Tag: Episcopal

Date: 9/3/13

Church name/type:St Paul’s Church, Episcopal

Pastor: just for today it was Father Leslie Hughs

Style of worship: Formal with some chanted elements

Overall Impression: Seems just fine!

Thoughts:
I had a little trouble figuring out the entrance. This is one of those buildings where the sanctuary isn’t obvious and there are hallways leading to other rooms near it. I went into the sanctuary and got a little treat listening to choir practice. They were very nice, a capella, sounding angelic in the echoey space. The space itself was tall with white angular pillars against muted gray stone. It had a nice clean, almost Fortress of Solitude vibe. The organ and choir area were veiled by a wall of bronze spiderweb depicting a cross with sunlight pouring both from it and onto it.

Service went about how I expected, although slightly more formal than I realized. A man I met afterwards said he was almost put off by the ‘high church’ aspect of it all, until coffee hour when he really got to know some friendly people. I wasn’t fooled by the discrepancy. There are some churches that maintain a high formality level inside the sanctuary and then flip to an easy-going chatty bunch over coffee. This week was like that. I felt very much among peers at this place. At the coffee hour, at least six people began conversations with me out of the blue. I really love it when church membership is on the ball about greeting newcomers. Overall it was a pretty nice church and among my favorites.

Anything else?: I wish I’d spoken with long-haired guy. He made me so happy because he looked super comfortable. I like churches that seem good with members showing their own style rather than just “standard church look”. And being comfortable and being who you are are things more churches should endorse.

Date: 6/16/13

Church name/type:
Cathedral of All Saints, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor:The person preaching referred to himself as Dean. This appears to be his title, his full name being David Collum.

Style of worship:formal and structured with informal bits for the kids and during announcements

Overall Impression:Seems good

Thoughts:
As with the other cathedral in Albany, the building steals the show a bit. In fact it looks much bigger once you are inside it. I think it’s probably an optical illusion due to the other relatively tall buildings around. I think I like the Cathedral of All Saints better than Immaculate Conception actually. It has almost a more ancient flavor, like Disney animated Notre Dame. It appears to be all stone (minus chairs and wall hangings) inside, in lots of arches with carved flourishes at the ceiling. There are also a couple of large metal gates separating parts of the cathedral. The altar is behind such a gate, but really nothing was done at that altar. The gospel was actually read at the center of the church. And there were some touches that made it feel like an older style service; formalities like genuflecting, swinging incense, and even some chanting. One of the few negatives was the Lord’s Prayer as a chant- it’s difficult for a first timer to follow along.

I liked the sermon. It felt very well-thought out and balanced. Dean started off by saying, “Today I will preach on sin.” Then he said that sin was not a favorite topic of his because it can easily sound like “me judging you”. The readings we got were: 1) King David and the Ducky Bathsheba 2) The sinning woman who washes Jesus’ feet. In both we have a story within a story illustrating a point. Since I’ve talked before about David, I’ll review the second story.

Jesus is at the house of a Pharisee eating. A woman who is a sinner hears about the dinner date and shows up to see Jesus. She walks right in and proceeds to wash His feet with her tears and then rubs them with expensive oil. The Pharisee must have been giving her a weird look- maybe because of her ‘sinning’ background, maybe because she waltzed right in without saying anything. Jesus answers his look with a story. Jesus describes several men with debts. One has a very large debt and one has a very little debt. Their loan shark decides to wipe the slate clean and forgive both debts. Which man will be happier? Clearly the man who had the biggest debt. The Pharisee thinks so too. Jesus goes on to say that the woman washing and anointing his feet does so out of love for him. Then he forgives her sins. The idea here is, if she has sinned so much, clearly she has the most to be grateful for and the Pharisee should cut her a little slack. Especially since he himself was remiss as a host in not washing Jesus’ feet.

