A discussion and Prayer starter…
Here is a question that we cannot avoid asking:
How is it that faced with the same REALITY (ECUSA in 2005) clergy & laity, claiming guidance by two UNIQUE REALITIES (God & Conscience), do not all go in the same direction (to stay within or to leave ECUSA, and if the latter, do not choose the same option)?
To help to answer it, here are some considerations:
While the progressivism and revisionism are very strong at the center of ECUSA, they are weak in some dioceses and strong in others. The experience of the new agenda, doctrines and commitments of the new religion of the ECUSA is not uniform, for it differs widely across the country. Therefore, practically speaking, people are facing different but related phenomena in various places, and so they have to respond to and make judgments about different pressures and circumstances. After all Fort Worth and New Jersey dioceses are different in terms of experiencing the new religion.
Individual conscience is unique for no two persons have identical consciences. Each conscience is informed by the mind and is really the mind making moral judgments, and saying strongly, “you ought to do this” or “you ought not to do that.” The moral imperative of conscience is not to be equated with having a person opinion about this or that. Conscience does not process opinions but moral judgments. For a variety of reasons, Christian people do not always obey their conscience, or they obey in part. Further, what their conscience proclaims on a given question may change as they grow in maturity in faith, hope and love.
While all Christians have the same relation by grace to God through Christ and by the Holy Ghost, the strength and maturity of this relation differs from baptized believer to baptized believer. Seeking guidance from God in a complex issue, such as deciding to leave one church and join another, is not a straightforward matter. Maturity in the walk with God will play a part in how the question is asked, how an answer is processed, and how it is acted upon.
Many people are influenced by others, especially those whom they look up to and respect. So we should expect most members of a congregation to follow the example and advice of respected pastors and leaders. At the same time we would expect the independent-minded not to follow easily or quickly.
The departing from ECUSA by a priest whose stipend, medical cover and pension are all tied up with this Church, and who has no independent means, is a more difficult and complex decision than that of a layperson who will experience no financial loss.
The departing from ECUSA of a family with special ties to the building and with family memorials therein is a more difficult decision than the departing of a family with no special ties to a sacred place and temple.
One could continue with other considerations. However, it is reasonably clear, I think, that each of us is an unique person with an unique conscience. When faced with a major decision, it is not surprising that each of us, as an imperfect, forgiven sinner weighs the matter similarly but differently to the next person, and that the difference in judgment may be small but can be, and is often, great. Thus some choose to depart and some to remain, and those who depart go in different directions.
As Anglicans we are to pray one for another and love one another. To criticize a person for making a different decision than our own is not wise! In the complexity of North American Anglicanism, we need to be charitable, very charitable and find ways to work together to revive the Anglican Way of Christianity.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon. May 31, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
Comments on a piece written by Dr Eprhaim Radner
Dear Father Kim,
Thank you for circulating the clearly written piece by Dr Ephraim Radner on the theme that those going off to the Ang Con. Council in England from the ECUSA are most unlikely to represent the true position of the ECUSA, as stated in the official reports of her Conventions, Theological Commissions and the like.
To use the expression of Dr Radner’s friend, Philip Turner, it is the “practical theology” (or “the tradition of the [progressive] elders of the ECUSA ) rampant within the ECUSA, rather than its official agreements at Convention and elsewhere, which the group will represent. This “progressive, practical theology” justifies, blesses and commends “faithful” homosexual partnerships as the dynamic equivalent of holy matrimony -- and also justifies & teaches other immoral or erroneous things as well!.
I would invite Dr Radner and his readers to reflect further on what it means for the leaders and official representatives of a Church (ECUSA) to be so confident in and committed to their “practical theology, ” that they are not careful to explain what the actual official statements declare. It suggests, I think, that they are spiritually blinded by their agenda (and by the “god of this world”) and that for them in important ways the Zeitgeist is the Holy Ghost!
As Dr Radner probably knows, I hold the view that this habit within ECUSA of telling lies or half truths or covering up the truth in the name of innovation and progress (all of which is part of its ”practical theology”) received a very major platform and boost in the late 1970s when the ECUSA decided (against protests from devout and learned persons) to call its new “Book of Varied Services” by the name of “The Book of Common Prayer” and at the same time, and, most significantly, set aside the received Formularies of the Anglican Way that were printed in the previous official BCP, that of 1928. Had the ECUSA Gen. Conv. been humble of mind and in “fear and love of the LORD,” it would have done what the C of E and other provinces did -- retain its classic Formularies (BCP, Articles and Ordinal) and add a Book of Alternative Services under the doctrinal authority of the Formularies. As it was, by this act of piracy, the ECUSA since the 1970s has been living a lie, and good souls within the membership have been weeping and protesting, staying or leaving. Those who desire and seek to be godly and orthodox become a smaller remnant week by week, even as the progressives remain, get more power an use the financial resources of this old-line Church for their purposes.
I do not know whether the Lord Jesus Christ will visit this Church by the Holy Ghost to purify and revive it. Like Dr Radner I hope he will and if he does – watch out – we will all as Episcopalians and Anglicans get burned, even those of us who claim to be “orthodox.” We all have the cancerous disease and we all need to be cleansed and revived and set on a right course.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
petertoon@msn.com
Thank you for circulating the clearly written piece by Dr Ephraim Radner on the theme that those going off to the Ang Con. Council in England from the ECUSA are most unlikely to represent the true position of the ECUSA, as stated in the official reports of her Conventions, Theological Commissions and the like.
To use the expression of Dr Radner’s friend, Philip Turner, it is the “practical theology” (or “the tradition of the [progressive] elders of the ECUSA ) rampant within the ECUSA, rather than its official agreements at Convention and elsewhere, which the group will represent. This “progressive, practical theology” justifies, blesses and commends “faithful” homosexual partnerships as the dynamic equivalent of holy matrimony -- and also justifies & teaches other immoral or erroneous things as well!.
I would invite Dr Radner and his readers to reflect further on what it means for the leaders and official representatives of a Church (ECUSA) to be so confident in and committed to their “practical theology, ” that they are not careful to explain what the actual official statements declare. It suggests, I think, that they are spiritually blinded by their agenda (and by the “god of this world”) and that for them in important ways the Zeitgeist is the Holy Ghost!
As Dr Radner probably knows, I hold the view that this habit within ECUSA of telling lies or half truths or covering up the truth in the name of innovation and progress (all of which is part of its ”practical theology”) received a very major platform and boost in the late 1970s when the ECUSA decided (against protests from devout and learned persons) to call its new “Book of Varied Services” by the name of “The Book of Common Prayer” and at the same time, and, most significantly, set aside the received Formularies of the Anglican Way that were printed in the previous official BCP, that of 1928. Had the ECUSA Gen. Conv. been humble of mind and in “fear and love of the LORD,” it would have done what the C of E and other provinces did -- retain its classic Formularies (BCP, Articles and Ordinal) and add a Book of Alternative Services under the doctrinal authority of the Formularies. As it was, by this act of piracy, the ECUSA since the 1970s has been living a lie, and good souls within the membership have been weeping and protesting, staying or leaving. Those who desire and seek to be godly and orthodox become a smaller remnant week by week, even as the progressives remain, get more power an use the financial resources of this old-line Church for their purposes.
