In September, I went through some trials that left me feeling very down and very self-absorbed with my problems. As the months have passed, I’ve found that in moments, I am able to rise above the pain, and in others, I’ve succumbed to my own weakness. God continues to be gracious and I continue to wrestle with my own sin and pray for the healing of relationships.

My family has been, as always, amazing. Rick is a constant source of comfort and encouragement, and Kyrie and Antonio fill my life with joy and moments of being as carefree as I remember being as a child. Sometimes there is no better description for my children than little angels. And goodness knows they’re not really angels — their behaviour can be exhausting and infuriating — but the love and the innocence that they display from their sweet spirits really help to lift mine. It’s such a joy to be a mom, even though I have those moments when I wonder if I really am called to be a mom. Sometimes I’m just really truly not good at it. At all.

God has been kind enough to open my eyes to friendships that have always been there, waiting for me — and introduce new friends into my life. He has never abandoned me, even when I think that He has.

It’s been difficult for me to enter into the season of Lent this year. Antonio was sick on Ash Wednesday, so I wasn’t able to attend a service. Being able to hear the words “Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return,” while the cross is drawn in ashes on my forehead by the thumb of the priest is something that is so profound to me that I can hardly articulate my feelings about it. It helps to set the tone for the entire season. I have not chosen to give up anything specifically, nor have I conscientiously added any particular disciplines. However, I do find myself returning to the Lord, and drawing closer to Him, and seeing the sickness of my own soul and the desperation with which my whole body aches for salvation.

We recently took a trip to Florida and had a wonderful time. Rick has been attending Robbert E. Webber’s Institute for Worship Studies in Orange Park, FL for the past 3 years, spending the past year working on his doctoral thesis, and finishing it up last winter, earning the title of Dr. Capezza. The official graduation ceremony was 8 days ago in Florida, so we decided to plan a family vacation around that time so we could kill two birds with one stone.

We arrived on Wednesday, June 10th, in time for the convocation. The worship was beautiful, and the enthusiasm and love for God was felt in everyone around me as we sang our praises to God without reserve or hesitation. After the service, we drove down to Daytona Beach, where we’d spend the next three days soaking up sun, splashing in the waves, building sandcastles, and relaxing in the pool. We had an oceanfront hotel, which was really just perfect for us. We were able to spend lots of time on the beach, which is mostly what I wanted to do. The kids absolutely loved the pool, and were very brave and confident in the water. Antonio was too afraid of the waves at the beach to get near the water, but liked digging in the sand. Kyrie was thrilled with the waves and also loved looking for pretty seashells along the shore.

On Saturday morning, we left Daytona and drove back into Jacksonville to pick up Rick’s mom from the airport. We spent some time at the mall until our hotel was ready for us to check-in. We had a nice evening at the home of the Creeches, the couple that hosted Rick every time he traveled to Florida for classes throughout his schooling.

The next morning we attended a Russian Orthodox Church in the area. I would have probably enjoyed it more if Antonio hadn’t decided to be a screamer that day. The singing was beautiful. There are definitely aspects of Orthodox worship that I would love to see recovered in Western liturgy. There were other things about the service that I didn’t find particularly appealing, but overall I thought it was a lovely service.

We had to kill some time before the graduation, so we took the kids to Chuck E. Cheese’s to get some energy out (the beach wasn’t an option because we had already checked out of our hotel and didn’t want to come to the ceremony all sandy and salty). They had fun, and to our surprise, we killed all the time we needed and were ready to head over to the church. Rick went to rehearsal and Rick’s mom and I spent some time with the kids in the nursery. I also had the chance to take a few pictures of Rick before the ceremony.

The ceremony was great. Some of the music was a little weird for my taste, but some of it was just beautiful. And the people sang with all their hearts, so the sanctuary was filled with noises of praise to God. After taking lots of pictures following the ceremony (visible on facebook if you’re my friend), we headed to Palm Coast, where we’d spend the remainder of our vacation in a 2-bedroom condo along with Rick’s mom.

It was really cute, spacious, and relaxing. The pool there was huge, and we made sure to get plenty of use out of it. We also managed to make it to the beach, although sadly, the beach there wasn’t as nice as Daytona beach. We had lots of fun anyway, though.

