stop when the Creed further states that redemption happens "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by the taking of the manhood into God." Through Christ (The God Man), we are drawn-up in our very nature to union with God.

WHAT DO WE MEAN when we say that he took our nature upon himself? What is this manhood that is taken up into God? There is the obvious, of course, that the Divine took upon Himself these flesh-and-blood bodies of ours that sweat and creak. This is a miracle in and of itself. But in his taking of the manhood into God, he also took our sins which have distorted and warped our natures almost beyond recognition. As St. Paul wrote: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (1 Cor. 5:21)." So, not only does this manhood that Christ bears to God consist of our physical nature but also our sins.

WE KNOW SIN, too. We know that sin is a scary word that we know we don't like. It invokes images and memories of fiery judgmental words that was born more out of self-gratification than love and service to your sister. In so many ways, our understanding of sin is distorted by sin  but the concept of sin is still pertinent to the Christian life. There are many definitions of sin and each lends an understanding to it: a moral problem of actions and words; a breaking of the law; it is those things that separate us from an all-holy God; or even that it is a predominately a problem of the heart. I like to think of sin as those dark corners of the heart where we go to hide from God -- much like Adam and Eve did in the Garden after they ate the forbidden fruit.

HOWEVER YOU VIEW it, sin is taken right along with the physical aspects of the manhood into God. Notice that they are not first wiped away, cast off or forgotten. No, they are first borne up into God. These dark corners are absorbed (if you will) into the light of the Divine, through Jesus Christ our Lord. They are not trampled, but embraced by God. In the absorption and embracing by God, they are transformed. Our sins, through Christ, are borne up into God, plunged in the fire of his Divine love. The Prophet put it this way: "The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of his Christ."

THROUGH THIS CHRIST-CHILD,  our sins are borne up into God. Which is really quite marvelous! Even sin, the darkest and dirtiest parts of ourselves have a part to play in salvation. To cast them off (which is really just repression) would rob them of this wonderful role. To think abstinence is the only way to deal with sin is to ignore that all of you is borne up into God. Sin is not meant to be first cast off or disregarded. No, our sins are to be borne up into God.

INDEED, I THINK is the purpose of sin: union with God. I think this is why St. Julian of Norwich precedes her most famous quote with the phrase: sin is behovely (useful). Even that which separates us from God and alienates us from our brothers and sisters has a purpose. It is not meant to be cast off, ignored or repressed. Its purpose, its end is to be borne into God, through Jesus Christ with the rest of our very being. Sin, therefore, should be embraced and brought before God with the prayer, "Make this something beautiful for you, O God." Embraced in the love of God, it will then transform into that which we seek.

WE KNOW THIS. We know that through the incarnation, we are absorbed and transformed in our nature.
And these dark corners of our hearts will erupt in light and transform,
much like the Cave-Manger of old Bethlehem,
from something dark and dirty,
dank and disgusting,
into a throne room fit for him who rules the universe.
"And Heav'n as at som festivall,
Will open wide the Gates of her high Palace Hall."

WE ARE NOW in Sapientide:  the few days before Christmas when the great "O Antiphons" are said at the Magnificat of Evening Prayer. In years past, I have offered the text of each O Antiphon and a few (hopefully) salient thoughts as a devotional guide here on this very blog. I decided against it this year for a variety of reasons. I hope those of you who have been around for the three-or-so years I have done this won't hold it against me.

AT EVENING PRAYER on Wednesday, we anticipated the first O Antiphon, by chanting it and the Magnificat. For the Antiphon, we used the second verse of the hymn "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" which is a metrical version of the Latin and a plain chant setting for the Mag. While this was going on, we also had incense (as is the custom in the West). In fact, we had enough incense to choke even the most ardent of Protestants; even my head was light from the amount -- a feat, indeed! It seemed to all who were there to be a special moment as we prayed for "the wisdom from on high."