I do not know whether the Lord Jesus Christ will visit this Church by the Holy Ghost to purify and revive it. Like Dr Radner I hope he will and if he does – watch out – we will all as Episcopalians and Anglicans get burned, even those of us who claim to be “orthodox.” We all have the cancerous disease and we all need to be cleansed and revived and set on a right course.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
petertoon@msn.com
Early Church Piety & Spirituality
A perpetual fear and love of God’s holy Name
The Collect in the Gelasian Sacramentary (circa 500), used on the Sunday after the Ascension at the Eucharist, is, as most ancient collects, brief and profound. Through it, we gain an understanding of a major aspect of the Christian life and corporate worship as understood by the Fathers in the patristic era. In traditional English the prayer is as follows:
So how does the baptized believer make sure – as far as a human being can so do – that, as an adopted child of God, he is being piloted by God the Father through the problems and difficulties of life in this evil age? The answer is stated in the petition of this Collect: “to have concurrently a perpetual fear and love of the holy Name of God the Father.”
We note that what is required in not only a continuing fear of God but also a continuing love of God. Fear and love are two side of the same divine coin: they are two parallel affections of the soul: they are wedded to each other in the godly life. Fear of the LORD leads to love of the LORD and love of the LORD cannot exist without fear of the LORD.
An important point to bear in mind here is that both fearing and loving God are actually commanded by God. They are to be done in response to his authoritative word of command. This means that fearing and loving are not be seen as innate emotions of the soul that can be aroused by this or that circumstance or occasion. They are at least acts of the will to do something that God, the Sovereign Lord, commands.
Godly Fear, as an act of the will and a godly affection of the soul, is awe, reverence, even dread, before the Majesty of the Almighty God, who is not only Creator, but also Judge, not only Sustainer but also Saviour. A perpetual fear is this same awe, reverence and dread filling the believer’s soul each and every day, wherever he is, and causing him to think, determine and act in ways that are pleasing to the holy and righteous LORD God, whom he desires to please and not to offend – and from whose Spirit & Presence he can never escape.
Where there is such holy, profound respect for the LORD, there can be, and will be, genuine love of God. In fact, there can be no other for God, the LORD, as known in his attributes, perfections, ways and deeds by the reverent soul is supremely adorable and lovable. And, practically speaking love for the LORD means worshipping him, doing his will, obeying his commandments and walking in his ways.
Before the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Christian believer bows in humility and with reverence and awe, and, as he does so, he can do no other but love the LORD his God, with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, for the One before whom he bows is supremely lovable. The immediate fruit of this fear with love is obedience of the same LORD, the keeping of his commandments.
The joining together of fear and love is, of course, a biblical method, beginning most clearly in Deuteronomy (see 10:12-13) and reaching its climax in the Revelation of St. John (see 14:7; 15:5; 19:5). This couple is married on earth and the marriage remains in heaven.
In the composition of The Book of Common Prayer (first edition, 1549) of the ecclesia anglicana (Church of England) this ancient Collect was transferred to the Second Sunday after Trinity. In later editions of this Prayer Book, it was also expanded. The edition of 1662 contains it in this form:
The doctrine is found in the relative clause beginning, “who never failest…” It is that God is the Pilot through life of those whom he instructs and educates in steadfast fear and love of himself as the LORD, the Holy Trinity.
The petition begins with “Keep us…” and includes two requests. It is that we ask to be safely guided by God the Pilot through the complexities of life and that, as we are so guided, we both have and also maintain a perpetual fear and love of his holy Name.
Here again in this English Collect, fear and love necessarily belong together in the determinations of will and the godly affections of the children of God, who are disciples of Jesus, the Lord. This union of fearing and loving God as God’s command is Biblical doctrine; then also it is Patristic doctrine, as we have seen; further, it is both Reformation and Counter-Reformation Doctrine.
The questions arise (a) whether or not it is a doctrine and a petition which is found in modern liturgical books, and (b) whether or not it is within the practical theology as generally taught, commended and received in modern churches (be they “progressive” or “orthodox”)? Some observers of the contemporary church scene maintain that there has been such a sentimentalizing of love that the whole (biblical) concept of fear that leads to love, and love that requires fear as its context before God, is nearly impossible to conceive, let alone act upon.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon; petertoon@msn.com May 26, 2005
The Collect in the Gelasian Sacramentary (circa 500), used on the Sunday after the Ascension at the Eucharist, is, as most ancient collects, brief and profound. Through it, we gain an understanding of a major aspect of the Christian life and corporate worship as understood by the Fathers in the patristic era. In traditional English the prayer is as follows:
O Lord, make us to have concurrently (or, equally) a perpetual fear and love of thy holy name, because never dost thou leave destitute of thy pilotage, those whom thou dost institute [bring up] in the steadfastness of thy love. Though the Lord Jesus Christ….Here the basic doctrine is that God the Father pilots – and never fails to do so – through life all those whom he trains, rears, disciplines and educates in his steadfast love. And this doctrine presupposes that God’s love reaches out to the sinner in the Gospel and by it he is drawn into the family of God, there to live as a child of God within the steadfast, sure and certain continuing love of God.
So how does the baptized believer make sure – as far as a human being can so do – that, as an adopted child of God, he is being piloted by God the Father through the problems and difficulties of life in this evil age? The answer is stated in the petition of this Collect: “to have concurrently a perpetual fear and love of the holy Name of God the Father.”
We note that what is required in not only a continuing fear of God but also a continuing love of God. Fear and love are two side of the same divine coin: they are two parallel affections of the soul: they are wedded to each other in the godly life. Fear of the LORD leads to love of the LORD and love of the LORD cannot exist without fear of the LORD.
An important point to bear in mind here is that both fearing and loving God are actually commanded by God. They are to be done in response to his authoritative word of command. This means that fearing and loving are not be seen as innate emotions of the soul that can be aroused by this or that circumstance or occasion. They are at least acts of the will to do something that God, the Sovereign Lord, commands.
Godly Fear, as an act of the will and a godly affection of the soul, is awe, reverence, even dread, before the Majesty of the Almighty God, who is not only Creator, but also Judge, not only Sustainer but also Saviour. A perpetual fear is this same awe, reverence and dread filling the believer’s soul each and every day, wherever he is, and causing him to think, determine and act in ways that are pleasing to the holy and righteous LORD God, whom he desires to please and not to offend – and from whose Spirit & Presence he can never escape.
Where there is such holy, profound respect for the LORD, there can be, and will be, genuine love of God. In fact, there can be no other for God, the LORD, as known in his attributes, perfections, ways and deeds by the reverent soul is supremely adorable and lovable. And, practically speaking love for the LORD means worshipping him, doing his will, obeying his commandments and walking in his ways.
Before the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Christian believer bows in humility and with reverence and awe, and, as he does so, he can do no other but love the LORD his God, with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, for the One before whom he bows is supremely lovable. The immediate fruit of this fear with love is obedience of the same LORD, the keeping of his commandments.
The joining together of fear and love is, of course, a biblical method, beginning most clearly in Deuteronomy (see 10:12-13) and reaching its climax in the Revelation of St. John (see 14:7; 15:5; 19:5). This couple is married on earth and the marriage remains in heaven.
In the composition of The Book of Common Prayer (first edition, 1549) of the ecclesia anglicana (Church of England) this ancient Collect was transferred to the Second Sunday after Trinity. In later editions of this Prayer Book, it was also expanded. The edition of 1662 contains it in this form:
O Lord, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy steadfast fear and love; keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.Here the doctrine and petition are similar to those of the ancient Gelasian Collect, but not identical.
The doctrine is found in the relative clause beginning, “who never failest…” It is that God is the Pilot through life of those whom he instructs and educates in steadfast fear and love of himself as the LORD, the Holy Trinity.
