"Ministry Blogs" via Bill in Google Reader

Interview: Brother Zane young talks about his New Franciscans in the Episcopal Church, an Order

2012-02-26T01:57:00Z

This is neither advertisement nor opinion piece,
but a report on Episcopal Franciscans

by Peter Menkin

This is neither advertisement nor opinion piece, but a report on Episcopal Franciscans who as Friars may be married as well as single…married man to man, or man to woman.

First, a look for context’s sake of where Brother Rich works part-time as a Friar – this is an overview

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul operates a free dining room and service center in San Rafael California. It feeds and cares for the poor and homeless of Marin County. The Society’s goal is to deal with that population’s inital emergencies and shepherd individuals into programs that can bring about lasting change in their lives. Video production by Harris Cohen and Cris Jones. Facilities provided by John MacLeod and The MYC, San Rafael.
–The Society of St. Vincent de Paul – Marin County

INTERVIEW WITH BROTHER ZANE YOUNG

1. I have for a long time liked and admired the Franciscan Order, so when I learned that my friend Brother Rich had become a full Brother of the Franciscans, no longer a Third Order Member, I became curious. I became curious because Brother Rich is married. I thought monastics–as Franciscan Brothers are considered–were unmarried. In our phone conversation made to you in Washington State from my home office in Mill Valley, California (north of San Francisco), you said your Order started in 2005, allowed married brothers. Please tell us about this new phenomenon in monasticism, and a little about how men may partner with men, or marry, and that married men with spouses who-are-female may also become married. Do you find this unusual, and why this “new” monastic value?
I don’t find it unusual in the fact that we do it. It is probably unusual because it has not been done by the Church in Franciscan orders. Basically, the Franciscan tradition we have today in the Church is here from the Catholics, handed down from the Anglo-Catholic tradition. When it came from the Anglican, especially the Episcopalians in this country. Since we are Anglicans, we had to be a little different because of the war [American war of Revolution from the British]. The tradition of Franciscan friars and fathers came down from England and Scotland. It came down from SSF (Society of Saint Francis); it came down from the Catholic Church: their friars, they are celibate.

The diner said, "Take a picture of my tray of food..." and it is a lot of first serving. Photo by Terry Peck

The writer offering bread while at the Dining hall. Photo by Terry Peck.

2. Speak with us a little about the Franciscan work in the world, what the brothers in your order are doing with people, and something of where they live and practice their Episcopal faith. Are they all Episcopalians, and is everyone who is engaged with the running of your Franciscan order and its membership Episcopalian?

Yes. All of guys right now are Episcopalian. One is Anglican and he is living in England. We are open to anyone in the community: Lutheran, Australian, etc. as long as they are in Communion with the See of Canterbury. That’s another caveat that makes us a little bit different from the SSF (Society of Saint Francis), and even the Third Order.
We have one brother in particular who ministers to military families who are in crisis. [The brother ministers to]…military men who are returning from Afghanistan or other areas of war… or military installations in ongoing situations of conflict. The brother counsels military personnel themselves and their families. This includes post-traumatic stress. Brother Rich is involved with the St. Vincent de Paul Society in San Francisco’s Marin County. Other brothers are involved with homeless shelters. Myself, I used to work with battered women in their shelters.
[Franciscan theology] I think that the theology comes from ministry to the poor, the disadvantaged and those [who are] lesser in society. Where it seems to manifest itself today are people who are in a crisis. It seems to come from–this poverty sense– that was Francis’ plan to [be an] Order of the poor, the sick–that’s what Francis would do. We approach our vow of poverty to cast off our clothes as Francis did. We try to live simply, within our means, and give within our means to others. We provide for our families and our churches, and we give to those who depend on us. Poverty is a tricky word. We’ve had guys in the Order who have trouble struggling with that word. The word itself is important, for it takes us back to the vows of Francis. How we live and understand that word poverty is how we live that question.

Portrait of Brother Rich in the alley near entrance to dining hall. Photo by Terry Peck.

