Available from mid-May 2004 from The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220.
The Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. has pleasure in announcing the publication of a most important Book, which explains in the clearest of terms why it has consistently for many years stated that the ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book -- whatever its merits as experimental liturgy --is neither a genuine Book of Common Prayer nor a true Formulary of the Anglican Way.
Neither Orthodoxy nor a Formulary. The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of ECUSA
It is written by two priests who have been studying liturgy, doctrine and the language of prayer for a long time, and who have cooperated in the writing of several books. They are:
• The Rev’d Dr. Louis R. Tarsitano, who is a professor of English and a rector of an Anglican church in Savannah, Georgia; and
• The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon, who is a retired professor of theology and the rector of two village parishes in the Church of England.
In the Book, the authors explain the necessity of Formularies for the public profession of Christianity and show what are the Anglican Formularies. Then they examine the major aspects and parts of the 1979 Prayer Book to see whether they rise to the level required to be an orthodox formulary. In particular they look at the Catechism, the Eucharist, Baptism, Ordination and doctrine through language. Further, the authors explain what has been understood to be Common Prayer through the centuries and demonstrate clearly that the 1979 Book belongs to the modern type of prayer book known as “A Book of Alternative Services.”
Many Episcopalians will not like the conclusion of this Book; but, all serious-minded clergy and lay leaders ought to read it if they are truly concerned with the reform, renewal and regeneration of the Anglican Way in the U.S.A. Reform must be based upon Truth.
Available from The Prayer Book Society, P O Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA. 19128-0220, or via its web site – www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by phone 1 800 727 1928, for $12.50 including post & packing (PA residents add tax).
Also available from the Prayer Book Society:
Neither Archaic nor Obsolete, the language of Public Worship and Common Prayer, also by Tarsitano & Toon, $14.00 (including post).
The Annotated Holy Communion Service of 1928, with notes by Peter Toon, $7.00 (including post).
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
Gibson and the Neo-Gnostics
by Todd M. Aglialoro (From the American Spectator)
"The flesh is the hinge of salvation." --Tertullian
Although some reviewers of The Passion of the Christ stuck gamely to the prefabbed "anti-Semitic" line that preceded its release by a year, many of the film's harsher critics chose to touch on that issue only as an afterthought, if at all. In the absence of horned, hook-nosed Hebrew antagonists cackling with deicidal glee during Christ's crucifixion, critics intent on giving Mel hell had to take different tacks.
Some have cried historical inaccuracy; others, scriptural infidelity. A third group has focused on allegedly deficient production values: uneven pace, thin characterization, turgid score, sloppy gaffing, what have you. The merits of these kinds of critiques rest comfortably within the bounds of filmmaking principles and, to some extent, personal taste.
But we have seen another, more nuanced line of attack pursued by Passion-detractors, one that strives to claim the theological high ground and beat devout director Gibson at his own evangelical game: the charge that the film is too violent, too "coarse," too preoccupied with gouged eyeballs and sopping blood to be a licit portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth. That the inspiring spiritual message of this great teacher -- peace, love, and tolerance -- is completely hidden behind the red mist.
The New York Times review lamented that the film's focus on the "savagery" of Christ's suffering "succeed[s] more in assaulting the spirit than uplifting it." Andrew Sullivan held out hope that, in effect, the Crucifixion didn't necessarily have to be all that bad for Jesus, and offered that the brutality in The Passion was more a product of Mel Gibson's "psycho-sexual obsession with extreme violence" than a historically accurate rendering (and more to the point, a theologically accurate rendering) of what happened on the first Good Friday. And a writer at one independent Internet movie-review outfit, disappointed "as a Christian" with Gibson's "gorefest," asked plaintively, "Where is its spirituality?"
In one way or another all these criticisms miss a very fundamental point, and in so doing betray a tendency towards a modern incarnation of an ancient Gnostic heresy.
Now, the finer points of Gibson's approach are certainly fair game for debate. How long should he have lingered on the scourging scene? How many gratuitous blows to Jesus' head from anonymous Roman soldiers can the camera show before their dramatic effect is lost on the viewer? Was separating Jesus' shoulder, in order to get the second nail in, pouring it on just a little too thick?
But those are questions of method, not of message. Gibson's critics display their neo-Gnostic sensibilities not in questioning Gibson's technique, but the theological premises he means to convey by it. Most importantly, that the primary mission of the God-man was not to teach or inspire but to suffer and die; and that his suffering was not only real and physical but more profound in every way than any human suffering before or since, being in some way proportionate to the sin expiated by it.
Those critics of the Passion -- especially those self-identified as Christians -- who lament its supposed fixation on Christ's physical suffering rather than the nice, unbloody, purely spiritual significance of his life ("Where's its spirituality?") hearken back to the early Gnostic heresy of Docetism. The Docetists (from the Greek dokein, "to seem" or "to appear") believed that Christ didn't have a human body at all, but only appeared to. Consequently, he never really suffered physically during his Passion, instead putting on a grand act for those assembled at Calvary. (Some Docetists believed it wasn't even Christ up there at all, but Simon of Cyrene gone in his place, or even Judas.) Their version of Jesus was more or less angelic; he came to earth to bring salvation not by his suffering and death, but to transmit by his teachings the saving knowledge of hidden spiritual mysteries.
Neither the Jewish nor the Greek mind of Jesus' day could wrap itself around the concept of a God who truly became human; the very idea was scandalous both to Hebrew monotheism and Hellenic idealism. Docetism provided relief from the scandal. The Word didn't really become flesh; he was just made to look as if he had. God didn't really suffer unspeakably at the hands of his creatures; it was all a grand illusion put on for us by a divine Wizard of Oz.