The petition begins with “Keep us…” and includes two requests. It is that we ask to be safely guided by God the Pilot through the complexities of life and that, as we are so guided, we both have and also maintain a perpetual fear and love of his holy Name.
Here again in this English Collect, fear and love necessarily belong together in the determinations of will and the godly affections of the children of God, who are disciples of Jesus, the Lord. This union of fearing and loving God as God’s command is Biblical doctrine; then also it is Patristic doctrine, as we have seen; further, it is both Reformation and Counter-Reformation Doctrine.
The questions arise (a) whether or not it is a doctrine and a petition which is found in modern liturgical books, and (b) whether or not it is within the practical theology as generally taught, commended and received in modern churches (be they “progressive” or “orthodox”)? Some observers of the contemporary church scene maintain that there has been such a sentimentalizing of love that the whole (biblical) concept of fear that leads to love, and love that requires fear as its context before God, is nearly impossible to conceive, let alone act upon.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon; petertoon@msn.com May 26, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Fear of God, why is it as necessary today under the New Covenant as it was under the Old Covenant centuries ago?
If you desire to love God both now and tomorrow, then it is impossible to do so unless you first fear him, and then continue to fear him, even as you love him!
Let us begin our reflection at the beginning – conversion to Jesus Christ. In response to the Gospel (the Good News from the Father concerning his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ) we are commanded to repent of sin, to believe the promises of God the Father, to be baptized, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ wherever he leads. In so doing, we are by grace through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ, born from above and adopted by the Father as his children, in order to live in spiritual union with him, and in fellowship with fellow disciples in the household of God. As his children, we are to love him with all our being and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Where then does “the fear of God” fit into this account of regeneration and conversion?
First of all, we need to recall that we who hear the Gospel of God hear it as Good News from not any kind of Deity, but from our Creator and our Judge. He is the One, true and living God, who chooses also by the promises of the Gospel through Jesus Christ to become our Redeemer and Savior. Then, secondly, we need to bear in mind most seriously the identity and character of this LORD God. In his existence and being the LORD is more than eternal and infinite, more than majestically transcendent and glorious, more than supremely holy and pure, and more than exceedingly righteous and just. He is completely and totally above and beyond us in his pure glory. There is no comparison between his existence and being and ours. In fact, there is no comparison between his existence and being and that of the most glorious of the angel hierarchy of heaven. Before him, we are as nothing, for we are so weak and small and he is so almighty and great. (See Isaiah’s vision in chapter 6.)
Thus merely to think of his amazing greatness and majesty is to be humbled of mind; merely to contemplate him is to tremble with much amazement; merely to be aware of falling short of his perfection is to collapse prostrate and in great sorrow and pain before his Majesty; and merely to meditate upon the multitude of his attributes and perfections is to be filled with overwhelming awe. Then, also, to recognize that he is the Judge of all and that in his judgment he takes into account all human thoughts, attitudes and deeds is surely to be before him in great, awful dread.
So the Gospel itself, and the background teaching and doctrine concerning the nature and character of God that it is built upon and presupposes, creates “fear of the Lord;” and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning not only of wisdom [to hear the Gospel fully and see in it the wisdom of God]” but also of “knowledge” [of God and of ourselves before him so that we can repent and believe].
How can a soul truly be repentant for sin and for offending his Creator unless there is the fear of the Lord in his heart and mind? How can a soul truly believe the promises of the Gospel unto salvation, unless he is filled with awe and reverence before the very LORD God who makes the promises? How can a soul truly love the LORD our God with all his being, unless he is at least dimly aware of who God really is, and unless, before his majestic holiness and glorious righteousness, he is filled with awesome dread?
In the soul that is born from above of the Holy Ghost, and that looks to the Father through the Son for salvation and life, there must be both fear of the LORD and love of the LORD. For the love which God expects and deserves as LORD is holy, pure, love and adoration, and such is only possible when the soul trembles in awe, reverence, amazement, dread and fear before the LORD. Certainly the angelic host in heaven is continuously filled with both the fear and the love of the Lord God, the Holy Trinity. And, the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, in his sacred manhood, as our Representative and as the New Adam, offers worship to the Father with holy fear and pure love.
Perhaps – and I do say perhaps – many of the claimed conversions and experiences of new birth and conversion today are not really the same as those which the Acts of the Apostles describes and which the Epistles provide doctrinal descriptions of. That is, the claimed “personal relationship” with God made by so many today is a different kind of experience and commitment. The reason for making this tentative and alarming observation is simple. It is that the “fear of the Lord” seems to be absent from, or minimal within, much modern evangelism and worship, which often not only are “dumbed-down” but also lacking in holy awe and reverence! Without the presence of fear in the soul, the quality of the believing, trusting and obeying as well as worshipping and celebrating will be minimized.
One way to begin to restore “the fear of the Lord” is surely to spend more time describing the very LORD God, whose Gospel is proclaimed, and doing so in such a way as to create the possibility for awe, reverence, dread and fear of him in all present. Another is to conduct “worship services” as unto not only the God who is LOVE but also the God, who in his majestic transcendence commands and deserves our FEAR.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon May 26, 2005.
petertoon@msn.com
Let us begin our reflection at the beginning – conversion to Jesus Christ. In response to the Gospel (the Good News from the Father concerning his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ) we are commanded to repent of sin, to believe the promises of God the Father, to be baptized, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ wherever he leads. In so doing, we are by grace through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ, born from above and adopted by the Father as his children, in order to live in spiritual union with him, and in fellowship with fellow disciples in the household of God. As his children, we are to love him with all our being and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Where then does “the fear of God” fit into this account of regeneration and conversion?
First of all, we need to recall that we who hear the Gospel of God hear it as Good News from not any kind of Deity, but from our Creator and our Judge. He is the One, true and living God, who chooses also by the promises of the Gospel through Jesus Christ to become our Redeemer and Savior. Then, secondly, we need to bear in mind most seriously the identity and character of this LORD God. In his existence and being the LORD is more than eternal and infinite, more than majestically transcendent and glorious, more than supremely holy and pure, and more than exceedingly righteous and just. He is completely and totally above and beyond us in his pure glory. There is no comparison between his existence and being and ours. In fact, there is no comparison between his existence and being and that of the most glorious of the angel hierarchy of heaven. Before him, we are as nothing, for we are so weak and small and he is so almighty and great. (See Isaiah’s vision in chapter 6.)
Thus merely to think of his amazing greatness and majesty is to be humbled of mind; merely to contemplate him is to tremble with much amazement; merely to be aware of falling short of his perfection is to collapse prostrate and in great sorrow and pain before his Majesty; and merely to meditate upon the multitude of his attributes and perfections is to be filled with overwhelming awe. Then, also, to recognize that he is the Judge of all and that in his judgment he takes into account all human thoughts, attitudes and deeds is surely to be before him in great, awful dread.
So the Gospel itself, and the background teaching and doctrine concerning the nature and character of God that it is built upon and presupposes, creates “fear of the Lord;” and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning not only of wisdom [to hear the Gospel fully and see in it the wisdom of God]” but also of “knowledge” [of God and of ourselves before him so that we can repent and believe].
How can a soul truly be repentant for sin and for offending his Creator unless there is the fear of the Lord in his heart and mind? How can a soul truly believe the promises of the Gospel unto salvation, unless he is filled with awe and reverence before the very LORD God who makes the promises? How can a soul truly love the LORD our God with all his being, unless he is at least dimly aware of who God really is, and unless, before his majestic holiness and glorious righteousness, he is filled with awesome dread?