3. I’d like to hear something of what is special about this 2012 for you and the Franciscans of your Order: practice and spirituality. If it is as observance and practice similar to that of other Christians, speak to us about some of the practices of the brothers, including some examples of specific and personable, not personal-private, practices of members of the Order or even you as Provincial Minister.
In private practice, it doesn’t change, that is they are required to do the Daily Offices. Most of these guys have been doing the Daily Offices for years. We all follow those Offices as stated in the Book of Common Prayer. Several will use different sources for these things. We like to use new technologies. We utilize the web site for Mission St. Clare. There are a lot of different websites. In Lent I will use the COE (Church of England), use the Prayer Book of 1612.
It doesn’t really matter the source. I want them to be invigorated by the word and not be buried by it.
We are one entity; I am not a Provincial Minister. I’m a Minister General. There is one, just us. We try to keep our structure very simple, to the point, and only to what we need considering administrative structure. Pretty much, we’re governed by the Rule and by the Vow. They are very simple in structure as well. We took the rule and vow from Francis. We also operate under a democratic form. If the professed bring up something, we listen to it and we can make decisions that way.
When it comes to matters of operation, discipline and induction, I have the final decision—it lies with me.
We don’t have a Friary. If you go back in history, our brothers feel we actually live closer to the rule of 1223. Francis wanted them out of the monastery. He didn’t want them hidden in a box. He wanted them out in the world. Brothers living communally, 3 or 4 max—two or three living together was fine. But not as an ongoing presence. We’re new in that we harken back to something old. We are new in that we allowed people to be married, to be fathers. To be partnered, to have multiple vocations. We don’t mind if they are married, divorced, partnered. We don’t stand in their way. Their marital status or sexual status is not a criterion for why we think they are a brother. Unfortunately, with the SSF that is not the case. You must be single. Otherwise you can’t be in their Order.
4. One lovely statement by St. Francis has to do with his writings about Brother Sun, Sister Moon. Will you give a little off-the-cuff sermon on this writing for me in this interview, however brief? I’ll type what you say as you speak (as best I can).
That basically came from Francis as a sense of joy. It is a sense of gratitude for what he had been given and what we have been given. That means a lot to a lot of people. Like the Prayer of St. Francis. There’s really more there than the statue that’s in the bird garden. That’s what people see, that’s what they gravitate to: Pets and deer and all the animals of the forest love him. The truth of that is that is true. He is the Patron Saint of all things ecological and environmental. But that being said, Francis was a lot more. All those images that are warm and fuzzy, there is more than that: It is also appreciative of blessings. He was trying to exemplify to others being thankful for the blessings we all get.

Religion writer Peter Menkin with Brother Rich. Photo by Terry Peck.

5. Brother Rich works each month at St. Vincent de Paul Society in San Rafael, California helping with the food and talking to guests who come for breakfast and lunch. At one point, when visiting, I witnessed the gentle 60 year old married Franciscan brother help end a dispute that almost became a fist fight in the dining hall. He literally intervened, putting his arm around the more hostile of the two in dispute who thought he was “dissed” by the other man, and with his other arm guided the tough street guy out the door. Then after the man was clear of the entry way, he returned to the dining hall and got him a bag lunch, and brought it to the angry man. I thought this remarkable, if not brave. Talk a little about Franciscan ministry in your part of the Order with the poor and down-and-out.
That’s a Judeo-Christian thing. Prior to Francis, God calls us to love one another. That’s the core of Judeo-Christian faith. There’s an abhorrence of war and fighting. We are called in the Western World as Christians to instill the light in others and bring peace and harmony to others. That is what Francis calls us to do. To use the Prayer that Francis uses says it.

A Prayer Attributed to St. Francis

Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let us sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is discord, union;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.

Grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.

It’s attributed to him. We really don’t have a whole lot of writing by him. We have a couple of books. We have two Rules. The Admonitions of Francis. It is far between. That prayer, it’s one that we use because it wraps it up very simply, very eloquently; what we are to do in the world. Period. That’s what our call is to be. That’s what we are supposed to do.

Offering some free food in front of the bread shelves. Photo by Terry Peck.

When one takes the vows, poverty, chastity, obedience. The applicant writes it as he will live it and then it is read at profession. There has been talk about writing a profession vow. There are a lot of Orders that do that. I find merit in that, but I find a little wrong with that. I think it is important that they understand the vows, and integrate that, incorporate the vows into their being—this is how I am going to interpret these vows into my life. The profession is done at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle, WA (it is a public profession). It’s open. There is nothing private, secretive, cloistered about it. I am still leaning on keeping the vows set by them.
Readers and others can find our Order on the website or there are other sources in the church (Anglicans online), or you can Google us with Order of Saint Francis and you’ll find us. Normally the way it works is someone will investigate, and there is a contact on the website and they will send an email to us: [The interested party may say,] I want to talk about this, I am interested in joining and what do I do. We then make contact with them, have a dialogue about it, and find out where they are in their spiritual journey.