That scandal is no less evident today. Passion critics who decry the "gorefest" on high-minded spiritual grounds are saying with the Docetists, "Pay no attention to the man up on the cross."
AND WHAT OF THOSE like Sullivan who contend it's a sign of depravity -- "sadistic embellishment" -- to take the depiction of Christ's sufferings to such extreme heights (or depths)? Does he have a point when he argues that, say, an ordinary flogging and a typical, workaday crucifixion would have sufficed for the salvation of the world?
Well, God could have effected the redemption in any way of his choosing. And even if Jesus had to die, the Romans (or whatever people unto whom God chose to deliver his son) could have hanged Jesus without making so much as a mark on his face or spilling a drop of his blood. He didn't have to be scourged, or crowned, or mocked.
"But the Lord was pleased to crush him in infirmity" (Isaiah 53:10). In bearing unto himself, as Christians believe, the sins (and suffering for sin) of all mankind throughout all history, nothing less than the most extreme torture pushing the uttermost limits of human endurance would seem fitting. Christ's presence on earth was not a purely angelic one, and his sufferings were not limited to psychological and spiritual angst.
I think that Mel Gibson, with every slow-motion moment of flying blood and flayed flesh, is providing viewers a profound meditation on the Christian belief that God truly became man, suffered, and died. And far from overdoing the torture, I believe he has only scratched the surface of conveying the true horrors Christ endured.
Todd M. Aglialoro is editor for Sophia Institute Press
"The flesh is the hinge of salvation." --Tertullian
Although some reviewers of The Passion of the Christ stuck gamely to the prefabbed "anti-Semitic" line that preceded its release by a year, many of the film's harsher critics chose to touch on that issue only as an afterthought, if at all. In the absence of horned, hook-nosed Hebrew antagonists cackling with deicidal glee during Christ's crucifixion, critics intent on giving Mel hell had to take different tacks.
Some have cried historical inaccuracy; others, scriptural infidelity. A third group has focused on allegedly deficient production values: uneven pace, thin characterization, turgid score, sloppy gaffing, what have you. The merits of these kinds of critiques rest comfortably within the bounds of filmmaking principles and, to some extent, personal taste.
But we have seen another, more nuanced line of attack pursued by Passion-detractors, one that strives to claim the theological high ground and beat devout director Gibson at his own evangelical game: the charge that the film is too violent, too "coarse," too preoccupied with gouged eyeballs and sopping blood to be a licit portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth. That the inspiring spiritual message of this great teacher -- peace, love, and tolerance -- is completely hidden behind the red mist.
The New York Times review lamented that the film's focus on the "savagery" of Christ's suffering "succeed[s] more in assaulting the spirit than uplifting it." Andrew Sullivan held out hope that, in effect, the Crucifixion didn't necessarily have to be all that bad for Jesus, and offered that the brutality in The Passion was more a product of Mel Gibson's "psycho-sexual obsession with extreme violence" than a historically accurate rendering (and more to the point, a theologically accurate rendering) of what happened on the first Good Friday. And a writer at one independent Internet movie-review outfit, disappointed "as a Christian" with Gibson's "gorefest," asked plaintively, "Where is its spirituality?"
In one way or another all these criticisms miss a very fundamental point, and in so doing betray a tendency towards a modern incarnation of an ancient Gnostic heresy.
Now, the finer points of Gibson's approach are certainly fair game for debate. How long should he have lingered on the scourging scene? How many gratuitous blows to Jesus' head from anonymous Roman soldiers can the camera show before their dramatic effect is lost on the viewer? Was separating Jesus' shoulder, in order to get the second nail in, pouring it on just a little too thick?
But those are questions of method, not of message. Gibson's critics display their neo-Gnostic sensibilities not in questioning Gibson's technique, but the theological premises he means to convey by it. Most importantly, that the primary mission of the God-man was not to teach or inspire but to suffer and die; and that his suffering was not only real and physical but more profound in every way than any human suffering before or since, being in some way proportionate to the sin expiated by it.
Those critics of the Passion -- especially those self-identified as Christians -- who lament its supposed fixation on Christ's physical suffering rather than the nice, unbloody, purely spiritual significance of his life ("Where's its spirituality?") hearken back to the early Gnostic heresy of Docetism. The Docetists (from the Greek dokein, "to seem" or "to appear") believed that Christ didn't have a human body at all, but only appeared to. Consequently, he never really suffered physically during his Passion, instead putting on a grand act for those assembled at Calvary. (Some Docetists believed it wasn't even Christ up there at all, but Simon of Cyrene gone in his place, or even Judas.) Their version of Jesus was more or less angelic; he came to earth to bring salvation not by his suffering and death, but to transmit by his teachings the saving knowledge of hidden spiritual mysteries.
Neither the Jewish nor the Greek mind of Jesus' day could wrap itself around the concept of a God who truly became human; the very idea was scandalous both to Hebrew monotheism and Hellenic idealism. Docetism provided relief from the scandal. The Word didn't really become flesh; he was just made to look as if he had. God didn't really suffer unspeakably at the hands of his creatures; it was all a grand illusion put on for us by a divine Wizard of Oz.
That scandal is no less evident today. Passion critics who decry the "gorefest" on high-minded spiritual grounds are saying with the Docetists, "Pay no attention to the man up on the cross."