In the soul that is born from above of the Holy Ghost, and that looks to the Father through the Son for salvation and life, there must be both fear of the LORD and love of the LORD. For the love which God expects and deserves as LORD is holy, pure, love and adoration, and such is only possible when the soul trembles in awe, reverence, amazement, dread and fear before the LORD. Certainly the angelic host in heaven is continuously filled with both the fear and the love of the Lord God, the Holy Trinity. And, the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, in his sacred manhood, as our Representative and as the New Adam, offers worship to the Father with holy fear and pure love.
Perhaps – and I do say perhaps – many of the claimed conversions and experiences of new birth and conversion today are not really the same as those which the Acts of the Apostles describes and which the Epistles provide doctrinal descriptions of. That is, the claimed “personal relationship” with God made by so many today is a different kind of experience and commitment. The reason for making this tentative and alarming observation is simple. It is that the “fear of the Lord” seems to be absent from, or minimal within, much modern evangelism and worship, which often not only are “dumbed-down” but also lacking in holy awe and reverence! Without the presence of fear in the soul, the quality of the believing, trusting and obeying as well as worshipping and celebrating will be minimized.
One way to begin to restore “the fear of the Lord” is surely to spend more time describing the very LORD God, whose Gospel is proclaimed, and doing so in such a way as to create the possibility for awe, reverence, dread and fear of him in all present. Another is to conduct “worship services” as unto not only the God who is LOVE but also the God, who in his majestic transcendence commands and deserves our FEAR.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon May 26, 2005.
petertoon@msn.com
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
On Philip Turner's "An Unworkable Theology"
Dear Fr Dick,
Thank you very much for circulating the essay, “An unworkable theology,” by Philip Turner, from First Things. It is an excellent description of the “working theology” of radical inclusivism practiced by the leadership of the ECUSA. Dr Turner is a very careful observer of this Church and he brings to that observation not only a fine mind but a deep love of our Lord and of the Anglican Way. I do hope that many people read and study this essay. I shall urge them to do so.
I agree with all of it except part of a paragraph right at the end. Here is the paragraph:
The first sentence may well be true, but if the C of E can stay on course, even as battered by a mighty wind, then I think the communion of churches, even if reduced to 36 or even 30, will remain.
My disagreement with Dr Turner is with the content of the fourth sentence, which contains the reference to the BCP of the ECUSA and the inference that it contains orthodox theology.
I would contend that the 1979 Prayer Book (“BCP”) of the ECUSA reflects in parts the very theology that Turner describes as causing the apostasy of the ECUSA. While the working theology of the leadership of ECUSA is as he describes it (radical inclusivism based on “love”) , seeds for this, and theological justification for it, are found in the 1979 Liturgy, and even more so, in the official liturgies that have been approved since 1979 by the General Convention.
Does Dr Turner not see that the Baptismal Covenant, so called, of the 1979 Prayer Book, with its commitment to peace and justice runs parallel to and justifies “the working theology”? It has certainly been so used for the last thirty or so years. Does he not see that the use of dynamic equivalency in translating Scripture ( see the Psalter of the 1979 Book and some of its canticles) and the entrance of the feminist agenda into the translation also provide a base for “the working theology”? When “Blessed is the Man…” [the Lord Jesus Christ]” of Psalm 1 becomes “Happy are they…” then a massive step has been taken to eliminate Jesus from the Church’s ancient prayer book. And I could go on with examples, especially from the Catechism which is a summary of the theology of the Rite II texts in the Book. (see for details Neither Orthodox Nor a Formulary, by the late Dr Tarsitano, with Peter Toon, from the PBS – call 1-800-727-1928 or visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com)
The point is that a Church which knowingly and deliberately set aside in the 1970s its received Formularies and imposed a new Formulary in the form of a new kind of Prayer Book, with a new catechism and ordinal, had set itself on a road which provided a basis (or at least no criticism) for its working theology, which was already in place in the 1970s, but since than has become more bold and explicit.
What I continue to fail to understand is why the Communion Institute, of which Dr Turner is a leading member, does not come out clearly and state that the ECUSA made a major mistake in setting aside in the 1970s its historic and classic Formularies and adopting new Ones (in the 1979 Book) which reflected, in seed if not in flower, the very things that have become the causes of its apostasy in the last two decades. To keep on calling the 1979 book “The BCP”, and importantly, giving it the role of Formulary seems to me to be like describing a sinking ship, the ECUSA, whilst one stays on deck commending its fine design!
Let the Institute, with its gifted members, work for the restoration of the classic Formularies, to calling the 1979 Book “The Alternative Service Book”, and to moving quickly to create another, much better and truly orthodox Book of Varied Services, to be alongside but under the authority of the doctrine of the classic Formularies. I do not want to stop people addressing the “You-God” but I heartily desire that they do so in fine language and sound doctrine and in an appropriate godly style.
--Peter Toon
Thank you very much for circulating the essay, “An unworkable theology,” by Philip Turner, from First Things. It is an excellent description of the “working theology” of radical inclusivism practiced by the leadership of the ECUSA. Dr Turner is a very careful observer of this Church and he brings to that observation not only a fine mind but a deep love of our Lord and of the Anglican Way. I do hope that many people read and study this essay. I shall urge them to do so.
I agree with all of it except part of a paragraph right at the end. Here is the paragraph:
“The future of Anglicanism as a communion of churches may depend upon the American Episcopal Church’s ability to find a way out of the terrible constraints forced upon it by its working theology. Much of the Anglican communion in Africa sees the problem. Can the Americans? It is not enough simply to refer to the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer and reply, “We are orthodox just like you: we affirm the two testaments as the word of God, we recite the classical creeds in our worship, we celebrate the dominical sacraments, and we hold to episcopal order.” The challenge now being put to the Episcopal Church in the United States (and, by implication, to all liberal Protestantism) is not about official documents. It is about the church’s working theology – one which most Anglicans in the rest of the world no longer recognize as Christian.”
The first sentence may well be true, but if the C of E can stay on course, even as battered by a mighty wind, then I think the communion of churches, even if reduced to 36 or even 30, will remain.
My disagreement with Dr Turner is with the content of the fourth sentence, which contains the reference to the BCP of the ECUSA and the inference that it contains orthodox theology.
I would contend that the 1979 Prayer Book (“BCP”) of the ECUSA reflects in parts the very theology that Turner describes as causing the apostasy of the ECUSA. While the working theology of the leadership of ECUSA is as he describes it (radical inclusivism based on “love”) , seeds for this, and theological justification for it, are found in the 1979 Liturgy, and even more so, in the official liturgies that have been approved since 1979 by the General Convention.
Does Dr Turner not see that the Baptismal Covenant, so called, of the 1979 Prayer Book, with its commitment to peace and justice runs parallel to and justifies “the working theology”? It has certainly been so used for the last thirty or so years. Does he not see that the use of dynamic equivalency in translating Scripture ( see the Psalter of the 1979 Book and some of its canticles) and the entrance of the feminist agenda into the translation also provide a base for “the working theology”? When “Blessed is the Man…” [the Lord Jesus Christ]” of Psalm 1 becomes “Happy are they…” then a massive step has been taken to eliminate Jesus from the Church’s ancient prayer book. And I could go on with examples, especially from the Catechism which is a summary of the theology of the Rite II texts in the Book. (see for details Neither Orthodox Nor a Formulary, by the late Dr Tarsitano, with Peter Toon, from the PBS – call 1-800-727-1928 or visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com)
The point is that a Church which knowingly and deliberately set aside in the 1970s its received Formularies and imposed a new Formulary in the form of a new kind of Prayer Book, with a new catechism and ordinal, had set itself on a road which provided a basis (or at least no criticism) for its working theology, which was already in place in the 1970s, but since than has become more bold and explicit.