The culmination of the sermon was an entreaty to us that we reflect on our own sin. We were cautioned not to simply decide for ourselves what sin is, but to consult God, the bible, and the Holy Spirit. I like how this adds an element of accountability, while still being self directed. I don’t think most people decide in a vacuum what is right or wrong. We do take advice and read scripture thoughtfully. And we listen to our hearts, where God is, as well as the experiences of others who guide us. One of the reasons I come to church is to be reminded of the things I need to work on. My anger, my negativity, and hurtful word choices are all things I can explain away as a bad mood or a cranky day. But that’s partly a cop-out. God wants me to do better and I have to keep remembering this. Another important bit from the sermon was the speed of forgiveness. Forgiveness is immediate. You ask and God forgives. He expects you to do better in the future, but leave past sins in the past. In other words, we don’t have to make ourselves suffer to be holy again. It is enough to seek forgiveness. There isn’t a need for drawn out suffering. That message is a good one I think.

After the service there were snacks at one end of the church. The kids had balloons because of the final day of Sunday school and a few of those balloons wound up in the rafters, but nobody cried about it. I was greeted by a couple members and the Dean, but he moved quickly to a new family that was visiting. I can’t really judge this one harshly, because it was probably simply a matter of order: I was first, he greeted me and moved on so as not to miss them. I chatted briefly with one of the helpers at the service- a deacon I think. We didn’t talk long; I suppose it’s possible she didn’t know what to say to me. I dressed in a tee shirt and shorts again. I probably looked like a kid.

Perhaps there’s another aspect going on here too. The church website describes a very laid back attitude towards newcomers. The tag line is “come and see”. It seems like a low-key approach is highly encouraged, perhaps even to the point of advising greeters to let visitors just absorb what they see. This can be a really great approach, especially if a church congregation is reserved. Reading the church website statement makes this even more clear. Folks wanting to visit are encouraged to do so, and (if they like) stay a few Sundays as they determine if it’s a place they can belong. The entire statement is written in a positive, realistic manner. Many churches do claim to be the ‘right’ one, but that’s something that should be up to the church goer.

Vocab examination: I’ve been pondering how I feel about the term ‘visitor’. I think there’s some subtle problems with the word when used for newcomers to a church. ‘Visitor’ implies someone who is leaving after a time. It carries a sense of otherness with it. One cannot belong if one is simply a visitor. I suggest instead using the term ‘guest’. A guest is someone special. A guest gets clean sheets and fresh flowers and the flatware sings and dances for them. (I really have Disney on the brain today.) A guest is just a couple afternoons away from becoming a friend. A visitor is someone who is always getting ready to leave. Is this distinction a major deal breaker? No. Is terminology something a church should be thinking about? Yes, absolutely. Every piece of information a newcomer gets contributes to his or her first impression of a place. What a church calls its first-time non-members should at least be part of the thought process.

Date: 6/16/13

Church name/type:
Cathedral of All Saints, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor:The person preaching referred to himself as Dean. This appears to be his title, his full name being David Collum.

Style of worship:formal and structured with informal bits for the kids and during announcements

Overall Impression:Seems good

Thoughts:
As with the other cathedral in Albany, the building steals the show a bit. In fact it looks much bigger once you are inside it. I think it’s probably an optical illusion due to the other relatively tall buildings around. I think I like the Cathedral of All Saints better than Immaculate Conception actually. It has almost a more ancient flavor, like Disney animated Notre Dame. It appears to be all stone (minus chairs and wall hangings) inside, in lots of arches with carved flourishes at the ceiling. There are also a couple of large metal gates separating parts of the cathedral. The altar is behind such a gate, but really nothing was done at that altar. The gospel was actually read at the center of the church. And there were some touches that made it feel like an older style service; formalities like genuflecting, swinging incense, and even some chanting. One of the few negatives was the Lord’s Prayer as a chant- it’s difficult for a first timer to follow along.

I liked the sermon. It felt very well-thought out and balanced. Dean started off by saying, “Today I will preach on sin.” Then he said that sin was not a favorite topic of his because it can easily sound like “me judging you”. The readings we got were: 1) King David and the Ducky Bathsheba 2) The sinning woman who washes Jesus’ feet. In both we have a story within a story illustrating a point. Since I’ve talked before about David, I’ll review the second story.

