I think you and I share a similar understanding on this issue. The questions, it seems, are universal, and I have similar responses from my own students in this regard. Part of my question, too, however, is whether the Christian faith (even if not an “orthodox” variety) itself has anything to contribute to a possible answer, no matter how incomplete an answer must always perhaps be. I tend to think it does; but, as I admit, I’m part of a dying breed in some ways.

I think your comment is extremely important. I have no answer to your thoughts, but let me share with you directly an email I wrote to my rector not too long ago. I think it resonates with many of your concerns, except for more precisely in the episcopal/Anglican tradition. I will add what I think is one important insight, however: what will not work is to allow the faith to be reduced to either Jesus flavored humanism or to entertainment, the first of which more liberal traditions are especially prone to doing, even more than the second. How to overcome these barriers, I’m not sure. I guess a lot of experimentation will help, and a forum for which to dialogue about these experiments, both in terms of their success and theological viability.
___________________________________________________

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Episcopal/Anglican identity lately. I’m not sure how, but I believe these thoughts might have some pertinence to some of the questions we’ve been and will talk about both in the Vestry and in person, especially as we discuss outreach to youth and young adults. As I have come to think through the matter of Episcopal/Anglican identity, I’ve come to see two strands of identity as particularly relevant for this discussion; neither will be new to you.

The first is, no doubt, the liturgy. Because we have neither a legal bond to Canterbury, nor any exact theological formula for what we must believe (with perhaps the exception that Jesus saved as the second person of the Trinity), this event and its symbol in the Book of Common Prayer are the bonds that holds our communion together. The liturgy, then, forms, the centerpiece of any specifically Anglican style of worship.

Secondly, however, (and historically speaking), we Anglicans have rejected the Protestant claim of sola scriptura and the Catholic claim of sola ecclesia, holding that both scripture and Church tradition must be held in tension reason. That is, one might say that only sola was rejected in either of the above formulations, allowing both of the other halves their proper say alongside the constant developments and movements of human knowledge in what might be called a reasoned discourse. So, the second aspect of our identity is found in the conscious awareness of the fact that we haven’t figured everything out and that we probably won’t.

If it bears any truth, what this analysis seems to point to is the fact that, theologically speaking, we are amorphous, in constant exploration, and lacking in certainty (despite, again, the fact that we are saved by the second person of the Trinity)–this fact, I believe, is a good thing. At the same time, we are bound to a particular way of doing things that, while retaining some flexibility, remains firm enough to ground a communion, which is also a good thing. Here’s the problem: my read of contemporary culture is that people interested in the Christian faith at all are often looking for very secure doctrinal formulations while retaining absolute flexibility in the way that they are able to express these doctrines. This means that we’re on the “wrong” side of the ecclesial tracks, at least if this formulation of the problem has any truth to it. This might also mean that outreach from an Episcopal perspective must be formulated as an attempt to “persuade” (and I use this term very loosely) people that a certain way of worship such as ours is often times more “authentically” true to the mystery of this life and this world than other more Evangelical churches tend to offer. Since certainty has such psychological benefits and constancy such psychological malady (for our contemporary culture, anyways), this might be a hard fight—and by “might” I mean will.

I think you have written an excellent post. Your command to “kill our attitudes of entitlement” resonates with me, while at the same time, it scares me as one who is employed by a province of an old Protestant denomination. In my last year of divinity school, after having avoided “practical ministry” classes almost entirely, I kept asking my colleagues, “Now that the Western world has decided it doesn’t need the Church for salvation, how are we going to sell Jesus’ Good News?” Your “more than necessary” response, emphasizing the gift of grace in fellowship and beauty, at least begins to capture the need for us, as disciples, to offer grace to the world in a real and meaningful way even when it is not profitable, fungible, or necessary. As you said, “nothing is the necessity, the naturality of what we are” as dust and ash, however, as children of God we bear a gift that is beyond necessary and transcends a life lived in the lethargy of consumers who are to be consumed.

We’ve talked about doing a show on the topic, but I think we’re waiting for Cobb to finish his book on the matter in order to interview him.

it would be cool if you and tripp did a podcast on this whole topic. aren’t hall in the same place? maybe you can get him to trim the beard and sport a sweet stache.

As for your response, David, I truly appreciate the insight and wise-words. They are not lost on me.

Maybe I could ask it this way- how would you define the purpose and function of religion as you have developed it in the series? How would you make the case to those in the church that religious institutions are needed to instill the moral fiber society needs?