AND WHAT OF THOSE like Sullivan who contend it's a sign of depravity -- "sadistic embellishment" -- to take the depiction of Christ's sufferings to such extreme heights (or depths)? Does he have a point when he argues that, say, an ordinary flogging and a typical, workaday crucifixion would have sufficed for the salvation of the world?
Well, God could have effected the redemption in any way of his choosing. And even if Jesus had to die, the Romans (or whatever people unto whom God chose to deliver his son) could have hanged Jesus without making so much as a mark on his face or spilling a drop of his blood. He didn't have to be scourged, or crowned, or mocked.
"But the Lord was pleased to crush him in infirmity" (Isaiah 53:10). In bearing unto himself, as Christians believe, the sins (and suffering for sin) of all mankind throughout all history, nothing less than the most extreme torture pushing the uttermost limits of human endurance would seem fitting. Christ's presence on earth was not a purely angelic one, and his sufferings were not limited to psychological and spiritual angst.
I think that Mel Gibson, with every slow-motion moment of flying blood and flayed flesh, is providing viewers a profound meditation on the Christian belief that God truly became man, suffered, and died. And far from overdoing the torture, I believe he has only scratched the surface of conveying the true horrors Christ endured.
Todd M. Aglialoro is editor for Sophia Institute Press
Saturday, April 17, 2004
The Eucharist – which Rite is right; and, Is Rite Two the same as the 1928 Rite?
Episcopalians are aware that within their official Prayer Book – that dated 1979 – there are two forms of The Eucharist, one in so-called “traditional language” and one in “contemporary language”.
Many Episcopalians think that the traditional-language service. Rite One, is much the same as “The Order for Holy Communion” in the editions of the American BCP dated 1789, 1892 and 1928.
In fact, this assumption is incorrect. Certainly there is the use of the basic text of 1928 in 1979 but it has been highly edited. Further, and most importantly, it has been pressed into a new SHAPE or SEQUENCE OR STRUCTURE in order to be of the same shape as the new material in the contemporary-language Rite Two texts.
The Prayer Book Society has now published an attractive booklet, THE SERVICE OF HOLY COMMUNION ANNOTATED, which has the 1928 text on the left hand side and then notes of explanation on the right hand side. It is intended for laity, for confirmation classes and so on, but clergy may also benefit from its valuable notes.
For those who really want to know what has been the classic TEXT and RITE of the Anglican Way in the USA since 1789 then the reading and considering of this booklet is a necessity! At least then they will be aware of what are the true choices for sacramental worship and what is the text from which eucharistic doctrine, as such, is deduced for classical Anglicans.
To order a copy either call 1 800 PBS 1928 or go to the website, www. anglicanmarketplace.com and please send me any comments. thanks, PT.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge
Many Episcopalians think that the traditional-language service. Rite One, is much the same as “The Order for Holy Communion” in the editions of the American BCP dated 1789, 1892 and 1928.
In fact, this assumption is incorrect. Certainly there is the use of the basic text of 1928 in 1979 but it has been highly edited. Further, and most importantly, it has been pressed into a new SHAPE or SEQUENCE OR STRUCTURE in order to be of the same shape as the new material in the contemporary-language Rite Two texts.
The Prayer Book Society has now published an attractive booklet, THE SERVICE OF HOLY COMMUNION ANNOTATED, which has the 1928 text on the left hand side and then notes of explanation on the right hand side. It is intended for laity, for confirmation classes and so on, but clergy may also benefit from its valuable notes.
For those who really want to know what has been the classic TEXT and RITE of the Anglican Way in the USA since 1789 then the reading and considering of this booklet is a necessity! At least then they will be aware of what are the true choices for sacramental worship and what is the text from which eucharistic doctrine, as such, is deduced for classical Anglicans.
To order a copy either call 1 800 PBS 1928 or go to the website, www. anglicanmarketplace.com and please send me any comments. thanks, PT.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge
Friday, April 09, 2004
Easter – Resurrection not Resuscitation
What happened to Jesus on Easter morning was not resuscitation. When the disciples proclaimed, “He is risen” and “He is alive” they were not proclaiming the resuscitation of Jesus. They were not saying that his human soul reunited with a revived body to form a resuscitated, revived Jesus. In no way whatsoever, could Resuscitation ever be the proclamation of GOSPEL by God the Father to those with ears to hear of the victory of the Incarnate Son over sin, evil, darkness, death and demonic power.
Resuscitation could never be the statement that a new covenant between God and man is in place, that the old Mosaic covenant is obsolete, and that there is perfect and full atonement, redemption, salvation, reconciliation & forgiveness of sins available through the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And neither could modern views of resurrection as “the spirit of Jesus surviving death” (with his body lost) be the statement of God’s victory over darkness, evil, sin, death and Satan.
What happened on Easter morning was a miracle that was more, much more, than the resuscitation of the dead body of Jesus and its reuniting with his soul. The Miracle of Easter is that Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God, was raised from the dead into a new order of being and as a new form of humanity. His resurrection from the dead, while a continuance in personal identity, was at the same time a transformation of his human nature and body so that he became a resurrected, glorified, supernaturalized and immortalized Man (yet more than Man for he is also God). His humanity, wholly transformed by the Spirit of God, contained and displayed the new order of being that is the life of the kingdom of God. The Person of the Son of God now had not only his eternal divine nature with a human soul (as he possessed from Good Friday through Holy Saturday) but also a totally perfected, glorified, supernaturalized and immortalized human nature, body and soul.