Jesus is at the house of a Pharisee eating. A woman who is a sinner hears about the dinner date and shows up to see Jesus. She walks right in and proceeds to wash His feet with her tears and then rubs them with expensive oil. The Pharisee must have been giving her a weird look- maybe because of her ‘sinning’ background, maybe because she waltzed right in without saying anything. Jesus answers his look with a story. Jesus describes several men with debts. One has a very large debt and one has a very little debt. Their loan shark decides to wipe the slate clean and forgive both debts. Which man will be happier? Clearly the man who had the biggest debt. The Pharisee thinks so too. Jesus goes on to say that the woman washing and anointing his feet does so out of love for him. Then he forgives her sins. The idea here is, if she has sinned so much, clearly she has the most to be grateful for and the Pharisee should cut her a little slack. Especially since he himself was remiss as a host in not washing Jesus’ feet.

The culmination of the sermon was an entreaty to us that we reflect on our own sin. We were cautioned not to simply decide for ourselves what sin is, but to consult God, the bible, and the Holy Spirit. I like how this adds an element of accountability, while still being self directed. I don’t think most people decide in a vacuum what is right or wrong. We do take advice and read scripture thoughtfully. And we listen to our hearts, where God is, as well as the experiences of others who guide us. One of the reasons I come to church is to be reminded of the things I need to work on. My anger, my negativity, and hurtful word choices are all things I can explain away as a bad mood or a cranky day. But that’s partly a cop-out. God wants me to do better and I have to keep remembering this. Another important bit from the sermon was the speed of forgiveness. Forgiveness is immediate. You ask and God forgives. He expects you to do better in the future, but leave past sins in the past. In other words, we don’t have to make ourselves suffer to be holy again. It is enough to seek forgiveness. There isn’t a need for drawn out suffering. That message is a good one I think.

After the service there were snacks at one end of the church. The kids had balloons because of the final day of Sunday school and a few of those balloons wound up in the rafters, but nobody cried about it. I was greeted by a couple members and the Dean, but he moved quickly to a new family that was visiting. I can’t really judge this one harshly, because it was probably simply a matter of order: I was first, he greeted me and moved on so as not to miss them. I chatted briefly with one of the helpers at the service- a deacon I think. We didn’t talk long; I suppose it’s possible she didn’t know what to say to me. I dressed in a tee shirt and shorts again. I probably looked like a kid.

Perhaps there’s another aspect going on here too. The church website describes a very laid back attitude towards newcomers. The tag line is “come and see”. It seems like a low-key approach is highly encouraged, perhaps even to the point of advising greeters to let visitors just absorb what they see. This can be a really great approach, especially if a church congregation is reserved. Reading the church website statement makes this even more clear. Folks wanting to visit are encouraged to do so, and (if they like) stay a few Sundays as they determine if it’s a place they can belong. The entire statement is written in a positive, realistic manner. Many churches do claim to be the ‘right’ one, but that’s something that should be up to the church goer.

Vocab examination: I’ve been pondering how I feel about the term ‘visitor’. I think there’s some subtle problems with the word when used for newcomers to a church. ‘Visitor’ implies someone who is leaving after a time. It carries a sense of otherness with it. One cannot belong if one is simply a visitor. I suggest instead using the term ‘guest’. A guest is someone special. A guest gets clean sheets and fresh flowers and the flatware sings and dances for them. (I really have Disney on the brain today.) A guest is just a couple afternoons away from becoming a friend. A visitor is someone who is always getting ready to leave. Is this distinction a major deal breaker? No. Is terminology something a church should be thinking about? Yes, absolutely. Every piece of information a newcomer gets contributes to his or her first impression of a place. What a church calls its first-time non-members should at least be part of the thought process.

Date: 6/2/13

Church name/type: St Andrew’s Episcopal, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor:Reverend Mary White

Style of worship: tight format reminiscent of Catholic masses I’ve experienced, with moderate traveling during the passing of the peace

Overall Impression: Nice!

Thoughts:
This is another church I have actually experienced before; I’m sure I visited at least once during my college days. I can’t remember what reason I never made it ‘my’ church- it could have been that I was simply looking for a better fit or that I was still holding onto the notion of a permanent Catholic Church for me. In any case, this visit showed me almost no negatives and much to like.

Inside the church looks rather Cathedral-y, with prominent stone arches and stained glass windows. The windows are actually low enough to be touched and (more importantly) this enables one to wander the church and read the names of the saints depicted. Stylistically old though it is, the church appears to be in good shape. I was on-call this past weekend, so I took a seat near the far back, in case work called me. Speakers and pastor were mic’d so the sound was good even in the back. Age wise, the church seems reasonably mixed. Ethnically there was not a huge amount of diversity. Both these factors of course change when people are missing, and this was the best and sunniest Sunday of the year so far.

