E-pistle, #202

February 11, 2012

Dear Folks ~

1.  I think some variation of the following happens in just about every congregation from time to time:

In our case, two member households – who made many friends here at St. Paul’s – left the cathedral several years ago for a much larger congregation and denomination.

Now, one of the family members is seriously ill, hospitalized in Milwaukee.  One of the families’ needs is gas money for their daily trips between Fond du Lac and Milwaukee.

About a month ago, someone(s) from the cathedral thought it would be a good idea for the cathedral to offer the family gas money.  Apparently the idea circulated among some of our members, but wasn’t brought to my attention.

After several weeks, someone came to me with the idea of St. Paul’s reaching out to the family.  A great idea!  I offered three suggestions:

o       As with all fund raising, first bring the request to the chapter for their approval.

o       Since the families are no longer members of the cathedral but belong to a larger congregation: have St. Paul’s collaborate and raise money along with the other congregation, allowing us to be partners in a larger effort to reach-out and assist.

o       Collect St. Paul’s portion of the money and distribute it through our parish office.

With respect to my suggestions:

o       It’s now two weeks later, and although the families were approached about our partnering with their congregation, no response was given to the suggestion.

o       The chapter is meeting this Sunday for a special meeting.  This is one of the agenda items.  It is required that the chapter – as our elected (affirmed) representatives – be informed and approve all fund raising efforts.  No one may collect money on behalf of the cathedral congregation without chapter approval.  Oversight is one of the many responsibilities our chapter members have in their service to us.

o       To write a check to the families, the money becomes taxable income for them and is not a tax deductible contribution to the donor.  However, checks made out to the cathedral (with the families noted in the memo section of the check) help the families and are tax deductible contributions when they go through our books.

This is basic parish administration, but I understand that friendship and emotion can cloud folks to the importance of doing things as the government requires.  However, when it comes to collecting and handling money, it must be done correctly and transparently.

Bottom lines:  I trust the chapter, once informed, will weigh the issue and reach a decision.  Meanwhile, I urge you to bring your ideas to me.  Although you can go to any chapter member, my background enables me to proactively spot potential snags, and my goal is to have “all the ducks in a row” when presenting an idea to the chapter.  If everything lines up, a decision can usually be made at that meeting.  If there are snags, the chapter almost certainly postpones its decision until the snags are cleared up – usually delaying their decision another month.

Jesus would applaud standing by friends in times of need.  And part of doing “What’s best for St. Paul’s” includes expediting your good ideas.  Your thoughts?

2.  Communion is God’s gift to us; Community is our gift to one another.  Unity is at the heart of both.

As noted at our Annual Meeting, our “average weekend attendance” has slipped this past year – not because we have fewer members, but because our members attend less frequently.

From time to time chapter members and other folks suggest that we combine our 7:30 and 10am Sunday morning Eucharists into one 9am service topromote the unity of the congregation.

I’m nervous about that suggestion, because I think folks like the time they have chosen to attend, and that combining services and changing the time could cause us to lose members in the process.  Perhaps the well intentioned change could hurt more than help.

But then, I’ve been thinking about the 10am Eucharist – our “main” Eucharist of the week, the only one celebrated at the High Altar:

Were I a visitor at 10am, I would find the people friendly, and probably the most memorable part of the service would be the Passing of the Peace – because it’s done with so much energy.  It obviously means a lot to the congregation: peace is in the air!  Our being “peace passers” encourages us to be “peace makers” – and I think we “live the peace” seven days a week as a cathedral family.

But if Passing of the Peace is a “high point” for us – and it isn’t in all congregations – what about receiving Holy Communion . . . might one not expect that to be an even “higher point” as we celebrate the Eucharist?

For years, our cathedral’s custom has been to divide the congregation at Communion time: roughly half have been coming to the altar rail, and some fewer to a station at the pulpit. 

o        The benefit to the pulpit station:  ease of access for those who find the sanctuary stairs difficult or intimidating to navigate; 

o        The benefit to receiving at the altar rail:  responding to the invitation to come to the Lord ’s Table. 