What I continue to fail to understand is why the Communion Institute, of which Dr Turner is a leading member, does not come out clearly and state that the ECUSA made a major mistake in setting aside in the 1970s its historic and classic Formularies and adopting new Ones (in the 1979 Book) which reflected, in seed if not in flower, the very things that have become the causes of its apostasy in the last two decades. To keep on calling the 1979 book “The BCP”, and importantly, giving it the role of Formulary seems to me to be like describing a sinking ship, the ECUSA, whilst one stays on deck commending its fine design!
Let the Institute, with its gifted members, work for the restoration of the classic Formularies, to calling the 1979 Book “The Alternative Service Book”, and to moving quickly to create another, much better and truly orthodox Book of Varied Services, to be alongside but under the authority of the doctrine of the classic Formularies. I do not want to stop people addressing the “You-God” but I heartily desire that they do so in fine language and sound doctrine and in an appropriate godly style.
--Peter Toon
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Dumbing-Down by the Orthodox!
Where are the “God-fearing”?
One important word much used in Christian discourse until the mid-20th century, but now virtually absent from it, is the expression “fear of God” or “fear of the Lord.” When did you last hear a sermon on this topic, and how often, if at all, does the expression, or ones synonymous with it, occur in modern liturgy and in modern ex tempore and charismatic services?
The way that the Bible has been understood over the centuries – until apparently recent times – is that it is impossible both to worship God and to love God, unless there is first the fear of God in the soul. For, as the Psalter and the Proverbs declare: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom….and of knowledge.” Without experiencing the fear of the LORD, the one true and living God, it is impossible to know him, to worship him to love him and to keep his commandments.
The prophecy concerning the coming Messiah in Isaiah 11 declares: “The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.” The Messiah’s delight shall be in the fear of the LORD!
In the Letter to the Hebrews we read of Jesus the Messiah: “In the days of his flesh Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him [the Father] who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear” (Heb.5:7). Jesus was heard for his godly fear.
The Blessed Virgin Mary in her Magnificat declared of the LORD that “his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation” (Luke 1:50). God’s mercy rests on those who fear him.
In the Letters of St Paul the fear of the Lord is presented as a necessary component of the Christian walk with God. “Since we have these promises [from God], beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God” (II.Cor.7:1). Holiness is made perfect in the fear of God.
Addressing baptized Christians as exiled from their true home in heaven, St Peter urges them to “conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile” (1:17). Fear of the Lord is a necessary part of the life and attitude of pilgrims.
In the worship of heaven, the angels and archangels with redeemed humanity fear the LORD, the Holy Trinity. The angel with the eternal gospel cried with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him the glory….” (14:7); and singing the Song of the Lamb the heavenly choir say, “O king of the ages! Who shall not fear and glorify thy name?” (15:5), Further, the redeemed are identified as those who fear God, when they are urged by a voice from the throne, “Praise our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, small and great” (19:5). In heaven the fear of God is necessary and perfected.
So it would appear that all baptized Christians are called to be, and must be, if they are to worship, love and serve God the Father aright, “God-fearing persons.” This is truly a filial fear, the fear of both God’s adopted daughters and sons.
The fear of God obviously includes a dread of his wrath and judgment against sin. This basic fear can never be eliminated this side of the Great Judgment at the end of the age! Nor would the godly want it to be removed! But more often in the O.T. and the N.T. it refers to the sense of awe, reverence, amazement and abasement in the mind and heart as the forgiven sinner stands before the purity of holiness and righteousness of the Majesty of God the LORD. Only with this attitude governing his relation to the Father through the Son, will he be able – in biblical terms – truly to worship, truly to love and truly to obey the Lord, for the fear of the Lord is truly the beginning of wisdom (perceiving what God requires) and of knowledge (of who is God and what he has revealed). If we know God we must know him in the matchless glory of his transcendent majesty, and the only appropriate posture for us before him is prostration before him in awe, reverence and humble adoration, for his Name is glorious and fearful (Deut. 28:58).
Certainly “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18) but this kind of fear is not the fear of the Lord but fear of torment, and such fear is removed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost.
One obvious reason why the genuine fear of God is missing in modern piety and devotion is that God has been, as it were, domesticated. He is seen more as the everywhere-present “Father-God” and “Loving God” whose presence his children may always feel. He has been brought down from the Throne of His Majesty to dwell most of his time on earth. So the fear of the Lord has been replaced by “feeling good” and “being affirmed” and knowing one’s “self-worth and dignity” through “self-realization.” The Rite II liturgies, and their successors in the ECUSA, are such that their effect, in the context of the general lack of a sense of the transcendent glory of the LORD, is to eliminate “the fear of the Lord” as a necessary affection of the soul. Thus the “the fear of God” is rarely to be seen in contemporary piety, be it that of the “progressives” or the “orthodox.” Instead, “celebration” has become the key aspect.
In general, it would seem, modern Christians have so engaged in dumbing-down of doctrine and piety, devotion and liturgy, that they have lost that necessary ingredient of pure religion which is “the fear of the LORD.” True saints on earth love and fear God and they do not cease when they are promoted to the heavenly Jersualem, for there also Jesus in his sacred, perfect humanity, leads the heavenly host in the fear, worship and love of the Father, by the Holy Ghost!
--Peter Toon
One important word much used in Christian discourse until the mid-20th century, but now virtually absent from it, is the expression “fear of God” or “fear of the Lord.” When did you last hear a sermon on this topic, and how often, if at all, does the expression, or ones synonymous with it, occur in modern liturgy and in modern ex tempore and charismatic services?
The way that the Bible has been understood over the centuries – until apparently recent times – is that it is impossible both to worship God and to love God, unless there is first the fear of God in the soul. For, as the Psalter and the Proverbs declare: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom….and of knowledge.” Without experiencing the fear of the LORD, the one true and living God, it is impossible to know him, to worship him to love him and to keep his commandments.
The prophecy concerning the coming Messiah in Isaiah 11 declares: “The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.” The Messiah’s delight shall be in the fear of the LORD!
In the Letter to the Hebrews we read of Jesus the Messiah: “In the days of his flesh Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him [the Father] who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear” (Heb.5:7). Jesus was heard for his godly fear.
The Blessed Virgin Mary in her Magnificat declared of the LORD that “his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation” (Luke 1:50). God’s mercy rests on those who fear him.
In the Letters of St Paul the fear of the Lord is presented as a necessary component of the Christian walk with God. “Since we have these promises [from God], beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God” (II.Cor.7:1). Holiness is made perfect in the fear of God.
Addressing baptized Christians as exiled from their true home in heaven, St Peter urges them to “conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile” (1:17). Fear of the Lord is a necessary part of the life and attitude of pilgrims.
In the worship of heaven, the angels and archangels with redeemed humanity fear the LORD, the Holy Trinity. The angel with the eternal gospel cried with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him the glory….” (14:7); and singing the Song of the Lamb the heavenly choir say, “O king of the ages! Who shall not fear and glorify thy name?” (15:5), Further, the redeemed are identified as those who fear God, when they are urged by a voice from the throne, “Praise our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, small and great” (19:5). In heaven the fear of God is necessary and perfected.