Thus the cry, “Jesus is risen from the dead”, is also the announcement that the new covenant between God and man is in place and is centered on the Mediator, Jesus. The new order and covenant reveals perfect human nature glorified through a perfect response to the Spirit of the Lord. It shows us the goal for which human nature was created by God, and to which it will be raised when the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets men free from the law of sin and of death. It shows both the crown of the purpose of God set forth in Holy Scriptures and the crown of his purpose in the created world, wherein a new, dynamic, everlasting level & order of life succeeds to old levels that pass away. Jesus rose as the new Adam, the head and representative of a new humanity, the first-fruits of those who would follow him (see 1 Corinthians 15).
This explanation of the raising of Jesus as the Resurrected Lord of life and not as the resuscitated Rabbi makes it possible for us to see why Jesus did not appear to those who had handed him over to death (the Jewish Sanhedrin & the Roman Procurator and their helpers). By the laws of the new covenant and of the kingdom of heaven, the miracle of the Resurrection could only be made known to those who responded in penitence and faith to the new level of spiritual existence which it disclosed. It was not a portent that could be shown to anyone & everyone to press them or to scare them into belief! It was a miracle belonging to the realm of the kingdom of God and only those with eyes to see could see it.
Had it been merely resuscitation then Jesus could have met anyone and everyone.
The new Order of Being manifested and revealed in the risen Lord Jesus, the Messiah, needed a corresponding spiritual discernment in man as spiritual being to see its nature and reality, Thus Jesus appeared only to the disciples and to them on several occasions. In them he had sown the seed of faith and insight and they, as quickened by the Spirit of God, were able to begin to see him in his new identity, in his transformed and glorified manhood. That is they were able to receive the Revelation of his true identity as the Risen Lord and then worship him (as did Thomas) as “My Lord and my God”.
To state all this is to agree with the Gospel records which make it absolutely clear that Jesus made no attempt whatsoever to appear to any others than his disciples.
However, to make this essential point about the revelation of a new order of being is not to discount historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. There is historical testimony that points to the Resurrection of Jesus with overwhelming probability – for example (a) the disciples did not really expect the Resurrection; (b) the existence of the Church despite the great setback of Good Friday; (c) the claims of the disciples that Jesus actually appeared to them; (d) the empty tomb and (e) the absolutely new appreciation and understanding of the Scriptures by the apostles and disciples.
Ultimately, we must say that what it took on Easter Day and during the next 40 days first to SEE and then to receive Jesus as the Resurrected Lord, with his new covenant and kingdom, is ultimately what it takes now – a penitent, believing heart, for as the Gospel of Mark declares, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon Good Friday 2004
Resuscitation could never be the statement that a new covenant between God and man is in place, that the old Mosaic covenant is obsolete, and that there is perfect and full atonement, redemption, salvation, reconciliation & forgiveness of sins available through the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And neither could modern views of resurrection as “the spirit of Jesus surviving death” (with his body lost) be the statement of God’s victory over darkness, evil, sin, death and Satan.
What happened on Easter morning was a miracle that was more, much more, than the resuscitation of the dead body of Jesus and its reuniting with his soul. The Miracle of Easter is that Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God, was raised from the dead into a new order of being and as a new form of humanity. His resurrection from the dead, while a continuance in personal identity, was at the same time a transformation of his human nature and body so that he became a resurrected, glorified, supernaturalized and immortalized Man (yet more than Man for he is also God). His humanity, wholly transformed by the Spirit of God, contained and displayed the new order of being that is the life of the kingdom of God. The Person of the Son of God now had not only his eternal divine nature with a human soul (as he possessed from Good Friday through Holy Saturday) but also a totally perfected, glorified, supernaturalized and immortalized human nature, body and soul.
Thus the cry, “Jesus is risen from the dead”, is also the announcement that the new covenant between God and man is in place and is centered on the Mediator, Jesus. The new order and covenant reveals perfect human nature glorified through a perfect response to the Spirit of the Lord. It shows us the goal for which human nature was created by God, and to which it will be raised when the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets men free from the law of sin and of death. It shows both the crown of the purpose of God set forth in Holy Scriptures and the crown of his purpose in the created world, wherein a new, dynamic, everlasting level & order of life succeeds to old levels that pass away. Jesus rose as the new Adam, the head and representative of a new humanity, the first-fruits of those who would follow him (see 1 Corinthians 15).
This explanation of the raising of Jesus as the Resurrected Lord of life and not as the resuscitated Rabbi makes it possible for us to see why Jesus did not appear to those who had handed him over to death (the Jewish Sanhedrin & the Roman Procurator and their helpers). By the laws of the new covenant and of the kingdom of heaven, the miracle of the Resurrection could only be made known to those who responded in penitence and faith to the new level of spiritual existence which it disclosed. It was not a portent that could be shown to anyone & everyone to press them or to scare them into belief! It was a miracle belonging to the realm of the kingdom of God and only those with eyes to see could see it.
Had it been merely resuscitation then Jesus could have met anyone and everyone.
The new Order of Being manifested and revealed in the risen Lord Jesus, the Messiah, needed a corresponding spiritual discernment in man as spiritual being to see its nature and reality, Thus Jesus appeared only to the disciples and to them on several occasions. In them he had sown the seed of faith and insight and they, as quickened by the Spirit of God, were able to begin to see him in his new identity, in his transformed and glorified manhood. That is they were able to receive the Revelation of his true identity as the Risen Lord and then worship him (as did Thomas) as “My Lord and my God”.
To state all this is to agree with the Gospel records which make it absolutely clear that Jesus made no attempt whatsoever to appear to any others than his disciples.