ADDENDUM I

The Homeless Poet
Written at the Dining Hall just after lunch on a Sunday

Yes I Do Pray
Let me express to you the truth! I pray, I pray for Sunny Days to come our way, Hey, Heah! What you say! You know what that is the way life goes, ya know. Ho,Ho! Do you feel real good Deep, Deep down inside of you down in your soul, like a pot of gold you get that you get to hold. Better when you’re old! Yes! I Pray! I Pray! I pray for happiness, love, peace of mind to come our way.
Each and every day. Hey! Hey!

Homeless poet just outside the Dining Hall in the B Street Alley, San Rafael, CA. Photo by

Terry Peck

I pray at night when we lose our sight and wake up shiny and bright. That’s right. I sleep deep! I Pray, Yes, I Pray! I can say, Yes, God loves us all! The same way. Yes, I do pray. I pray, I pray!
Written by The Homeless Poet, a man of verse.

The Blood of Christ
He saved our lives! You know that’s right! He walked on water on Sunday Nights. Turned water into wine on Friday. So we can go out and play. Hear what I say. The blood of Jesus. Jesus will be back. Back dressed in black. Believe that!
More writings from The Homeless Poets notebook, written at the Dining Hall and shared with all who will take the time to read his words.

Two guests having lunch at "Vinnies." Photo by St. Vincent de Paul.

This article appeared originally in Church of England Newspaper, London.

The East: Home of the Wise Men

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Christ never turns away from any heart that is open to him.

Did the Task Force Violate SBC Bylaws?

2012-02-26T01:36:18Z

Howell Scott, in the comment stream on Rick Patrick’s article, “Informal Descriptor or Officially Approved Optional Replacement Name”used SBC Bylaws section 19 as proof that Bryant Wright’s appointment of the Name Change Task Force was inappropriate.

I would like to take a moment and address the specific issues that Howell raised.

I am not a lawyer, nor some kind of constitutional expert, but I do believe that Howell’s interpretation is faulty here. He is using a section of the bylaws that has nothing to do with this task force and using faulty reasoning to condemn the task force appointment without due cause.

1) Howell misapplies Section 19 to question the constitutional authenticity of the Name Change Task Force’s appointment.

Here is the entire section 19. Howell referenced the last section (bold):

Committee on Committees: A Committee on Committees, composed of two (2) members from each qualified state and the District of Columbia, shall be appointed by the president, in conference with the vice presidents, of whom one (1) shall be designated as chairperson. Persons named to the Committee on Committees shall have been resident members for at least three (3) years of Southern Baptist churches either geographically within the states or affiliated with the conventions of the states from which they are appointed. Members so named shall be notified by the president in writing, at least 45 days before the meeting of the Convention. Their names shall be released by the president to Baptist Press no later than 45 days prior to the annual meeting of the Convention, and their names shall be published in the first issue of the Convention Bulletin. The president may fill any vacancies on the committee when those originally named do not attend the Convention. This committee shall nominate all special committees authorized during the sessions of the Convention not otherwise provided for. All special Convention committees shall transfer, upon their discharge, all official files to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention.

According to Howell, this section would make the appointment of the Task Force unauthorized. It simply doesn’t do that.

The Committee on Committees, appointed by the president, is authorized here to nominate members for all special committees authorized during the convention (unless otherwise provided for). If a special committee is authorized by the SBC, the Committee on Committees is responsible to name that committee.

But what this passage does not say, which Howell seems to be interpreting it to say, is that all special committees must be authorized by the convention and nominated by the C on C. The work of the C on C is limited to convention authorized special committees, but there is no limit place here on entities of the SBC appointing their own task forces or special committees under their own authority.

The section deals with the nomination of special committees authorized at the Annual Meeting. It in no way limits appointment of special committees to the annual meeting.

This section of the bylaws has absolutely nothing to do with the president’s task force. It is about x and Howell is applying it to y. Section 19 does not govern the work of the EC or the appointment of a special task force.

2) The Executive Committee of the SBC is authorized to study such matters.

It is wholly appropriate for the EC to undertake a study of something such as a name change.

Section 18 of the Bylaws, subsection B says this:

The Executive Committee shall be the fiduciary, the fiscal, and the executive entity of the Convention in all its affairs not specifically committed to some other board or entity.

The EC is the executive entity responsible for affairs not specifically committed to another board or entity. It is totally appropriate that the EC study something like a change in the name of the SBC.

But someone might say that it should have been done at the SBC Annual Meeting. There is nothing in the bylaws that says that such matters have to be initiated at the SBC Annual Meeting or that it was inappropriate for the EC to undertake the study.

