Quaestio II: Ever Felt Like Father Christmas?

And now for something completely different. It'sssss...

Time for a bit of priestly poetry:

Whatever be thy Sacred Quest
Which stops thee taking too much rest,
Dost ever thou both hear and see
That someone stands - a sentry he!
A-glaring, scaring, rags a-wearing
Foul and fix'd with motives mix'd -
'Twixt thee and priestly sanctity?

And might she look a bit like barmy Bridgekeeper Terry Gilliam, saying:

Stop! Answer me these questions three
Ere the Other Side you see:

1. Wwwwhat is the Christian name of every worshipper in your parish (even those who've never told you)?
2. Wwwwhat are the quests - erm - needs of every worshipper in your parish (even those they've never told you)?
3. Wwwwhat is your favourite posture for exercising your psychic - erm - priestly gifts (like Clairvoyance, best done on your knees - where I also record my visions as rubrics)?
   

Right. Hmm... Let's see, there's Aaron, Abigail, Adam, Adrian, Adrianne, Ann...needa? No wait...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Fallen have you, Vicar? For goodness' sake! The shame of it! Really, Vicar!

It seems you didn't know the one 'twixt thee and priestly sanctity' isn't a barmy Bridgekeeper.

It's a smarmy Scorekeeper! Her name - and well should you know it, Vicar, for she certainly knows yours - is Anita. Her surname is Lott. Like you, Vicar, she has a title, you know: Mrs.

Mrs Anita Lott, that most querulous parish reticent - erm - resident.

Her needs - and well should you know them, Vicar- are numerous. Each is more troublesome than the last. But apparently you forgot - erm - failed to know her latest need, though again she failed - erm - forgot to mention it. Because that poor, specious - erm - precious lamb, Mrs Anita Lott, is in hospital for a hip surgery... since last Tuesday!

For goodness' sake! The shame of it! Really, Vicar!

You've been neglecting her! You must pray that she'll forgive you lest she and those in whom she confides further malign God, the Church - and lastly you!

And you must assure her it shall never happen again! To ensure you keep that priestly vow, you must pray to be infused with the psychic - erm - priestly gift of clairvoyance!

And who's our most adept Intercessor, Vicar?

Father Christmas, of course.

So setting aside all sacrilege - erm - satire, I'm dead serious about the Holy Gift and this Sacred Quest.

Stop! Answer, you, these questions two:

1. Do you ask every little child's Patron Psychic - erm - Saint, Nicholas of Myra to help you in your quest to earn your Church Commissions' stipend and church parishioners' trust?
2. Do you seek the Holy Gift?

Yes. No. Wait...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Fallen, again Vicar? That really isn't a good sign.

Jolly old Saint Nick already knows your name and needs, and if you've been naughty or nice. So back to your knees and your psychic - erm - priestly duties, Vicar! Back to thy Sacred Quest! And why in God's name are you reading this blog? A blog, Vicar?

For goodness' sake! The shame of it! Really, Vicar!

Stop! Answer, you, these questions two:

1. Don't you have needy little children - erm - parishioners to visit?
2. Are you leaving yet?
   

Yes. No. wait...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Three falls in one reading, Vicar. That just isn't good form now, is it? Perhaps you're the one who needs to be in hospital!

Oh, and while you're there...

Quaestio I. Christian Service: Sentence, Stint or Sacrament?

At least three vocations involving the idea of service occur in the New Testament.

'Sentence': Bond Service (s.v., Greek doulos, e.g., Onesimus in Philemon)

• Initiation is conviction. Whether a debtor, prisoner or slave, this sort of service is servitude.
  
• Termination is manumission.
  
• Dignity is deferred. Bond service is inherently depersonalising. The servant has few if any civil rights.
  

'Stint': Military Service (s.v., Greek stratos, Latin solidararius, 'someone who served in the Roman Army for pay.')

• Initiation is SACRAMENTVM.
  
• Termination is expiration. Expiration of Term of Service (ETS) was 25 years for the Roman Army, and is currently 22 years in the British Army.
  
• Dignity is derived. Military service is personal and collegial, but the soldier's civil rights are contingent on some form of Military Law (not to be confused with Martial Law, a 'system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice').

'Sacrament': Apostolic Service (s.v., Greek diakonos)

• Initiation is ordination.
  
• Termination is dormition (death).
• Dignity is conferred. Like Military Service, Apostolic Service is personal and collegial, but also charismatic. The charisms are 'handed-on' (Greek, paradosis, Latin: traduction) by Apostles and their Successors, conveying efficacious power and authority by God the Holy Spirit, the divine Person who deifies human persons.
  