However, to make this essential point about the revelation of a new order of being is not to discount historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. There is historical testimony that points to the Resurrection of Jesus with overwhelming probability – for example (a) the disciples did not really expect the Resurrection; (b) the existence of the Church despite the great setback of Good Friday; (c) the claims of the disciples that Jesus actually appeared to them; (d) the empty tomb and (e) the absolutely new appreciation and understanding of the Scriptures by the apostles and disciples.
Ultimately, we must say that what it took on Easter Day and during the next 40 days first to SEE and then to receive Jesus as the Resurrected Lord, with his new covenant and kingdom, is ultimately what it takes now – a penitent, believing heart, for as the Gospel of Mark declares, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon Good Friday 2004
Monday, April 05, 2004
Good Friday
Almighty God, we beseech thee graciously to behold this thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ was contented to be betrayed, and given up into the hands of wicked men, and to suffer death upon the cross, who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.
Almighty and everlasting God, by whose Spirit the whole body of the Church is governed and sanctified: Receive our supplications and prayers, which we offer before thee for all estates of men in thy holy Church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and ministry, may truly and godly serve thee; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
O Merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live: Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks [Muslims], Infidels and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word: and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.
The Epistle: Hebrews 10. 1-25 The Gospel: John 19:1-37
These Three Collects are united not only in that they are appointed for this most solemn of all days in the Christian Year, but also in that they are based upon the content of the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus (John 17) uttered on the eve of his Crucifixion, as well as upon the achievement of his sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction offered on the Cross for the sins of the whole world.
As Jesus first prayed for his band of disciples, his little flock, so the first Collect is for the specific congregation – “this thy family”. As Jesus consecrated himself to the Father’s will for the sake of his disciples, so he also gave himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of each and every congregation and very member thereof.
The second Collect recognizes that the Church throughout the world and also in its local expressions is composed of many different kinds of persons – “all estates of men” – and thus prayer is offered that each kind of person and each member will serve the Lord truly in his vocation and ministry, led by the Holy Spirit.
In his Priestly Prayer Jesus moved on to pray for those who would believe on his Name, asking that they be brought together in unity and communion with the Father. So the third Collect, mindful that in the death of Jesus is a propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), makes intercession for those living outside the fellowship of the Church of God. Prayer is offered for the Jews, who, while they acknowledge the Father, deny the Son, whose very office is to reveal the Father. Intercession is offered for the Turks [Muslims], who while they admit that Jesus is a prophet, deny that he is truly the Son of God made flesh. Supplication is made for Infidels, who know neither the true God not Jesus Christ whom he has sent into the world. And petition is made for Heretics, those who have once known and received the truth as it is in Jesus and then have corrupted and perverted it. Such prayers are wholly appropriate if it be the case that in the message of Christ crucified is the real and true salvation of the world. The aim is that they will not be merely one flock of Christ but one fold, with all divisions removed that have separated them.
The origin of the three collects is of interest. In its Latin form the first was the final prayer of the Mass on Wednesday of Holy Week. The people were asked to bow their heads and this prayer was said over them. The second was one of eighteen prayers said after the Gospel on Good Friday in the ancient Church. In the Sarum Missal used widely in England it comes between a prayer for the bishops and one for the king. The third is a compilation based on several of these prayers said after the Gospel on Good Friday. When these prayers were first composed and used in the fourth and fifth century there were no Muslims and so they were not prayed for. However, all other kinds and types of non-Christians were prayed for as their conversion was desired.
GOOD FRIDAY – this name is peculiar to the Church of England (and thus to English culture where the Church has had an impact).
Of all Fridays of the year, there are profound reasons for giving this one the title of “GOOD.”
It is the Day when the only One who was GOOD enough as a Person (for he was righteous and without sin) to pay the price of our sin, actually paid that price as the sacrificial Lamb on the Cross.
It is also the Day when the supreme GOOD of mankind – communion and friendship with the Lord – was made possible when the Son of God incarnate took away all barriers to realizing and experiencing that good. The supreme end and good of man is to enjoy and glorify God forever and this is only possible through the reconciliation wrought by Christ Jesus on the Cross.
Further it is the Day when GOOD triumphed over evil as God the Father turned what could have been the world’s greatest tragedy – the crucifixion of the most innocent of men – into the salvation of mankind, and as He turned an evil act and apparent defeat into the victory over Satan, sin and death and showed it in Resurrection.
Finally, it is the Day which provides the world with GOSPEL, that is GOOD NEWS, a message of hope to all the nations. The GOOD news is that there is forgiveness, a right relation with the Father, eternal life in the age to come, and friendship with God through the saving work of the Lord Jesus on the Cross.
Yet, while it is most certainly and surely a GOOD Friday, it is also a day of Fasting for the Church, the Bride of Christ, since it is the Day when the Bridegroom is taken away from his Bride [the Lord Jesus from his disciples – see Mark 2:19-20] as he descends into Hades to announce and proclaim his finished, saving and good work to those who have died and wait for their full redemption.
Thus the Church fasts for this whole day, or even for this day and the next day, until the great cry - CHRIST IS RISEN. ALLELUIA – is heard on Easter morning. Then with the victorious and faithful Bridegroom returned she can eat with him at his banqueting table and her first food is his sacramental body and blood, at the Easter Eucharist.
The Book of Common Prayer (1662) provides Collects, an Epistle and Gospel for this GOOD Friday and the general Anglican tradition has been to have only Ante-Communion this day and to encourage meditation, prayer and quiet in church and at home.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge;
Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Almighty and everlasting God, by whose Spirit the whole body of the Church is governed and sanctified: Receive our supplications and prayers, which we offer before thee for all estates of men in thy holy Church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and ministry, may truly and godly serve thee; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
O Merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live: Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks [Muslims], Infidels and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word: and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.