ONE OF THE reasons I will not be posting my little devotionals is because I will be traveling for the majority of it. Yesterday, I left from Tennessee to head back to Indiana. Thankfully, we missed all the inclement weather that has Johnson City buried under at least 6 inches of snow (and counting). It has been snowing here since the morning, but it is melting on the pavement. Hoosiers, accustomed to the snow, know how to deal with -- what my roommate calls -- "the white death." I'm sure the Kroger up the street in Johnson City had to break up brawls in the bread aisle and protect the old woman who was getting their last half-gallon of skim milk. Hoosiers have plans for ice and snow. And thankfully so.  

I WAS SO tired from the drive that I slept very well (and for entirely too long). I had a strange dream while I was asleep. Dreaming in the first-person, I saw three people (two men and one woman, both unfamiliar) arguing over in a corner of a room with yellow walls. Watching this escalate, I yell, "Hey! Hey! Stop that!" One of the men punches the woman in the face. I rise from my seat and yell, "I adjure you to stop in Christ's name!" They all turn towards me and immediately apologize to each other. Turing red with embarrassment, they shook hands like children who were told to make peace by their parents. They were just like children after that and it made me smile.

THE IRONY, OF course, is that the phrase "I adjure you . . ." comes from the blessing of Salt for use in holy water: "I adjure thee, O creature of salt" The formula that our Priest used to bless the most recent round of Holy Water, even though Anglican, was almost exactly similar to the Roman Counterpart. Any Freudians or Jungians want to interpret this for me?

(This, by the way, is not the Font at St. John's. I should also hasten to add that the moving of the Font at St John's does not seem to be a controversial decision. I use it here only to make a point.)

A FEW WEEKS ago, I had the priviledge to overhear a conversation between someone who had recently started attending St. John's and someone who had been going there since Jesus was crucified. The topic was the Baptismal Font, which was moved recently to the back of the Nave and is now filled with Holy Water. The newcomer says, "I'm so glad they've moved the Font back to its traditional place; where God intended it to be." (Obviously listening to me and my ilk entirely too much). The older member responds, "No, that is not the traditional place. The font has always been in the front!" They both look at me, encouraging me with their eyes to give an opinion. I look down -- a reflex from my Baptist days (when sh*t goes down, so does your head. Do not make eye contact, lest anyone think you want to change the color of the carpet in the Sanctuary from deep red to blue). This conversation was much more cheerful than the ones from my Baptist days and they both went onto another topic.

THE IRONIC THING, of course, is that they both are entirely correct. The newcomer used the word traditional to invoke the ancient practice of the Church, which was to have the font by the door, (because you enter into the Church through Baptism). The not-so-newcomer used the word traditional to invoke the fact that for as long as she has been a member, the font has been up front. It was up front for her baptism and for her children's baptisms. They were both correct in both uses.

WHICH, OF COURSE, begs the question (maybe it doesn't, but this is my blog and I say it does), what is liturgically appropriate for Episcopalians? Legally, all that is required is the actual text of the Prayer Book and the rubrics (I think the Canons might say a little bit, but not much). Really. That's all that is liturgically "appropriate" for an Episcopal Church. This is marvelous because it leaves everything from a Mass that feels, smells and sounds like the Tridentine version to the lowest-of-the-low Churches with their handmade stoles and clergy shirts. The words are and should be the same at both, but everything else is just ephemera, legally speaking.

WE ARE NOT Romans, for heaven's sake! They have The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, which is a guidebook on everything from the position of the Priest's hands, to Church furnishings, to how long a pass-the-peace hug can be before it gets awkward (3 seconds, by the way [that was a joke]). The GIRM carries with it enough authority that at least Fr. Joe can say, "No, this is how it should be" and throw the book at the offenders. But, even the GIRM not always followed in Roman Catholic Churches. I'm not sure if the Orthodox have something similar because their services confuse and hurt my head.