A. Bond Service as a salutary motif in modern times. This vocation has fallen out of popular favour. Politically, modern democracies promote liberty, fraternity and equality as 'inalienable' human cum civil rights. Philosophically, humanism (all types) and personalism resist valorising slavery and indentured servanthood.

B. Military Service as a salutary motif in modern times. This vocation is perennial and popular, both politically and philosophically. It is also quite necessary, human nature (not persons) being the way it is.

Exegetically, it is difficult to find contexts with individual soldiers, at least in the NT. Usage is usually 'army' or 'host'. That in itself seems instructive, especially if you think the idea of communio is epistemically basic to being Christian (and being-as-such, come to that).

However, the soldier motif is especially salient in baptismal liturgies. Here's the one from Common Worship:

		Signing with the Cross
		The president or another minister makes the sign of the cross on the forehead of each candidate, saying
		Christ claims you for his own.
		Receive the sign of his cross.
		The president may invite parents, godparents and sponsors to sign the candidates with the cross. When all the candidates have been signed, the president says
		Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
All		Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ
		against sin, the world and the devil,
		and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.
		May almighty God deliver you from the powers of darkness,
		restore in you the image of his glory,
		and lead you in the light and obedience of Christ.
All		Amen.

The BCP (1662) also uses the martial metaphor:

Then the Priest shall take the Child into his hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers, Name this Child. And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying,

I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour Water upon it, saying the foresaid words,
I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Then the Priest shall say, E receive this Child into the congregation of Christ's flock, *and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Amen. * here the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Child's forehead.

It is difficult not to imagine Constantine's vision: In hoc signo vinces!

Incidentally, I think the BCP gets it right by placing the Signing after the Baptism. How in God's name, and I mean that exactly and literally, can you Sign children - especially by name! - before they are even baptised Christians? What was the rationale for CW changing the order and completely removing the rite for naming the child? Whatever. Until I'm able to affirm CW's logic, I shall continue to use the BCP sequence:

1. Naming
2. Baptising
3. Signing

C. Apostolic Service as a salutary motif in modern times. This motif is favoured by Catholics. As a sacrament, it carries quite a lot of the ethos, not just the etymos, of soldiering. Apostolic service as a political and philosophical notion is fully integrated with Catholic theology. Catholic Social Teaching certainly affirms the dignity of human persons.

Does affirming diaconal dignity necessarily detract from diaconal humility? Per diocesan instructions, invitations to both my diaconal and persbyteral ordinations read:

God Willing,
The Right Reverend {he}
Bishop of {see}
Will Ordain
{me}
To the Sacred Order of {Deacons | Priests}
In Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But problems certainly arise from a sacramentology that is too low ('snake-belly low' per the Bishop who graciously ordained me). Functional cum vocational notions of Ordination alone seem akin to an uncritical 'Christology from below'. It further suggests a myopic focus on doing at the expense of being - utility minus ontology.

In the end all of us humans must measure our character mostly by Christ - I will not say Christ alone since I affirm the Catholic idea of communio sanctorum. That's why I defer to Catholic creeds, councils and catechisms in answering theological quandaries. I'm just not clever enough to resolve all those pesky paradoxes by Scripture and my reason alone!

Addendum I: Suffering Service. Some of you will have noticed I didn't mention the most famous servant motif in Scripture: the 'Suffering Servant' of Deutero-Isaiah (e.g., chapter 53). It is often applied to Christ, e.g., the ever-popular chorus 'Surely He Hath Borne Our Griefs' in Handel's Messiah.

Yet leaving aside ecumenical considerations for the moment and granting that Isaiah 53 is proleptic of the Passion, surely He (i.e., Jesus) was wounded for our transgressions. Therefore, playing at being another Messiah is surely a sacrilege. And even trying to be the next 'blest' thing, a martyr, is frowned upon by the Church.

I look at it this way.

Martyrdom is to Christendom as Martial Law is to Military Law.

Sure, it's sometimes necessary; but it's meant niether to be sought nor desired. As a consolation, there's always Confessor status.

Further, valorising the 'suffering servant' motif seems a bit akin to masochism, at least to me. But maybe I'm just not very 'spiritual', or enough so to recognise the value of gratuitous suffering, i.e., as an end in itself.

Addendum II: Steedly Service. I've saved my favourite modernised motif for last. Meet Patsy, faithful Servant cum Steed:

Proemium: Admonition or Ammunition?

Admonish the disorderly;
encourage those of diminished soul;
support those who cannot stand alone;
be patient with everyone!

(1 Thessalonians 5.14; translation mine)

For the Clergy.

I try my best to live that verse. I memorised it twenty years ago, back when my religion was Free Church Protestant Christian (i.e., 'Christianity is a relationship not a religion'), from the New American Standard Bible.