As a result, the congregation has been split at a sacred moment – those receiving at the rail doing so in a traditional and formal manner, and those receiving at the pulpit in a more casual and convenient manner. 

Were I a visitor at 10am, I might not remember receiving Communion being as memorable as the Passing of the Peace. 

Beginning on Christmas, I’ve been inviting us all to receive at the rail, with Dcn. Mike and myself then going to those who find the steps difficult.  My intention was good, to unite us in receiving the Lord in Communion; but I may have unintentionally caused several folks to feel less connected by serving them last and alone.  Having “most” come to the rail is good; having “some” feel left out is not.  What to do?

It could be possible to serve Holy Communion to everyone at the bottom step:  then everyone would have equal access, receiving together;  but standing to receive Communion might not then seem as “holy” from a traditional view.

My hope is to call us to unity at the very holy moment of receiving Communion.  “Communion is God’s gift to us, and Community is our gift to oneanother.  Unity is at the heart of both.”

I’m going to ask the members of the chapter what they think, and I’m also asking you what you think.  Based on the spiritual meaning of Communion,which practice is preferable for us:

o        Current practice:  Serve “most” at the rail, and “a few” immediately after at the step.

o        Untried:  Serve “all” at the bottom step.

o        Previous practice:  Serve simultaneously both at the rail and at the pulpit.

I’d like to know what you think, and why.  My hope is that however we “come to Jesus,” our faith will be nourished and affirmed.  

If “Communion is God’s gift to us, and Community is our gift to one another” – how can our unity be best served?  Your thoughts?

Blessings,

~ Fr. Brian

+     +     +

E-pistle “Extra”

Note:  We transferred the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul – our patronal feast – to the weekend of January 28 / 29.  In my sermon, I asked us to reflect on St. Paul as an Outspoken Evangelist, a Pioneer Ecumenist, and the Inventor of Christian Outreach.

Melanie Woodward is nearing the end of the second year of the three year course called “Effectiveness for Ministry.”  She has coincidentally written a paper on St. Paul, and she shares it with us.

Thanks, Mel!  Well written.  We’re proud of you.

~ Fr. Brian

PS:  We hope you got an “A+” on this paper!

Paul lived in a society that valued letters and had highly developed the art of writing them. Letters dealt with every imaginable personal, family or business matter. Philosophers, statesmen, and poets wrote letters as an art form. The chapter makes mention of some of these such artists: Horace, Seneca and Cicero. There were very specialized rules for letter writing – various types of letters are outlined here: exhortatory (paraenetic), affectionate and so on. Epicurean and Jewish groups used letters for instruction, propaganda, and for commending members to other communities. Many of these letters were designed as 'public' letters.

The letters all attributed to Paul appear to be real letters. They show care in composition. They appear to have been taken very seriously by Paul. They appear to have been taken very seriously by their recipients – as evident by the fact that they kept them.

Paul's letters are thought to be meant to be read out loud to the community. When Paul writes, he writes with the consciousness of his Apostolic authority – when he writes he writes with and for the church. His correspondence, like most letters, is a substitute for his personal presence.

There was no post office back in the day – so letters were generally carried by special messengers. These messengers often transmitted the message orally – the Greek word for letter epistole was originally used for an oral communication carried by a messenger. In Paul's time, important, formal letters would have to be sent by the hand of someone who was prepared to deliver them: a skilled reader who had worked through the letter with the author, knew what the author hoped to achieve, and had worked on its oral delivery – (why not just read the fool thing?) This was a huge occasion in the church when a letter arrived. Everyone knew the message from the Apostle had arrived and all would gather solemnly to hear the messenger rhetor proclaim Paul's message.