The service was easy to follow, with all the parts written in a large bulletin. My only complain was the size. It was a tad difficult leafing through pages and setting them down when directed to either the hymn book or prayer book, then picking them back up again afterwards. Since most of the worship was already printed in the bulletin, seems like all of it could be. The sermon had some interesting bits. We heard from the pastor about those in the Old Testament worshipping a false god called Baal. This term apparently stood for not just one god, but several. It also could mean an official for that god. The other two readings were also about rejecting false teachings. Pastor Mary tied them all together related to our life today by asking us to remember the false gospels we face today. One example was the gospel of prosperity. The gospel of prosperity is basically the notion that the rich have been blessed by god and therefore deserve their wealth. This implies a second idea; that the poor are abandoned by god as undeserving. Dan and I actually talk about this one often. It annoys us that so many Christians take this bizarre view. To us it seems silly to imagine wealth as directly proportional to goodness/closeness to god. Pastor Mary called this idea a distraction.

She named two other distractive gospels: the gospel of works leading to salvation and the gospel of worshipping Jesus over his message. Works leading to salvation is a longer point I want to make in a later post. In any case it’s a pretty standard point for Protestants to stress, often seen as a counter to misunderstood/misused Catholic teaching. The gospel of worshipping Jesus was an interesting one to cite I think. This is another thing Dan and I (and several friends) have talked about before. Jesus as the central figure seems fine, until you make it so that his teachings are ignored and his person venerated. That’s throwing out much of the New Testament. In the New Testament we get messages to believe in Jesus, yes. But we also get messages of healing others, of helping the poor, of condemning the rich, of sharing what we have, and on and on. Those that forget these bits and focus solely on belief in Jesus are rather like someone claiming to adore Lincoln and being pro-slavery and pro-confederacy. It just doesn’t work. Pastor Mary described what Jesus taught as ‘immanent changes’; ‘the kingdom of heaven’ on the way. There would be many good things and people would be healed and happy. We see that Jesus does some work towards this. By extension she told us we are to go out and make this a reality. To me that sounds just about exactly right.

After worship:
I hung around as usual and had snacks with members of the congregation. I engaged several in conversation and mentioned my project to most of those. Everyone was really interested and I talked a bit about what I’ve seen so far and what I’m looking for. And they talked too, like they are really invested in church matters and wanting to think about such things, rather than simply having them on rote memory. I think the people at this church made the fewest assumptions about me of any church so far. You know, usually there’s questions about college or mention of single girls for me to befriend should I return. And actually after I mentioned my project and was clear that I traveled around, no one bugged me to just stay here. That was really nice. It seems to be the rule that churches want you to ‘join up’ and that can feel very like new pressure. Every. Single. Sunday…

And one more thing:
The church was described as ‘liberal’ and ‘open to all’ by two different people I spoke with. I couldn’t be exactly sure what this meant, but I have a pretty good idea. It sounds like veiled invitation to talk about LGBTQ or at least LG. I wasn’t sure exactly how to ask without being awkward. I’ve mentioned before that I grew up believing homosexuality was wrong and have since changed my views. Still it’s difficult to talk about a thing when you used to use it as a synonym for ‘bad’. So I did not ask. In the literature I took home, however, was another clue. Announcements in the bulletin included one for an Interfaith Pride Service sponsored by AWC. The announcement goes on to state that AWC (Advocates for Welcoming Congregations) encourages the full participation of LGBT persons. This event would not be advocated if the church had a problem with LGBT. Moreover the church’s website states that this church welcomes all religious seekers, then includes a list to make it clear gender identity and sexuality are among traits this church has no restrictions over. Which is pretty sweet.

Date: 3/10/13

Church name/type: St Peter’s Church, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor: Reverend Paul Hartt

Style of worship: Formal traditional style utilizing forms from a prayer book and hymn book

Overall Impression: surprising!

