emerging church part three: the emerging jesus; the great shepherd of the sheep and bishops

on my trip this summer i visited many cathedrals and met many bishops.  i was struck by the variety of  splendour and pomposity, or lack thereof, that attended these various pastors and their thrones.

(actually, the first "bishop" i met was just a cardboard cutout of the real thing, at a party for a new seminarian; the actual bishop was off doing something more important, i suppose.  i was fascinated by the bemused hostility which it seemed to me the flock showed to the office, if not the person, iconized there.  perhaps i inferred more than was implied.)

i should first confess that it has taken me a long time to wrap my mind around the existance of  more than one bishop in any one locale.  in seattle, for instance, there are at least five cathedrals with their bishops of which i know.  as my understanding of the nature of the episcopacy has, i hope, matured, that has come not to bother me.  but it is the prominence of the idea of the imperial bishop, illustrated in seattle by st. james' roman catholic cathedral, or by st. mark's episcopal cathedral, which has muddied my understanding for a long time.  despite pious denials to the contrary, the episcopacy in the roman church has long ceased to be a servant role, and if one thinks the pope is nowadays the servant of the servants of god, one should look at how the pope dines.  the imperial episcopacy is reflected in the imperial cathedrals.

st. mark's episcopal cathedral in seattle is a fascinating study in the history of that idea, and how it must sometimes be modified.  the present building, which i admire very much, is just a fragment of the original proposal.  the stock market crash of 1929 meant not only that a smaller edifice would be necessary, it even resulted in a foreclosure; for many years the building did not belong to the diocese.

on the poorer side of capital hill, st. nicholas russian orthodox cathedral is no larger than the houses around it.  the bishop of that cathedral seems to be quite beloved by the congregation, for whom he is very clearly a pastor.

at an even smaller "level of episcopacy" were the bishops with whom i met at the end of the summer in gig harbor.  we met at a tiny chapel.

none of the bishops there had any expectations of building a great cathedral.  rather they were wondering how in this insane time in which we live the sacramental, pastoral ministries of the church, for which bishops are responsible, could be made not only available but known to a nation of people for whom macdonald's seems a restaurant and a mortage home ownership.

now, i am not suggesting that say, the episcopal bishop of olympia is not concerned with the same thing.  but i am suggesting that one of the hopeful things i saw this summer wandering through the emerging church is a growing understanding that the edification of the church is not about monumental edifices.  in victoria, for instance, i met the russian orthodox bishop of all canada in a little chapel in a storage unit in the most unfashionable part of downtown, an area inhabited mostly by homeless people.  from victoria to gig harbor to santa fe, i met church men and women who were seeking to find what we need to be that is acceptable to the holy one, to find the things that make for peace, to be the body of christ broken in this broken world.  i am assuming that you, dear reader of this rather scattered blog, are one of those men and women, and so for you i repeat the prayer that concludes the epistle to the hebrews:

i pray that the god of peace, who brought our lord jesus back from the dead to become the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood that sealed an eternal covenant, may make you ready to do his will in any kind of good action; and turn us all into whatever is acceptable to himself through jesus christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, amen.

emerging church part two: seminaries

during the past three months, i visited several seminaries and talked to many seminarians or would-be seminarians.  one of the major things the seminaries and asperants had in common was that by far the majority of them were "converts" to the big church from some protestant group.

this makes me wonder:  does no one who has grown up in the catholic, orthodox, church want to become a priest?  (or almost no one:  i did meet a few seminarians who had grown up orthodox.)  there are, oddly enough, many roman catholic women seminarians, who will not become priests.  this situation i will have to ponder more before i can convince myself i understand it.

i also am struck by what the converts find at seminaries.  again and again i heard discussions of what they bring to the schools, and from a casual and unscientific review of the church history/doctrine courses at most seminaries these days, there doesn't seem to be very much emphasis on what they will receive from the church that is older than the latest edition of the paperback textbooks.  as one who thinks that the way to do theology is prayer, i'm not too concerned about the current texts when they are read in the context of a solid spiritual practice, and that does often seem to be supported in the seminaries.

but i also wonder how all  these emerging students will change the understanding of the church.  it seems that nearly all of today's seminaries, except for the few that remain very traditional, have become emergant seminaries.  there was a time when those coming to mother church for baptism were asked the question, "what dost thou ask of the church of god?"  the answer was expected to be, "faith."  it seems that the same question might be asked of in-coming seminary students.  i hope the church still has enough faith to share it.

emerging church part one: a patron saint

it has been a summer of post-modernism and emerging church for me.  duh.  it's in the water.  no one will actually claim to know what either of those phrases means, but everyone uses them anyway. 

i'm going to ignore defining "post-modernism" for the moment, but i will suggest a take on the emerging church.  it seems that the emerging church most importantly is protestants realizing that protestantism was a mistake.  again and again i have heard stories from people who have grown up in some splinter of protesantism who have come to reject "christianity" as it had been presented to them, but who have come back to the "big church" whether they had thought out the theological nuances of that move or not.  (sometimes who have come back are lapsed roman catholics, but perhaps the orthodox understanding of roman catholicism as profoundly similar to protestantism is correct.)

if that's true, then  i would like to suggest that the patron saint (a patron saint) of the emerging church might well be john henry newman.  it is interesting to me that of the oxford movement tractarians, it was usually the ones who had started in some dissenting sect, as had newman, who "went over" to rome.  those who had been baptized in the anglican church tended to remain in the anglican church.  to make newman the patron saint of the emerging church muddies what i said above about roman catholics, and makes my own broad acceptance of the "big church" as encompassing eastern churches "orthodox" or "nestorian," western churches "roman" or "merely" catholic.  but then consistency is still something i haven't received.

but newman's journey remains as that of a bright-shining (that's what brilliant means, isn't it?) pioneer on a path towards recovery of the great tradition paul speaks of ("what i have received from the lord jesus christ, i pass on to you") that many seem to be taking.