On Wednesday morning, we packed up and headed back to Jacksonville. No trip to the South is complete without a visit to the Cracker Barrel, so that was where we ate lunch. Soon after, we dropped Rick’s mom off at the airport, and then went to a few stores to kill some time before our flight. It was beastly hot, so we found a Chick-fil-A with an indoor play place and let the kids get some energy out before the long flight home. We stayed there until it was time to get to the airport, return the rental car, and check-in for our flight. Other than the long, 4 hour flight in the middle, it was all relatively smooth travel on the way back. Our vacation was just what we needed, but it was really good to be home.

Anyway, after compline tonight, both Rachel and I were singing her to sleep. It doesn’t happen very often that we both sing her to sleep together, but Kyrie stopped us in the middle of our singing to say this:

Kyrie (tapping her doll’s head): I put water on her head.
Rick: To baptize her, so she can be in Jesus?
Kyrie: Yes.
Rachel: Do you know anything about this?
Rick: Noooo.

I think Schwegler is right on. I’ve always had a problem with finding a way to incorporate contemporary music in such a way that it’s good for the congregation. I think Schwegler put some of my own thoughts into the words I couldn’t find. His points sum up my own thoughts:

Complexity: Many contemporary songs are made for soloists, not congregations. Nothing is worse to me than a passionate band singing for the congregation. That just irks me. It makes true the charge of entertainment worship.

Less information: As someone who doesn’t read music, but can generally follow notes (most of the time), I find it quite annoying to go into a church and hear a song I’ve never heard before and expect to sing it. Sometimes I can; sometimes I can’t. I want to see the music.

More oral tradition:It also vexes me to hear a worship leader sing a song contrary to the way you might hear it on CCM. I want to know what I am singing before I start singing or at least have a road map.

Chords vs. tunes: I’ve always been fond of a piano or organ (mostly piano) leading worship (Forrest is trying to convince me a guitar and drums are better, but now I’ve obtained newly read ammunition!). I’ve never understood why I felt that guitar didn’t work as well for leading congregational music, but I think Schwegler’s right in asserting it’s because guitars play chords, not tunes. It may also be that I am partial to piano over guitars; I hardly ever see anyone play an acoustic guitar in a way that doesn’t sound cheap when it comes to worship. My wife assures me that it’s just because I’ve never been in a church that plays acoustic guitars well, but I think it’s because my Catholic-Lutheran upbringing has given me a particular standard of what music should sound like.

After reading the 89 page book, I have a fuller understanding of GAFCON. The opening chapter gives a brief, but very full history of the relationship between Canterbury and GAFCON leaders, particularly in the Global South. This history clearly shows how Canterbury has consistently gone against the will of the Primates. (Perhaps one of the most interesting assertions was the belief that, in unwittingly adopting an Orthodox view of discipline, we have left ourselves defenseless.) The expense of these battles along with the distraction they have caused for spreading the gospel have caused leaders to desire a quicker measure to restore authentic Anglicanism.

The second section seeks to define authentic Anglicanism. It gives a robust and broad view of the Scriptures, the nature of Christ, and the purpose of worship.* While I found the work on sacraments lacking, it was broad enough to encompass a wide range of views. I also received the worship guide for the services that took place during the week of GAFCON. The worship definitely looked more evangelical in tone, with the use of more alternative services–which is personally not a negative, but makes me wary of the introduction of poor liturgical forms.

My major concern after reading the booklet was the interpretation and nature of the Articles of Religion (though I have been directed to further discussion on the issue). While I still have questions about whether GAFCON will be proposing a long-term solution, the description of the future re-alignment has given me a renewed hope that this is a long-term solution. While I have heard some of these plans through a couple of GAFCON attendees, I see very little written on these future plans, which I think lends itself to the understanding that GAFCON isn’t offering an alternative to what we already have in place. It is.

Moreover, my reading of the short book has also given me confidence in the competence of GAFCON leaders to create something that works.

‘AS FAR AS ENGLAND IS CONCERNED, it is damaging, arrogant and irrelevant for GAFCON leaders to say, as they are now doing, ‘choose you this day whom you will serve’, with the implication that there are now only two parties in the church, the orthodox and the liberals, and that to refuse to sign up to GAFCON is to decide for the liberals. Things are just not like that. Certainly not here in England.”

After citing this, he writes, “Bishop Wright comes very close to bearing false witness here” because GAFCON leaders have not said this. While I disagree with Wright about things not being as bad in England as GAFCON says, Wright’s “vitriol” has to do with the issue of polity. The GAFCON “recruitment” was done at an Orthodox parish in a conservative diocese. Why does GAFCON choose a parish under a conservative who has yet to sign on to GAFCON? Kennedy writes,

I do not know why he takes offense. The Jerusalem Declaration was clear in expressing support for interventions only in those places where bishops with jurisdiction presume to depart from orthodox Christianity. Once a bishop, or any ordained leader, presumes to contradict or overturn apostolic teaching, he is anathema, his authority is null and void.