The Epistle: Hebrews 10. 1-25 The Gospel: John 19:1-37
These Three Collects are united not only in that they are appointed for this most solemn of all days in the Christian Year, but also in that they are based upon the content of the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus (John 17) uttered on the eve of his Crucifixion, as well as upon the achievement of his sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction offered on the Cross for the sins of the whole world.
As Jesus first prayed for his band of disciples, his little flock, so the first Collect is for the specific congregation – “this thy family”. As Jesus consecrated himself to the Father’s will for the sake of his disciples, so he also gave himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of each and every congregation and very member thereof.
The second Collect recognizes that the Church throughout the world and also in its local expressions is composed of many different kinds of persons – “all estates of men” – and thus prayer is offered that each kind of person and each member will serve the Lord truly in his vocation and ministry, led by the Holy Spirit.
In his Priestly Prayer Jesus moved on to pray for those who would believe on his Name, asking that they be brought together in unity and communion with the Father. So the third Collect, mindful that in the death of Jesus is a propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), makes intercession for those living outside the fellowship of the Church of God. Prayer is offered for the Jews, who, while they acknowledge the Father, deny the Son, whose very office is to reveal the Father. Intercession is offered for the Turks [Muslims], who while they admit that Jesus is a prophet, deny that he is truly the Son of God made flesh. Supplication is made for Infidels, who know neither the true God not Jesus Christ whom he has sent into the world. And petition is made for Heretics, those who have once known and received the truth as it is in Jesus and then have corrupted and perverted it. Such prayers are wholly appropriate if it be the case that in the message of Christ crucified is the real and true salvation of the world. The aim is that they will not be merely one flock of Christ but one fold, with all divisions removed that have separated them.
The origin of the three collects is of interest. In its Latin form the first was the final prayer of the Mass on Wednesday of Holy Week. The people were asked to bow their heads and this prayer was said over them. The second was one of eighteen prayers said after the Gospel on Good Friday in the ancient Church. In the Sarum Missal used widely in England it comes between a prayer for the bishops and one for the king. The third is a compilation based on several of these prayers said after the Gospel on Good Friday. When these prayers were first composed and used in the fourth and fifth century there were no Muslims and so they were not prayed for. However, all other kinds and types of non-Christians were prayed for as their conversion was desired.
GOOD FRIDAY – this name is peculiar to the Church of England (and thus to English culture where the Church has had an impact).
Of all Fridays of the year, there are profound reasons for giving this one the title of “GOOD.”
It is the Day when the only One who was GOOD enough as a Person (for he was righteous and without sin) to pay the price of our sin, actually paid that price as the sacrificial Lamb on the Cross.
It is also the Day when the supreme GOOD of mankind – communion and friendship with the Lord – was made possible when the Son of God incarnate took away all barriers to realizing and experiencing that good. The supreme end and good of man is to enjoy and glorify God forever and this is only possible through the reconciliation wrought by Christ Jesus on the Cross.
Further it is the Day when GOOD triumphed over evil as God the Father turned what could have been the world’s greatest tragedy – the crucifixion of the most innocent of men – into the salvation of mankind, and as He turned an evil act and apparent defeat into the victory over Satan, sin and death and showed it in Resurrection.
Finally, it is the Day which provides the world with GOSPEL, that is GOOD NEWS, a message of hope to all the nations. The GOOD news is that there is forgiveness, a right relation with the Father, eternal life in the age to come, and friendship with God through the saving work of the Lord Jesus on the Cross.
Yet, while it is most certainly and surely a GOOD Friday, it is also a day of Fasting for the Church, the Bride of Christ, since it is the Day when the Bridegroom is taken away from his Bride [the Lord Jesus from his disciples – see Mark 2:19-20] as he descends into Hades to announce and proclaim his finished, saving and good work to those who have died and wait for their full redemption.
Thus the Church fasts for this whole day, or even for this day and the next day, until the great cry - CHRIST IS RISEN. ALLELUIA – is heard on Easter morning. Then with the victorious and faithful Bridegroom returned she can eat with him at his banqueting table and her first food is his sacramental body and blood, at the Easter Eucharist.
The Book of Common Prayer (1662) provides Collects, an Epistle and Gospel for this GOOD Friday and the general Anglican tradition has been to have only Ante-Communion this day and to encourage meditation, prayer and quiet in church and at home.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge;
Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
Restoration, Reformation, Revival & Renewal: A meditation upon Psalm 80 for American Anglicans
Psalm 80 presents a powerful call & encouragement to members of the Anglican Way in North America to long for, pray for and work for the Restoration, Reformation, Revival and Renewal of this ravaged branch of the Church of God.
The origin of Psalm 80 is in the shock and profound sense of loss felt by many in the northern kingdom, and expressed by the Temple Singers (Asaphites) in Jerusalem, after the loss of the southern kingdom of the ten tribes between 734 & 722 BC. Now the northern kingdom of Judah itself was also exposed to the Assyrian threat.
The Anglican Way in North America (and in a sense around the world) is in crisis because (in the judgment of the traditionalists) it has been attacked and savaged by an enemy. In the U.S.A. the Anglican Way is much smaller in size and membership in 2004 than it was in 1964. Further, it has lost its missionary and evangelistic ethos and feels vulnerable to further attacks.
In this context the repeated petition of Psalm 80 verses 3, 7 & 19 becomes a fervent prayer for Anglicans.