Now, although the NASB claims to be the most accurate English translation around, I, an impeccable Greek scholar, have translated it afresh for you. Well, like our Patron at age 11, I do know a bit of Koine Greek.

May I also suggest a hermeneutical insight or two? That's a rhetorical question. Of course I may. And you may read them if you choose.

As I interpret this verse from St Paul's correspondence to the Church in Thessalonica, which was experiencing 'affliction' (Greek thlipsis), in order to help others, one must first discern and discriminate their 'need type'.

1) Those who need admonition. The Greek word I've translated 'disorderly' originally referred to soldiers acting 'out of rank'. They must renounce disorderliness and adopt Godly expectations.

2) Those who need encouragement. They are of 'diminished soul' (Greek: oligopsychous). Contentment seems impossible, since more is expected than they can possibly give. They must renounce unbounded expectations and adopt orderly ones.

3) Those who need support. They are too weak to support themselves. Sadly, people who aren't helped at type 2) may move into this type. They must lay aside all expectations and simply rest in God.

And the imperative binding them all? Be patient with everyone!

Now there are few prospects that frighten an Anglican priest or deacon more than 'Godly admonition' from a bishop. Let me reassure one or two of you who might be trying to anticipate.

You can stop that compulsion! And I've never received Godly admonition...though I did come close just once.

I did the internship for my theology degree in Dallas. I was placed in a lovely, ancient (in Dallas terms, i.e., 1890) Anglo-Catholic parish. As a freshly ordained deacon, one of my first diaconal roles was to sing the Exultet at the Easter Vigil, 'the most important mass of the liturgical year'. What an honour!

If you know me well, you'll also know that I was 'chomping at the bit', to use an American idiom. The Choirmaster commended and handed over to me a lovely Exultet setting in English with Gregorian chant notation. It was approved for the Church of England, which certainly raised my Anglophile smile even further up my face. So I sang that Exultet, chanted the Gospel, and set the Altar: all those 'orderly' things Angl0-Catholic deacons do at the Easter Vigil.

After mass, as my wife and I were leaving for home, and I was still aglow, my mentor said, 'Deacon, can you come to my office for a moment please?' Which of course I did. Happily my wife was happy to stay as well. It was quite a long drive home. Soon it got quite a lot longer.

He was livid. I'd committed a grave transgression of canon law by using a form different than the only one authorised, i.e., The Book of Common Prayer 1979. I pleaded, 'But Father, surely I'm on safe ground using a Church of England setting'. Not so. I'd broken the rules, and he was as adamant as he was canonically compliant. 'If I told the Bishop you'd get a Godly admonition. But I won't tell... this time.'

The upside of that American attitude is, ironically, its orderliness. Similarly, it is expected that through the Sacrament of Ordination,

• bishops should mostly do episcopal things,
• priests should mostly do sacerdotal (priestly) things, and
• deacons should mostly do diaconal things.

Through the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Order of the Laity should mostly do everything else, since they're empowered to do them. I do rather miss that American Anglican obsession with orders. For here I know no permanent deacons, those empowered for service and to bridge Church and Society. Thus, English Anglican priests typically are expected to do

• everything we were ordained to do as priests, plus
• everything we were ordained to do as transitional deacons, plus
• everything we were confirmed to do as laity.

That's theologically valid, but practically impossible. One curates' training manual I've read puts it bluntly as a warning to the newly ordained: expect 'unbounded expectations'.

I had a chat with a priest in another deanery than mine about the alarming number of English Anglican clergy breakdowns, both personal and marital. He stated without any trace of dissent that only two types of priest exist.

a) Workaholics. They are expected to work six days per week, generally 8.00am-10.00pm, taking a meal at home if time permits. Some will manage to delegate some work. They take one day off, preferably a weekday, since Saturdays are for 'being available' to working parishioners and writing sermons.

b) Lazy.

Soon I surmised which type I am.

But if all priests necessarily work either too much or not enough, then can a priest ever be truly virtuous? Both extremes are vicious, at least to my American mind.

So my first urge is to admonish those who accept this grim dichotomy with such glib deliberation. Surely it's better to correct such disorder than simply to accept it.

But I stopped my tongue short of those admonishing words, if not quite my fingers from typing these. My colleague was simply reporting – not supporting – such disorder. Obviously, few needful clergy are truly amongst the deliberately 'disorderly'. Most are 'of diminished soul' or 'cannot stand alone', and need patient encouragement and support.

Otherwise, helpful admonition could become harmful ammunition.

FrD+

Ranticon above is my own creation using a Wikipedia public image, and Despair.com's Parody Motivator Generator. Please give me credit if you use it elsewhere. Despair.com is in Austin, the Capitol of the Great State of Texas. Texas rules; therefore Despair.com is an ancillary co-regent.