The letters have a certain structure to them: An opening greeting, and a concluding farewell were a must. In the greeting, Paul as a good Pastor was always careful not to omit anyone he thought he knew who might like a greeting. To be singled out by name for the public assembly is a good model for ministry: People who have been singled out by name feel better – important. Paul's letters were intended to be speeches or addresses. They are meant to be heard as a continuous whole. They were intended to achieve their effect as rhetoric – carrying the listener along in the flow of oral argument.

Many of the letters claim joint ownership. Several parts of the letters contain quite elaborate midrashim (interpretations) of scripture passages. It seems that Paul was trained in such midrash and this was something normally a rabbi and students did together over the Torah. Look at it if you will as an early form of Theological Reflection.

Parts of the letters are written in a diatribe fashion – written like a dialog with questions and answers. There are rhetorical questions, appeals to authority, common places, and lists of vices and virtues. Recent study has shown that such diabtribes were not written for public forum, but for the classroom.

It is felt that Paul, like so many others of the day did use a trained amanuensis – secretary or scribe. But at times, it's felt that Paul actually writes the final salutation himself.

A note on the variety of letter styles: The Hellenistic letter had a threefold structure: First, a salutation. Then, the body of the letter, often beginning with some kind of prayer or good wishes. Lastly, a closing salutation, usually a farewell and further wishes for prosperity and good health. It is customary for Paul to declare that the grace and peace of which he speaks of comes from “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. The ground work for the Nicene faith is here, even though it would be three centuries before we put that together.

The body of the letter generally opens with a blessing and thanksgiving for the recipients. The body contains specific arguments or concerns. The closing salutation is often quite lengthy. It can include prayers, commenda-tions, final exhortations and many greetings. Most of Paul's letters are thought to be examples of parainesis (exhortation and advice). Parainesis is divided into two equal parts: encouragement and dissuasion. Within parainesis there can be many variants. Examples of one type may contain aspects of another.

So, what is Paul trying to say? It is felt that the letter to the Philippians is full of personal affection. It demonstrates many features of a letter of friendship. The letter to the Galatians is a letter of rebuke.

There is a hierarchical relationship going on here. Three sets of social relationships characterized letter writing in the Greco-Roman world: The hierarchical relationship between superordinate and subordinate, such as patron to client or vice verse. Equal relationship between friends. The relationship within a household or family. Paul's letters use the language of all three. Paul's tendency to pray for the recipients is the mark of a family letter. A good example is: Phil 1:7-8, 2:2-4; cf. 4:2.

Which ones are the 'real deal'? Most scholars accept Pauline authorship of the letters to the Romans, Galatians, and 1&2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. There continues to be much debate on the authenticity about the letters to the Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians – and most do not accept Pauline authorship of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Three criteria exist to determine genuineness: Will the letters fit with what is known of Paul's life and career from other sources? Do they fit with Paul's theology? Is their style Pauline? According to computer research, 1 Thessalonians comes closer to Romans in being the real deal than 1 Timothy. How much freedom did Paul allow his scribes? Who can know? What about the beit ha-midrash or school of thought that Paul was thought to endorse? Perhaps a letter may have been written by a group of students in the name of their Rabbi and possibly approved by Paul..or not . . . would that then constitute a genuine letter or a phony?

The meaning of it all: Paul was not only an organizer and adventurer, but also a Rabbi and a thinker. He clearly regarded what happened to him on the road to Damascus as a resurrection appearance of Christ. Most traditions about Paul's call to Christ center around feelings of guilt. Paul felt himself unfit to be called an apostle, because he persecuted the church of God. Because of this guilt, the experience of the risen Christ was also one of grace, charm, graciousness or favor. For Paul, the supreme grace of God is the event by which God accepts those who are unacceptable through Christ. Who could be more unacceptable to Christ than a persecutor of the church? For Paul, this is the grace in which we stand. It was grace that not only was Paul accepted as he was, but commissioned. He became a messenger of grace to the world.

-- Mel