Restore us [turn us again] O God;
And cause thy face to shine and we shall be saved.
Turn us again, O God of hosts;
And cause thy face to shine and we shall be saved.
Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts;
Cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved.
The petition is simple and clear. We pray the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he who is surrounded by the angels and archangels, to return to us and cause us to return to him. We ask that the brilliance of his holiness and glory will shine upon us, penetrate our very being, and thus bring us his salvation and sanctification. And we pray together for the whole Body of the Church.
Further, the extended simile of the vine (verses 8ff.) provides us with the background to the original petition along with further encouragement to pray fervently. The LORD brought the tribes of Israel out of Egypt and planted them as a vine in the land flowing with milk and honey. But many in Israel turned away from this LORD and the covenant of grace he had made with them. Thus he allowed his vine to be ravaged. In recent decades, the same LORD who planted the Anglican Way in North America in the 17th century and prospered it, has allowed this vine to be ravaged.
Thus the prayer of the Asaphites is our prayer: “Turn again, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: Look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine” (verse 14).
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge
The origin of Psalm 80 is in the shock and profound sense of loss felt by many in the northern kingdom, and expressed by the Temple Singers (Asaphites) in Jerusalem, after the loss of the southern kingdom of the ten tribes between 734 & 722 BC. Now the northern kingdom of Judah itself was also exposed to the Assyrian threat.
The Anglican Way in North America (and in a sense around the world) is in crisis because (in the judgment of the traditionalists) it has been attacked and savaged by an enemy. In the U.S.A. the Anglican Way is much smaller in size and membership in 2004 than it was in 1964. Further, it has lost its missionary and evangelistic ethos and feels vulnerable to further attacks.
In this context the repeated petition of Psalm 80 verses 3, 7 & 19 becomes a fervent prayer for Anglicans.
Restore us [turn us again] O God;
And cause thy face to shine and we shall be saved.
Turn us again, O God of hosts;
And cause thy face to shine and we shall be saved.
Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts;
Cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved.
The petition is simple and clear. We pray the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he who is surrounded by the angels and archangels, to return to us and cause us to return to him. We ask that the brilliance of his holiness and glory will shine upon us, penetrate our very being, and thus bring us his salvation and sanctification. And we pray together for the whole Body of the Church.
Further, the extended simile of the vine (verses 8ff.) provides us with the background to the original petition along with further encouragement to pray fervently. The LORD brought the tribes of Israel out of Egypt and planted them as a vine in the land flowing with milk and honey. But many in Israel turned away from this LORD and the covenant of grace he had made with them. Thus he allowed his vine to be ravaged. In recent decades, the same LORD who planted the Anglican Way in North America in the 17th century and prospered it, has allowed this vine to be ravaged.
Thus the prayer of the Asaphites is our prayer: “Turn again, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: Look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine” (verse 14).
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge
British-ness and Anglican-ness
A discussion Starter
There are certain parallels between a public discussion in Britain and one in the Anglican Communion of Churches.
British-ness
For several decades, those who may be described as liberal-minded in Britain have been commending what is called the multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society. And this “philosophy” is deeply entrenched in the language & public statements, if not all the actual workings, of government, social services, the courts and education. In contrast, the conservative-minded have been warning of the loss of British identity and traditional British culture if this multi-this-and-that philosophy stays in place.
Now there are signs of a change of emphasis from leaders of the liberal-minded. Without retracting their belief in the multi-this-and-that approach, they are beginning to emphasize that there must be a core of British-ness that all accept for the multi-approach to succeed. In other words, for the multi-this and that approach to work all must accept a common basis and general definition of British identity, and this must govern the way that the culture, language, religion and way of life is conducted.
Why the change? Because there are within some of the expressions of particular culture and religion the signs of the emergence of home-grown international terrorism. Young men born in Britain now see Britain as the enemy as they view it from an extreme “Islamist” position. This is worrying and frightening to many.
So there is now the possibility in Britain that the liberal-minded and the conservative-minded can begin a fruitful discussion leading to a general agreement as to what is British-ness. This discussion will cover such things as commitment to democracy and the rule of law together with the place of the Monarchy, the Parliament, the Courts, the historic traditions and public holidays, and so on.
For most people the practical ideal seems to be a common core of British-ness (as the hub of a wheel) from which spokes (cultures/religions/languages) go out to the perimeter (which is the termination of liberty of expression and the boundaries of the nation).
Anglican-ness
The Anglican family in 2004 is multi-national, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-churchmanship and multi-liturgical. For a very long time, this family has existed in many countries, been composed of many races, spoken many languages and enjoyed worship of varying degrees of Protestant and Catholic ceremonial and churchmanship. What is new in recent times is the arrival of the “multi-liturgical.” This refers to the use of a very large variety of forms of service especially for the Eucharist, and contrasts with a previous situation of a very limited variety based on the common service in The Book of Common Prayer (1662).
The liberal-minded in the Anglican family of churches insist that diversity is as a virtue and should be celebrated as such. Further, they say that the family is held together by a basic if minimum understanding of Anglican-ness. This Anglican-ness must of course first of all include basic Christianity (the Bible as Witness to the Word of God and the Creeds) and then have Anglican distinctives. The latter are usually said to be -- one episcopate/one college of bishops which meets at the Lambeth Conference every ten years, one Primates’ Meeting of 38 Presiding Bishops/Archbishops, meeting annually, one See (Canterbury) as the central focus, and one Consultative Council meeting every two or three years and a common shape/structure of liturgy. Together with these “instruments of unity,” the liturgical distinctive is the new definition of “Common Prayer” as “Common Shape with variety of content and details” in contrast to the old and classic definition as “Common Texts in a common shape, used by all.”