Thoughts:
The first few noticeables at this church didn’t seem promising. It was rather dark and the organ was playing grumpy sounding music. My opinion went up as the service went forward, so I think I can explain these first two items easily enough: 1) the space seems mainly lit by sunlight 2) it’s lent, and the music is often slow and dreary during lent.

Anyways, I noticed some other things as the service went on. The floor is an interesting mosaic of tiles along the main and side aisles. The front of the church is this kinda multifaceted dome. The children’s time was at the very beginning of the service and I heard a story I don’t remember hearing before. It was about Joshua and the twelve stones. Just before they get to enter the promised land, the Israelites have to cross the Jordan which is parted for them like the Red Sea was. Once they are crossed, Joshua has them gather twelve stones (I guess from the river bed) and set them up nearby. Then Joshua says, “When your kids ask why we are keeping twelve rocks around, tell them they help us remember how God saved us from bondage in Egypt and led us to the promised land.” So that was really cool. I also liked the verses used for the sermon: the story of the prodigal son. The pastor talked about how we might identify with any of five characters in this story- yes five. His descriptions were so detailed I actually found myself daydreaming about them. And yes, that’s a compliment. There are so many ways this story relates to life. Especially if you think beyond the story into the befores and afters.

A son leaving home and living dangerously only to return; there are lots of ways this could play out. We can think about what his journey was like and where he went. Were there people he hurt along the way? Maybe it is up to him to reach out to those people and make amends.

The other son in the story is shocked and angered at the fuss dad makes over wayward son. Have we ever been close to someone who is seemingly rewarded for one tiny good following a string of evils? How can we learn to accept this and be gracious to our brother?

The dad is willing to accept his son back into his life even though he spent through half their money. Can we do the same for another who we love?

There are also servants in this guy’s household who witness the event from the edges. How does it touch us to see this from the outside? Can we learn from what us going on here? Are we able to join in the father’s excitement or are we going to become upset as the other son did?

There is a fifth character element in the unknown of what the son did on his journey while he was off living selfishly. Perhaps he hurt many people. I can think of examples of this from ex-girlfriends to pals he stuck with the bill at the tavern. If we are this fifth person how do we respond? Can we find it in ourselves to forgive him who wronged us? Can we find ways to move on with our lives?

After the service was all done I wandered to the back of the church to say hello to this pastor. So, remember how I’m always saying that the best welcome statement is not one of, “I hope you come back!” (pressure) but instead, “I’m glad you came!” ? Well when I shook his hand he said, “I’m so glad you came today!” In my brain I said “AWESOME!” to this perfect greeting and I smiled. I asked about snacks because I couldn’t remember if we were told ‘fellowship’ or ‘coffee’ was occurring after service and I didn’t want to sound weird. I guess ‘snacks’ sounds a little weird too. But no matter, because immediately after he directed me to the door to the gathering space and woman named Carly came up to me and offered to walk me there. She was nice and chatty and dressed snappy. She reminds me of my awesome chatty aunts. We talked easily about a bunch of things and she introduced me to a number of other church members. We were among the last to leave. I even got to give out my website cards.

Overall this turned out to be a pretty nice Sunday. I like this place- that is I like the people and the atmosphere. Carly basically invited me back to any holiday or Sunday imaginable, so maybe I’ll return for a week at some point.

The choir: Again with the strong choral presence! The choir was great and they comprised a decent chunk of the congregation. Is this a thing with downtown or pipe organs or what?

I arrived slightly late to this week’s talk, so I missed a small part of Article 37. Here are several important points in the article:
The bishop of Rome (the pope) has no jurisdiction in England. This was I guess just to drive home the idea again that the Pope and Church of England were not linked.
Christians are still bound to regular laws. This is kind of setting up the idea of church and state as separate entities. We get this now, but at the time I guess it was important to spell it out.
Christians can go to war and carry a weapon. I assume this one was addressing the whole, thou shalt not kill, thing. If you are drafted into war by your country, you don’t have to protest. At least not on the Anglican church’s behalf.

In mentioning the Pope, we heard a little bit about the history of this position. I also went and looked up some stuff afterwards. Papal tradition follows in the footsteps of Peter and hinges on the following bible verse:

(Jesus to Peter)…And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is the basis for Peter as the first Pope of the church. Other leaders have followed him in the same tradition, according to the Catholic church. The Anglican and Episcopal churches do not see the verse as having that meaning. It extends too far and gives authority to the Pope which shouldn’t be given. An example of this is the doctrine of infallibility from the 1870 first Vatican council. The Pope can make some declarations that are ‘infallible’ and become doctrine. This is a point of contention between the Episcopal and Catholic churches.