In fact, the same subsection E goes on to say that the EC is “specifically authorized, instructed, and commissioned to perform the following functions.” First among those, in paragraph (1), is this:

To act for the Convention ad interim in all matters not otherwise provided for.

The EC acts in the place of the convention when the convention is not in session.

Paragraph (5) goes on to say grant this authority to the EC:

To act in an advisory capacity on all questions of cooperation among the different entities of the Convention, and among the entities of the Convention and those of other conventions, whether state or national.

The authority to study the name of the convention would seem to me to be authorized as functioning as the convention ad interim. It would also seem to be an issue of cooperation under paragraph (5).

But I think that I have established two things:

1) The EC is completely within its purview to explore an issue such as this.

2) Section 19 does not apply to this issue, contrary to assertions that have been made.

One more point needs to be made.

3) The Executive Committee determines its own bylaws and procedures.

Was the president authorized to appoint a study committee. That authority is neither granted nor prohibited in the SBC Constitution or Bylaws, which are meant to give only the broad guidelines of convention operation.

The EC is authorized by the bylaws to form its own bylaws and operate by them. Section 18, Subsection E, paragraph 10 authorizes the EC as follows:

To make its own bylaws in keeping with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Convention in carrying out these instructions to the Executive Committee; to hold meetings whenever deemed necessary; to make reports of all meetings to the Convention; to notify all the boards, entities, and institutions of the actions of the Convention and to advise with them as to the best way of promoting all the interests of the Convention.

The last sentence adds further to the point made above, that the EC is authorized to “promote all the interests of the Convention” including if a name-change is authorized.

But the key point here is that the EC makes its own bylaws under the broad parameters of the Constitution and Bylaws and then follows them.

It is those bylaws that would govern the formation and appointment of the Task Force. I have not been able to locate a copy of the bylaws of the EC, but I would note that while some members of the EC were not happy with the appointment of the Task Force, I did not see any challenges based on constitutionality.

I conclude from this, and from what understanding I have of Robert’s Rules of Order, that the appointment of a task force by the President of the SBC to study an issue and report on his behalf to the EC is not contrary to the bylaws or established procedures of the Executive Committee. This is especially true since the Task Force members traveled at their own expense, so no budgetary issues were involved.

My conclusion is that the Task Force route used by Bryant Wright was in no way contrary to the Constitution or Bylaws of the SBC.

Parenting by Design - February 27

2012-02-27T05:00:00Z

Virginia Senate Rejects Personhood Bill for Unborn Children

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Just hours after a Virginia Senate committee narrowly approved a bill that would give unborn children the legal rights of citizens, the bill was defeated in the full Senate.

Morning and Evening 2/25 PM

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Identify that Superhero…

2012-02-25T17:59:08Z

Is this:

Joe Blackmon?
David Worley?
Dave Miller?

I’ll never tell!

News to Note, February 25, 2012

2012-02-25T10:15:00Z

Empty schools, “He that believeth on the Son,” our cratered moon, ultrafast evolution, primordial soup

What about All Those Laws in the Old Testament?

2012-02-25T15:01:05Z

This week, I was interviewed by a newspaper in western Kentucky about an upcoming conference in Paducah (www.AnswersinGenesis.org/outreach/event/Paducah2012). After asking me various questions about creation, evolution, what we believe about Genesis, and dating methods etc., the reporter then asked a question that went something like this: “Well if you believe the Bible, why don’t you obey all those laws in the Old Testament—for instance all the laws in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and so on? Laws about stoning people who committed various sins/crimes?”

I find I am getting these sorts of questions more and more. When reporters hear us give confident answers about the creation/evolution/age-of-the earth issues, then they resort to asking about the Bible and the laws in the Old Testament, thinking they are pointing out that we really don’t believe the Bible, because if we did, we should be obeying all those laws detailed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, etc.

The first thing I said to him was, “Well Christians don’t sacrifice animals like the Jews did—because Christ’s death and Resurrection changed all that. As the Scripture states, ‘who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.’ (Hebrews 7:27).” I then went on to explain that we are under the New Covenant (a new legal agreement, if you will), not the Old Covenant as given to the Jews.