The conservative-minded of the Anglican family of churches accept that there is diversity yet do not see it as a virtue but rather as a neutral word, a description of how things are in the providence of God. They accept that Anglican distinctives are added to basic Christianity or, better, are means for the expression of basic Christianity. For them the initial and primary distinctives are the classic Formularies (i.e., the liturgical or doctrinal texts which contain the formulas of the Faith). These are the historic, classic Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Articles of Religion, which are in the Constitutions of virtually all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion of Churches. Together with these Three they are happy to affirm the place of the “instruments of unity” in a secondary position as being just what their name implies.
Perhaps the crisis of the Gene Robinson as bishop affair in the USA is serving as a means of bringing the liberal-minded and the conservative-minded Anglicans into new conversation. This is desperately needed because the effects of the massive variety of liturgical expressions is helping to cause centrifugal forces which are pushing the family into division and disunity. The revival of the Formularies could serve as a means of encouraging healthy centripetal forces to be felt leading to unity on firm foundations.
[For a copy of my The Annotated Order for Holy Communion of the BCP 1928 (48 pages with one page of the liturgy with one page of explanatory notes on each double page) please go to the anglicanmarketplace.com site or call the PBS on 1 800 727 1928.]
The Revd Dr Peter Toon April 4th, 2004
There are certain parallels between a public discussion in Britain and one in the Anglican Communion of Churches.
British-ness
For several decades, those who may be described as liberal-minded in Britain have been commending what is called the multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society. And this “philosophy” is deeply entrenched in the language & public statements, if not all the actual workings, of government, social services, the courts and education. In contrast, the conservative-minded have been warning of the loss of British identity and traditional British culture if this multi-this-and-that philosophy stays in place.
Now there are signs of a change of emphasis from leaders of the liberal-minded. Without retracting their belief in the multi-this-and-that approach, they are beginning to emphasize that there must be a core of British-ness that all accept for the multi-approach to succeed. In other words, for the multi-this and that approach to work all must accept a common basis and general definition of British identity, and this must govern the way that the culture, language, religion and way of life is conducted.
Why the change? Because there are within some of the expressions of particular culture and religion the signs of the emergence of home-grown international terrorism. Young men born in Britain now see Britain as the enemy as they view it from an extreme “Islamist” position. This is worrying and frightening to many.
So there is now the possibility in Britain that the liberal-minded and the conservative-minded can begin a fruitful discussion leading to a general agreement as to what is British-ness. This discussion will cover such things as commitment to democracy and the rule of law together with the place of the Monarchy, the Parliament, the Courts, the historic traditions and public holidays, and so on.
For most people the practical ideal seems to be a common core of British-ness (as the hub of a wheel) from which spokes (cultures/religions/languages) go out to the perimeter (which is the termination of liberty of expression and the boundaries of the nation).
Anglican-ness
The Anglican family in 2004 is multi-national, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-churchmanship and multi-liturgical. For a very long time, this family has existed in many countries, been composed of many races, spoken many languages and enjoyed worship of varying degrees of Protestant and Catholic ceremonial and churchmanship. What is new in recent times is the arrival of the “multi-liturgical.” This refers to the use of a very large variety of forms of service especially for the Eucharist, and contrasts with a previous situation of a very limited variety based on the common service in The Book of Common Prayer (1662).
The liberal-minded in the Anglican family of churches insist that diversity is as a virtue and should be celebrated as such. Further, they say that the family is held together by a basic if minimum understanding of Anglican-ness. This Anglican-ness must of course first of all include basic Christianity (the Bible as Witness to the Word of God and the Creeds) and then have Anglican distinctives. The latter are usually said to be -- one episcopate/one college of bishops which meets at the Lambeth Conference every ten years, one Primates’ Meeting of 38 Presiding Bishops/Archbishops, meeting annually, one See (Canterbury) as the central focus, and one Consultative Council meeting every two or three years and a common shape/structure of liturgy. Together with these “instruments of unity,” the liturgical distinctive is the new definition of “Common Prayer” as “Common Shape with variety of content and details” in contrast to the old and classic definition as “Common Texts in a common shape, used by all.”
The conservative-minded of the Anglican family of churches accept that there is diversity yet do not see it as a virtue but rather as a neutral word, a description of how things are in the providence of God. They accept that Anglican distinctives are added to basic Christianity or, better, are means for the expression of basic Christianity. For them the initial and primary distinctives are the classic Formularies (i.e., the liturgical or doctrinal texts which contain the formulas of the Faith). These are the historic, classic Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Articles of Religion, which are in the Constitutions of virtually all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion of Churches. Together with these Three they are happy to affirm the place of the “instruments of unity” in a secondary position as being just what their name implies.
Perhaps the crisis of the Gene Robinson as bishop affair in the USA is serving as a means of bringing the liberal-minded and the conservative-minded Anglicans into new conversation. This is desperately needed because the effects of the massive variety of liturgical expressions is helping to cause centrifugal forces which are pushing the family into division and disunity. The revival of the Formularies could serve as a means of encouraging healthy centripetal forces to be felt leading to unity on firm foundations.
[For a copy of my The Annotated Order for Holy Communion of the BCP 1928 (48 pages with one page of the liturgy with one page of explanatory notes on each double page) please go to the anglicanmarketplace.com site or call the PBS on 1 800 727 1928.]
The Revd Dr Peter Toon April 4th, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)