So it would appear that all baptized Christians are called to be, and must be, if they are to worship, love and serve God the Father aright, “God-fearing persons.” This is truly a filial fear, the fear of both God’s adopted daughters and sons.
The fear of God obviously includes a dread of his wrath and judgment against sin. This basic fear can never be eliminated this side of the Great Judgment at the end of the age! Nor would the godly want it to be removed! But more often in the O.T. and the N.T. it refers to the sense of awe, reverence, amazement and abasement in the mind and heart as the forgiven sinner stands before the purity of holiness and righteousness of the Majesty of God the LORD. Only with this attitude governing his relation to the Father through the Son, will he be able – in biblical terms – truly to worship, truly to love and truly to obey the Lord, for the fear of the Lord is truly the beginning of wisdom (perceiving what God requires) and of knowledge (of who is God and what he has revealed). If we know God we must know him in the matchless glory of his transcendent majesty, and the only appropriate posture for us before him is prostration before him in awe, reverence and humble adoration, for his Name is glorious and fearful (Deut. 28:58).
Certainly “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18) but this kind of fear is not the fear of the Lord but fear of torment, and such fear is removed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost.
One obvious reason why the genuine fear of God is missing in modern piety and devotion is that God has been, as it were, domesticated. He is seen more as the everywhere-present “Father-God” and “Loving God” whose presence his children may always feel. He has been brought down from the Throne of His Majesty to dwell most of his time on earth. So the fear of the Lord has been replaced by “feeling good” and “being affirmed” and knowing one’s “self-worth and dignity” through “self-realization.” The Rite II liturgies, and their successors in the ECUSA, are such that their effect, in the context of the general lack of a sense of the transcendent glory of the LORD, is to eliminate “the fear of the Lord” as a necessary affection of the soul. Thus the “the fear of God” is rarely to be seen in contemporary piety, be it that of the “progressives” or the “orthodox.” Instead, “celebration” has become the key aspect.
In general, it would seem, modern Christians have so engaged in dumbing-down of doctrine and piety, devotion and liturgy, that they have lost that necessary ingredient of pure religion which is “the fear of the LORD.” True saints on earth love and fear God and they do not cease when they are promoted to the heavenly Jersualem, for there also Jesus in his sacred, perfect humanity, leads the heavenly host in the fear, worship and love of the Father, by the Holy Ghost!
--Peter Toon
Monday, May 23, 2005
Anglican Foundations – have we forgotten them?
A discussion Starter
Until fifty or so years ago, virtually all informed Anglican bishops or leaders, be they high or low church, would agree with the statement of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (d.1626) concerning the foundations of the Faith, Worship, Doctrine, Ministry and Discipline of the Church of England:
One Canon [Of Scripture], reduced to writing by God himself, two Testaments, Three Creeds [Apostles’, Nicene & Athanasian], four General Councils [Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431 & Chalcedon 451], five centuries and the series of Fathers [bishops and respected teachers] in the period – the three centuries, that is, before Constantine, and the two centuries after, determine the boundary of our [Anglican] Faith. (Opusc.Posthuma, p.91)
Here we have a commitment to 1) the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, whose Canon was fixed by the Early Church; 2) this Canon contains Two Testaments; 3) the truths set forth in Three Creeds; 4) the authority of the first four Ecumenical Councils, which provided the Church with the dogma of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and confirmed other doctrines such as the Threefold Ministry, Liturgical Worship and the principle of Canon Law; and 5) the providential way that Christ the Lord had guided his Church in space and time in its formative period of five centuries.
Of course, later councils, theologians and saints were not discounted, in terms of the input, example and experience, but the first centuries were seen as unique in that they were first, and thus unique, and they constituted the formative period for the Church. So while there is great respect for Anselm and Thomas Aquinas and for St. Francis and St. Elizabeth of Hungary shown by the Anglican Way, at the same time, there has not been acceptance of the claims of the See of Rome to universal rule, since this was clearly not the case in the first five centuries of the Early Church.
Bishop Andrewes, with other standard divines, saw the Church of England Formularies (the Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer & the Ordinal) as resting upon, and interpreting, this biblical and patristic foundation for the reformed catholic Church of England, and thus for the Anglican Way. Naturally, they accepted that, for each generation and in each culture, there had to be explanation and teaching not only of the contents of the Bible but also of the worship, doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Way. There also had to be application to changing circumstances and new challenges. Thus we may see the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral at the end of the nineteenth century as an application of the principles of the Anglican Way to ecumenical discussion and union. In this document the minimum required for unity with other Churches was stated in terms of four principles, Scripture, Creeds, Sacraments & Ministry.
What Anglicans/Episcopalians witnessed in the late 1960s and especially in the 1970s was a move away from the 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 explained above towards a fascination with and concentration upon the liturgies and statements of faith from the Church of the third century, especially from Hippolytus of Rome. That is, for the period before Constantine the Great and before the developments in dogma, liturgy and the Calendar that occurred during and after his reign. On the basis of this commitment to the liturgy and faith of the third century, liturgists created new services with a new shape and different content, claiming that their model was an authentic model, being nearer to apostolic times and before the secularization and hellenization of Christianity in the Roman Empire which begun with Constantine.
So it is obvious that the classic Formularies, wherein is a commitment to Scripture and to the clear guidance of the first five centuries are in tension with, even at war with, what one has in the new liturgies, which according to their creators, is commitment to the doctrine and liturgy of the third century (when, it is said, the church was pure and placed in a multi-religious and multi-cultural society, similar to our own). Massey H. Shepherd, the primary liturgist in the commission, which produced the 1979 Prayer Book for the ECUSA, was very clear that his/their primary motivation was this desire to create a contemporary, dynamic equivalent of the liturgy & doctrine of the third century (of which our knowledge is much more limited than for that of the fourth and fifth centuries). Did they not often claim that “the law of praying is the law of believing”?
Those traditionalists who in 1977 left the ECUSA, in part because of the new liturgies and in part because of the ordaining of women, and gathered in St Louis to form the Continuing Anglican Church, accepted the position of Lancelot Andrewes, but only as a starter. They expanded his position, and that of the standard divines of the Anglican Way, by making the summary to read: One Canon, Two Testaments, Two or Three Creeds [Athanasian optional], Seven Councils and at least Seven Centuries. That is, they made acceptance of the fifth, sixth and seventh councils part of their confession of faith, something that had never been done before by a province or synod of the Anglican Way. Certainly, individual divines had stated their acceptance of the dogma of one, two, or all three of these later Councils, but not so Anglican, provincial synods.
Now it may be reasonably claimed that the fifth and sixth simply expand what is taught by the fourth in terms of the Person of Jesus Christ, made known in two natures, human and divine. But the seventh, which authorizes the use of icons of Jesus, Mary and the saints has never gained general acceptance in the Anglican Way. It has however been accepted by anglo-catholic divines since the mid-19th century.
The point being made here is not that the seventh council is wrong in its teaching, but that it is NOT the Anglican method to make its dogma of reverencing of icons compulsory. It is best to leave it optional.
It would seem that on the right and on the left, as it were, Anglicans have forgotten exactly what are their foundations. Regrettably, also, “the Network” as the reforming movement within the ECUSA, seems not yet to have been able to express its doctrinal basis without wanting to place the 1979 Prayer Book (with its novel commitment to the 3rd century!) a part of that basis. This is hard to understand for the 1979 Book is after all only in reality a Book of Varied Services and not a genuine edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer. In contrast, the AMiA and the REC and some other small jurisdictions have a clearer sense of the historic and classic Anglican Foundations.