I must admit, it is difficult to explain this in summary form to a reporter on the phone—but here is the essence of what I also explained:

The laws of the Old Testament, sometimes called the Old Covenant or the Law, were made up of over 600 rules and restrictions. If one rule was broken, the person was as guilty as if all were broken (James 2:10). But Christ’s death and Resurrection have made them obsolete. The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:25 that “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (i.e. the Law). The author of Hebrews sums up the issue of the Law, writing, “In speaking of a new covenant, he [Christ] makes the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

The sacrifice of animals and the priesthood were all types and shadows that pointed to Christ. We no longer need animal sacrifices because through His death and Resurrection, He secured an eternal redemption,” something that the blood of animals could never do (Hebrews 9:12). We live in a world where not even one person is righteous (Romans 3:19), so we could never keep the 600+ laws of the Old Covenant perfectly! But Christ came to earth, kept the Law to perfection, died in our place, and was resurrected not only to give us salvation, but also to free us from the Old Covenant and establish a new one—a covenant based on His atoning blood (Luke 22:20).

Please pray for wisdom as we attempt to answer the many questions we receive from the media and the public as a whole.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

What about All Those Laws in the Old Testament?

2012-02-25T15:01:05Z

I must admit, it is difficult to explain this in summary form to a reporter on the phone—but here is the essence of what I also explained:

The laws of the Old Testament, sometimes called the Old Covenant or the Law, were made up of over 600 rules and restrictions. If one rule was broken, the person was as guilty as if all were broken (James 2:10). But Christ’s death and Resurrection have made them obsolete. The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:25 that “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (i.e. the Law). The author of Hebrews sums up the issue of the Law, writing, “In speaking of a new covenant, he [Christ] makes the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

The sacrifice of animals and the priesthood were all types and shadows that pointed to Christ. We no longer need animal sacrifices because through His death and Resurrection, He secured an eternal redemption,” something that the blood of animals could never do (Hebrews 9:12). We live in a world where not even one person is righteous (Romans 3:19), so we could never keep the 600+ laws of the Old Covenant perfectly! But Christ came to earth, kept the Law to perfection, died in our place, and was resurrected not only to give us salvation, but also to free us from the Old Covenant and establish a new one—a covenant based on His atoning blood (Luke 22:20).

Please pray for wisdom as we attempt to answer the many questions we receive from the media and the public as a whole.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Luther and Narrative (Carl Trueman)

2012-02-25T11:53:00Z

Robert Kolb's new book, Luther and the Stories of God, is about to be released. It is an excellent study of Luther's approach to scripture with special reference both to his preaching and the ways in which he interacted with, and deployed, biblical narrative as a means of shaping the lives and minds of his congregants. Along the way, Kolb draws helpfully on the insights of modern narrative theory from such as Auerbach, Frei, Lindbeck and Vanhoozer. The book has something to say to students of Luther, of narrative theology and of preaching.

Why Jesus Creates Sex

2012-02-25T08:00:00Z

Pastor Mark gave this talk on "Why Jesus Creates Sex" at our recent Resurgence College Conference at the end of 2011.

For more on a biblical view of sex,
watch Pastor Mark's latest sermon
Sex: God, Gross, or Gift?

Daily Courage - February 25

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Active Word - February 25

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Answers for Each Day - Feb. 25

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Powered by 4 - February 25, 2012

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Devotionals Daily: A Year with Jesus - Feb. 25

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Tesoros de la Palabra - 25 de Febrero

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

Prisoner of Jesus Christ - Standing Strong Through the Storm - February 25

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles… (Ephesians 3:1). Prison! Even the word sends shivers down the back and the thought is immediately pushed to the back of our minds.

El Camino Bíblico - 25 de Febrero

2012-02-25T05:00:00Z

"Ministry Blogs" via Bill in Google Reader

Interview: Brother Zane young talks about his New Franciscans in the Episcopal Church, an Order

The East: Home of the Wise Men

Did the Task Force Violate SBC Bylaws?

Parenting by Design - February 27

Virginia Senate Rejects Personhood Bill for Unborn Children

Morning and Evening 2/25 PM

Identify that Superhero…

News to Note, February 25, 2012

What about All Those Laws in the Old Testament?

What about All Those Laws in the Old Testament?

Luther and Narrative (Carl Trueman)

Why Jesus Creates Sex

For more on a biblical view of sex,watch Pastor Mark's latest sermonSex: God, Gross, or Gift?

Daily Courage - February 25

Active Word - February 25

Answers for Each Day - Feb. 25

Powered by 4 - February 25, 2012

Devotionals Daily: A Year with Jesus - Feb. 25

Tesoros de la Palabra - 25 de Febrero

Prisoner of Jesus Christ - Standing Strong Through the Storm - February 25

El Camino Bíblico - 25 de Febrero

For more on a biblical view of sex,
watch Pastor Mark's latest sermon
Sex: God, Gross, or Gift?