Article 38 states that Christian men don’t need to have goods in common. This makes them unlike the Anabaptists, a group that tried to live together in a way that shares all money and goods with all members. There are still some groups in the Anabaptist tradition today. Actually, the Episcopal church does have groups which come close to this communal lifestyle. They have monks and nuns including a group called Episcopal Franciscans. The article also specifies that we are to give alms as generously as we can.

Article 39 prohibits swearing oaths frivolously. Today we would say don’t swear. I guess even back then they kinda threw around the Lord’s name carelessly. You are however allowed to swear as in court (in front of a magistrate) as long as it is true what you swear to.

Now I know you think we’re done here, but actually Father Egan skipped the article on predestination and election. That one will get an entire Sunday slot all by itself. That’s next week and that one will be the last.

I am two sessions away from the end of my tour of the 39 articles of the Anglican/Episcopal church, after which I will definitely be moving on. So what did I hear about this week? Well I’ll tell ya.

We started with article 34. It says that traditions used for church services may vary- presumably from time to time and place to place. This was meant to try and involve congregants in the service by making it more accessible. Other ways to achieve this were the translation of the Sunday service into the local language and the use of a prayer book people could follow along with. The article also serves to specify that doing things outside the scope of the bible are still ok, as long as the bible has not forbidden them. Apparently the puritans had this thing for doing stuff only specifically mentioned in the bible and avoiding everything else. Anglicans had this article to tell them not to get worked up about it. Father Egan said a good rule to remember is:

Scripture for salvation
Tradition for ceremonies

We also heard briefly about the difference between an Episcopal church with a “morning prayer” focus vs. a “Sunday morning” focus. A morning prayer church will do three services in the week and one communion per month on Sunday. Sunday morning churches make Sunday service their main thing and serve communion every week.

Article 35 is about the book of homilies. A bit of history concerning this article; the Church used to discourage studying the bible. In fact fewer people were literate anyhow. Because of these two factors, the burgeoning Anglican church had a shortage of scripture-smart priests. To assist them while they studied up, sermons were written out so priests had something to say during transition. These were the book of homilies 1 and 2.

Article 36 talks about how bishops are ordained- kinda. It states that the formula is in another book! As a sidebar to this we learned about the ceremony for a new queen in England. The church of England is still vaguely tied to the monarchy, so the church has to approve the queen- I’m sure it was important back in the day. Now it’s more a formality. So the queen will be attired in a simple cloth shift and she is annointed on the head and breast with oil.

Articles from a week ago:
I learned about excommunication! It really doesn’t happen often today. It would require a very public breach of church teaching by someone in a leadership position probably. Otherwise it wouldn’t really be necessary. Excommunication is meant as a way to force someone to realize they need to change their life. They ask forgiveness and gain reconciliation to be welcome into the church again. In most cases an actual excommunication would not happen because steps can be taken to solve the problem without outright asking someone to leave. That would be the goal anyway.

Ahh, 39 articles, your time is almost up. We are currently at 29, 30, and 31. So we actually heard 29 last week, I just did my notes on post-its and lost that one. What I remember after reading it again is the long subtitle which pretty much says it all already: Of the wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper. It means that if you aren’t right with God, eating communion won’t be true communion for you. It continues on the theme of not treating the bread as a talisman. You can’t eat it and expect it will magically make you holy. If you are an evil person doing evil things, putting the communion wafer in your mouth is an empty sign and means nothing.

The next articles are straightforward enough. Article 30 says its ok and also good to take both the bread and the wine. Article 31 says that Jesus was the atonement sacrifice for our sins and we need no other. In my experience of churches, both these things are widespread and well known. I don’t really find many places arguing against either of those. Except of course that many churches use grape juice in place of wine. So far I have seen only Catholics and Episcopals use wine. But I may have missed some with the communion once a month tradition that many churches go by. Any of the pastors and knowledgeable people with further info on wine vs. juice, feel free to chime in here.