ANGLICANS HAVE NO such luck. We have no book to throw at the offenders' heads. Yes, even though there are a plethora of Anglican Liturgical Manuals, they are not legally binding. Dennis Michno's A Priest's Handbook seems to be the most common Ceremonial in Episcopal Churches. If the medieval practice in England is your inspiration, there is Percy Dearmer's A Parson's Handbook. If you think that the Tridentine Mass was damn near perfect, there is Ritual Notes, which adapts the text of the Prayer Book to imitate its Roman counterpart. There are even Churches that use The General instruction on the Roman Missal. Your Church can write its own, for heaven's sake! Or, you can do what we do: we do it this way because we have always done it this way. All of these only have authority when it is given by the Church. For example, when training the Acolytes, they could refer to pages in Ritual Notes or whatever.

YOU CANNOT THROW a book at an offender, however unfortunate that may be. Some days it is VERY unfortunate! At least legally speaking, Episcopalians cannot say that some things need or should be done this way or that way. Of course, your over-opionated laity who likes to engage in some "backseat vicaring" will do this no matter what, yelling their concept of "Tradition" at each other. Lord knows I do this worse than anyone else. Again, apart from the text of the Prayer Book (et. al) and the rubrics therein, there is nothing that should or should not be done in an Episcopal Church.

HERE AGAIN THAT pesky old question comes back: what is liturgically appropriate for Episcopalians? Is it appropriate that the Font was moved to the back of the Nave? Does God really intend it to be there? Should it have remained up front and dry, except for when a baby's head hovers over it? Which Tradition do we appeal to: what's done here; what's done there; what some Parish in the late eighth century in East Anglia did; or what did the Romans did? Why do we do what we do and with what authority do we do it?

THIS IS ALMOST the exact same question that theboynamedfred posed in his response to my response on the Roman Option:

"Mr. Ford offers the classic suggestion of the majority of Anglicans - work it out. Pray, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, engage in social justice, and so on. The attitude is very commendable; in fact, the inertia of this proposition arguably could be what has sustained the Church of England for almost five hundred years . . . Now, however, that the English Church is unsure about so many issues, it finds itself faced with the question all 'doers' must address: why are we doing this?"

Why do we do what we do? Why do we move the font to the back of the Church? Why do we begin every Mass with the Collect for Purity? Why do we cross ourselves? Why do we feed the poor? Why do we fill the font with holy water? What is the end of all these things? What is their purpose? This is a valuable question, no doubt. It is one that all doers and hearers of the word must address.

BOTH LITURGICALLY AND morally speaking, I do not believe our answer is in imitating Tradition (which can be pesky, as seen above). Our goal should not be to be like the Medieval English Church, the Roman Church or even St.-John's-in-the-Kennedy-Administration. No, this is not our end. This is not why we pray. This is not why we give cups-of-water in Christ's name. This is not why we move Fonts. Though the result may look very similiar to what Christians have done for centuries, it is not our end. It is not our purpose to "ape" them.

THE PRAYER BOOK Catechism gives this answer:

Q. What is the mission of the Church?
A. The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.

THIS IS WHY the Font was moved (at least, for me). It was not moved because it was traditional or biblical. Yes, those answers are fine and good, but they are not enough. The font was moved as a constant reminder that Baptism is an outward and visible sign of unity with God and each other. That the sacraments are certain means by which we receive grace: that is, the grace of union with God. The Sacraments are given to us for this very end. Walking by a font that is filled with holy water reminds us that we set apart for union with him, as the Prayer Book puts it, Christ's own forever.

THIS RESTORAL OF unity with God and each other goes by many different names: the Mystics would call it "union with Reality." The Benedictines would call it the "amendment of life;" and our Orthodox brethren call it deification or theosis. This is our purpose: to become one with the Divine, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Of course, this is not only our ultimate end, but also the reason for our life here on this earth. This is why we do works of mercy and try to walk as humbly as we can. This is why we pray. This is why we submit to authority. This is why. This is why.

LITURGICAL APPROPRIATENESS SHOULD facilitate or at least point to this end. Tradition (whether it be from a millennia or fifty years ago) will lead to this. But we do not aim for being Traditional or aim for being appropriate or even aim for being pretty. No, we aim for the heart. To shoot for anything less would be to cheapen the Cross of Christ and rob us of awareness of the Kingdom of God.

AND THEN, WHAT would we be?