If I were asked for a biblical text to set forth what I desire to say, I would choose the word of the Lord through the prophet, Jeremiah. "Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (6:16). I invite my readers to choose the old way, not to bury their heads in the sands of the past, but with the intention of working to see its perfection for the Anglican Way for today and tomorrow.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon May 22, 2005
Until fifty or so years ago, virtually all informed Anglican bishops or leaders, be they high or low church, would agree with the statement of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (d.1626) concerning the foundations of the Faith, Worship, Doctrine, Ministry and Discipline of the Church of England:
One Canon [Of Scripture], reduced to writing by God himself, two Testaments, Three Creeds [Apostles’, Nicene & Athanasian], four General Councils [Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431 & Chalcedon 451], five centuries and the series of Fathers [bishops and respected teachers] in the period – the three centuries, that is, before Constantine, and the two centuries after, determine the boundary of our [Anglican] Faith. (Opusc.Posthuma, p.91)
Here we have a commitment to 1) the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, whose Canon was fixed by the Early Church; 2) this Canon contains Two Testaments; 3) the truths set forth in Three Creeds; 4) the authority of the first four Ecumenical Councils, which provided the Church with the dogma of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and confirmed other doctrines such as the Threefold Ministry, Liturgical Worship and the principle of Canon Law; and 5) the providential way that Christ the Lord had guided his Church in space and time in its formative period of five centuries.
Of course, later councils, theologians and saints were not discounted, in terms of the input, example and experience, but the first centuries were seen as unique in that they were first, and thus unique, and they constituted the formative period for the Church. So while there is great respect for Anselm and Thomas Aquinas and for St. Francis and St. Elizabeth of Hungary shown by the Anglican Way, at the same time, there has not been acceptance of the claims of the See of Rome to universal rule, since this was clearly not the case in the first five centuries of the Early Church.
Bishop Andrewes, with other standard divines, saw the Church of England Formularies (the Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer & the Ordinal) as resting upon, and interpreting, this biblical and patristic foundation for the reformed catholic Church of England, and thus for the Anglican Way. Naturally, they accepted that, for each generation and in each culture, there had to be explanation and teaching not only of the contents of the Bible but also of the worship, doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Way. There also had to be application to changing circumstances and new challenges. Thus we may see the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral at the end of the nineteenth century as an application of the principles of the Anglican Way to ecumenical discussion and union. In this document the minimum required for unity with other Churches was stated in terms of four principles, Scripture, Creeds, Sacraments & Ministry.
What Anglicans/Episcopalians witnessed in the late 1960s and especially in the 1970s was a move away from the 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 explained above towards a fascination with and concentration upon the liturgies and statements of faith from the Church of the third century, especially from Hippolytus of Rome. That is, for the period before Constantine the Great and before the developments in dogma, liturgy and the Calendar that occurred during and after his reign. On the basis of this commitment to the liturgy and faith of the third century, liturgists created new services with a new shape and different content, claiming that their model was an authentic model, being nearer to apostolic times and before the secularization and hellenization of Christianity in the Roman Empire which begun with Constantine.
So it is obvious that the classic Formularies, wherein is a commitment to Scripture and to the clear guidance of the first five centuries are in tension with, even at war with, what one has in the new liturgies, which according to their creators, is commitment to the doctrine and liturgy of the third century (when, it is said, the church was pure and placed in a multi-religious and multi-cultural society, similar to our own). Massey H. Shepherd, the primary liturgist in the commission, which produced the 1979 Prayer Book for the ECUSA, was very clear that his/their primary motivation was this desire to create a contemporary, dynamic equivalent of the liturgy & doctrine of the third century (of which our knowledge is much more limited than for that of the fourth and fifth centuries). Did they not often claim that “the law of praying is the law of believing”?
Those traditionalists who in 1977 left the ECUSA, in part because of the new liturgies and in part because of the ordaining of women, and gathered in St Louis to form the Continuing Anglican Church, accepted the position of Lancelot Andrewes, but only as a starter. They expanded his position, and that of the standard divines of the Anglican Way, by making the summary to read: One Canon, Two Testaments, Two or Three Creeds [Athanasian optional], Seven Councils and at least Seven Centuries. That is, they made acceptance of the fifth, sixth and seventh councils part of their confession of faith, something that had never been done before by a province or synod of the Anglican Way. Certainly, individual divines had stated their acceptance of the dogma of one, two, or all three of these later Councils, but not so Anglican, provincial synods.
Now it may be reasonably claimed that the fifth and sixth simply expand what is taught by the fourth in terms of the Person of Jesus Christ, made known in two natures, human and divine. But the seventh, which authorizes the use of icons of Jesus, Mary and the saints has never gained general acceptance in the Anglican Way. It has however been accepted by anglo-catholic divines since the mid-19th century.
The point being made here is not that the seventh council is wrong in its teaching, but that it is NOT the Anglican method to make its dogma of reverencing of icons compulsory. It is best to leave it optional.
It would seem that on the right and on the left, as it were, Anglicans have forgotten exactly what are their foundations. Regrettably, also, “the Network” as the reforming movement within the ECUSA, seems not yet to have been able to express its doctrinal basis without wanting to place the 1979 Prayer Book (with its novel commitment to the 3rd century!) a part of that basis. This is hard to understand for the 1979 Book is after all only in reality a Book of Varied Services and not a genuine edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer. In contrast, the AMiA and the REC and some other small jurisdictions have a clearer sense of the historic and classic Anglican Foundations.
If I were asked for a biblical text to set forth what I desire to say, I would choose the word of the Lord through the prophet, Jeremiah. "Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (6:16). I invite my readers to choose the old way, not to bury their heads in the sands of the past, but with the intention of working to see its perfection for the Anglican Way for today and tomorrow.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon May 22, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
The Day on which the Godly truly rejoice: TRINITY SUNDAY [AND THE TRINITY SEASON]
One God – Yes: One God, One Person – No: One God, Three Persons – Yes: Three Persons, One God – Yes.
The major festivals of the Christian Year before Trinity Sunday focus on
The Early Church gave a lot of time and effort to the stating in the best possible and available terms the doctrine of the Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Ghost. That is, the rendering of the dynamic and diverse biblical teaching and insights into clear propositional terms, using particular words in specific ways. This teaching is found in the Nicene Creed (written originally in Greek and immediately translated into Latin) and in the Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult (written originally in Latin and later translated into Greek).
Key words are substance (ousia in Greek) and Person (hypostasis in Greek). And the church teaching is that there is one ousia (Divinity, Godhead) and that each of the Three Persons possesses in whole this one, unique ousia. This one substance, Godhead, is not, as it were, shared and split into three. The Father is wholly God; the Son is wholly God and the Holy Ghost is wholly God. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are homoousios (of the same, identical substance, essence & being) with each other.
The Three Persons differ from one another not in Godhead for each one is wholly God; rather they differ in terms of their relations (not relationships!) one with another. The first Person is the Father of the Only-Begotten Son; the Son is the only-begotten Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. And, of course, in the divine work of creation, redemption, providence and judgment, each of the Three has a different but not an independent role.
It is this Mystery, God as the Holy Trinity, which Mother Church asks her members ( born from above by the Holy Ghost to be the adopted children of the Father) specifically to adore, praise and magnify on Trinity Sunday, and to do so with special effort, concentration and devotion.