So long as bishops in the Church of England remain faithful to apostolic doctrine and so long as those bishops who do not come under discipline and those parishes under the authority of heretic bishops are given refuge and succor by the wider church, then there need be no fear of intervention.

Really? You can’t understand why he’s upset? If GAFCON is “recruiting” signatures in an Orthodox diocese, I can very much understand Wright’s perspective. If this was in my diocese, I would think that GAFCON was trying to turn my parishioners against me. Bishop Wright may be off in his analysis of England’s orthodoxy (as he may be in his analysis of his own orthodoxy), but I think Wright’s reaction is understandable. If I was in Durham or London, I think I would fear that GAFCON was trying to turn my diocese into Australia.

I am not sure what this will mean for Anglicanism, but I am a bit concerned. I share some of the concerns that Archishop Williams and Bishop Wright, as well as others, have voiced (see some responses to GAFCON here).

Anglicanism has always had great diversity, and while I agree that communion needs to be broken with classic liberals, I worry that this is not just Anglican-style schism. One of the most beautiful things about Anglicanism is that it is quite diverse. Now I realize there are limits to this diversity, but I wonder where the limits will be drawn. I don’t want Anglicanism to become another evangelical denomination. Evangelicalism is just one strain of Anglicanism, and while in many ways, I am in that strain, I find much of benefit in the Anglo-Catholic and latitudinarian strains.

I often find myself agreeing more with Jim Wallis than with Os Guinness. Will that mean that I will be labeled as a liberal within the new regime because I am more liberal in the areas of economics, the environment, and politics? I find myself agreeing more with the sacramentality of Schmemann, Waterland, and even Pusey than with Stott. Will I be labeled as a Catholic? (Catholics seem to be tolerated, and if you’re in San Joaquin, slightly lauded, but how long will that last?)

My reading of the Scriptures often has me agreeing more with liberals than with evangelicals when it comes to the way of Jesus. How much latitude will there be to follow the Scriptures wherever they go–even when that leads away from evangelicalism?

I am finding it increasingly more difficult for my faith to have a home.

Let’s just say I’ve been rethinking economics over the past five years (incidentally, about the time I joined the blue party). Rachel and I were discussing Ron Paul this evening, which led into a conversation on socialism vs. capitalism (along with some communism and fascism). I was mostly talking about the problems I see (biblically) with a “free market.” Lo and behold, I came home to see Doug Jones had blogged some of these things in a critique of Sowell’s economics. I haven’t had the chance to read Jones’ other critiques of Sowell, but this hits it on the head. The free market will work great in the resurrection, I’m sure, but sin will always mess it up here.

For me, one of the biggest problems I have with the libertarian way of thinking is its focus is on me. My rights. We have certain rights, and the government is taking them away. Okay, sure. I understand the sentiment. The recent bans on spanking and homeschooling in California drive me up the wall. As the Five Man Electrical band sang, “Hey! what gives you the right!” But, I question if the “American Dream” is a really a “right” we should have. Don’t get me wrong. I strongly desire those things: the perfect car, home, and job, but do I really have an “inalienable right” to pursue wealth at that level?

As I said to Rachel, the platform of the Republicans is “You can be rich!” I really like this idea. The problem is that the way to get there will often trample the poor.

The Democrats say to the poor, “You don’t have to be poor!” So who does their plan screw over?–well, the rich, and…me…and a lot of you. People that aren’t poor–we say we are, and we all have our financial problems, but we aren’t homeless, and in America, you always have the ability to pull yourself out of poverty. This isn’t Bangkok or Bogota.

I don’t want democratic style socialism. My middle class living might go down to lower middle class. That would be annoying. I would feel even more poor (such a relative term).

But is it such a bad thing to sacrifice my potential wealth for the sake of the poor? If Jones’ is right in his exposition of James, and I think he is,* that’s exactly what we’re called to do.

* I know, I too am shocked I’m finding so much common ground with Doug Jones lately.

These bishops and ministers were humble men of God, which sadly, I didn’t expect. I guess I’m just not used to seeing humility on that level. It was a refreshing weekend of reconciliation and prayer, and I hope to get to go again in the future. But for now I’ll just get to look forward to Bishop Cavalcanti being at Christ the King this weekend.