Then for the rest of the Christian Year until Advent, as each Sunday in the traditional Anglican Calendar also bears the Name of the same Holy Trinity, Mother Church asks her members to hear and read the Gospel and the Epistle as the words of the same Triune God, even as She worships the Undivided and Blessed Trinity, bowing before the Father in the Name of the Son and with the presence and illumination of the Holy Ghost. It is only when we know God as the Triune Lord God experientially and mentally that we are aware of the need for careful terminology both to preserve sound doctrine and to honor God for who he is and what he has revealed unto us.
(See further Peter Toon, Our Triune God, Regent College Publishing, Vancouver, Canada)
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, now and for always even unto ages of ages.The Church in the West was very wise, and no doubt led by the Holy Ghost, to call the Sunday after Whitsuntide, by the name of Trinity Sunday, in order that the focus of worship and devotion be most particularly on that day the Triune LORD God himself – the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Three Persons One God, a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity.
The major festivals of the Christian Year before Trinity Sunday focus on
- (a) the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, his taking of our human nature and flesh as his own;
- (b) the sacrificial, atoning death of the Second Person for our sins and his rising again from the dead for our justification;
- (c) the ascending into heaven with his assumed and now glorified human nature of the Second Person to be the High Priest and King of his people; and
- (d) his sending, together with the Father, of the Holy Ghost to the Church in order for the Third Person of the Trinity to be the Paraclete of the Incarnate Son, a Counselor and Comforter to his sanctified people.
In the great work of divine revelation and redemption, salvation and sanctification, the Holy Trinity is supremely and wholly involved, as the Father sends the Son into the world where he assumed human nature by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and where the Holy Ghost acts in the Name of the Son. So it is most fitting and most appropriate that after the sequence of the great festivals – Christmas & Epiphany, Easter, Ascension and Whitsuntide – there should be another festival pointing to the identity of the Lord our God, the God of revelation and redemption, by whom the divine reality of the great festivals is assured.
The Early Church gave a lot of time and effort to the stating in the best possible and available terms the doctrine of the Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Ghost. That is, the rendering of the dynamic and diverse biblical teaching and insights into clear propositional terms, using particular words in specific ways. This teaching is found in the Nicene Creed (written originally in Greek and immediately translated into Latin) and in the Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult (written originally in Latin and later translated into Greek).
Key words are substance (ousia in Greek) and Person (hypostasis in Greek). And the church teaching is that there is one ousia (Divinity, Godhead) and that each of the Three Persons possesses in whole this one, unique ousia. This one substance, Godhead, is not, as it were, shared and split into three. The Father is wholly God; the Son is wholly God and the Holy Ghost is wholly God. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are homoousios (of the same, identical substance, essence & being) with each other.
The Three Persons differ from one another not in Godhead for each one is wholly God; rather they differ in terms of their relations (not relationships!) one with another. The first Person is the Father of the Only-Begotten Son; the Son is the only-begotten Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. And, of course, in the divine work of creation, redemption, providence and judgment, each of the Three has a different but not an independent role.
It is this Mystery, God as the Holy Trinity, which Mother Church asks her members ( born from above by the Holy Ghost to be the adopted children of the Father) specifically to adore, praise and magnify on Trinity Sunday, and to do so with special effort, concentration and devotion.
Then for the rest of the Christian Year until Advent, as each Sunday in the traditional Anglican Calendar also bears the Name of the same Holy Trinity, Mother Church asks her members to hear and read the Gospel and the Epistle as the words of the same Triune God, even as She worships the Undivided and Blessed Trinity, bowing before the Father in the Name of the Son and with the presence and illumination of the Holy Ghost. It is only when we know God as the Triune Lord God experientially and mentally that we are aware of the need for careful terminology both to preserve sound doctrine and to honor God for who he is and what he has revealed unto us.
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of the true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee, that thou wouldest keep us stedfast in this faith, and evermore defend us from all adversities, who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.
(See further Peter Toon, Our Triune God, Regent College Publishing, Vancouver, Canada)
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Christian Community – an idol?
With Dr Philip Turner, a most able thinker and writer, I want to suggest that to call the church of God “a Christian community” is to erect an idol.
As far back as I can remember the word “community” referred to a specific people living in a specific area. Thus in an American city there would be a Jewish community in one neighborhood and a Polish in another. In the prayers of intercession in the parish church in England I vividly recall how that the priest and congregation prayed for the local community and its various leaders and needs.
In the decades since the 1960s, it has become more and more fashionable to speak of the church itself as the Christian community. The apparent reason for this usage is that community became in the 1960s the preferred word to speak of the coming together of individuals (= individual human persons). Here the logic was that individualism is supreme in western society; that each human being is an individual (an adjective become a noun); and that a collection of “individuals” for a common purpose is a community. (At the same time as this usage developed, the traditional Irish, Polish, Italian local communities in cities were breaking-up as their inhabitants moved to the suburbs).
In the book which introduced the 1979 Prayer Book (Introducing the Proposed Book, p.43), to the Episcopal Church, Charles P. Price singled out “Christian Community” as one of the major emphases of this innovatory Prayer Book. If the assurance of immortality was the need of people in the patristic era, and forgiveness the need in the sixteenth century, said Price, then community is the need in our time. And he saw it writ large in the structure and content of this new kind of Prayer Book (not by any means an edition of the classical Anglican Book of Common Prayer).
Most people bought this idea and freely used the expression “Christian community” and it is very much in vogue these says by all parties within the ECUSA. Yet an evangelical theologian, Philip Turner, then the Dean of Berkely Divinity School at Yale, took a very different position. “To turn the Church into a ‘Christian Community’ is unacceptable to God,” he said. And writing in The Anglican Digest (Michaelmas 1992) he explained:
He describes how, in seeking to create “a community” everyone is expected to become like everyone else; but this is an impossible goal. So everyone has to become like the inner community which is seeking to impose its identifying features and ways upon everyone so that all may be a real community (just as a Polish community is all Poles and Jewish one, all Jews).
So he concludes his piece by stating that the extent that churches,
The Church is a congregation of people from a variety of human communities, ethnic, political, social, who meet together for and in communion and fellowship (communion and koinonia) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the presence of the Holy Ghost, in order to worship and serve the Father.
In the history of the Episcopal Church since the 1970s we have seen what this idol of community has allowed and fostered. Attendance is down, traditional Episcopalians are not welcome, new doctrine and morality are espoused and celebrated, new forms of worship with new ways of speaking to Deity are in place, and all in all the Church is in one big crisis and mess.
One sad feature of this story is that many who ought to know better have embraced this use of “Christian community” and in so doing have lost the biblical and dynamic sense of koinonia as a the biblical word for fellowship one with another in the Body of Christ under Christ the Head. Koinonia is NOT community but an anticipation of heaven on earth within the Household of God and Body of Christ!
Those who seek to be orthodox in the Anglican Way should, I suggest, try to go one week 1) without calling a human person an individual, 2) without using the word “community” of the local church congregation, and 3) without describing the holy relation to God brought about by the divine work of regeneration and sanctification as “a relationship”. There are so many good words and phrases in the Bible and holy tradition for the church and her members and how they relate to God.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon, May 18, 2005
(For a solid but readable critique of the structure, content and style of the 1979 Book see NEITHER ORTHODOXY NOR A FORMULARY by Lou Tarsitano and Peter Toon, available by calling 1-800-727-1928)
As far back as I can remember the word “community” referred to a specific people living in a specific area. Thus in an American city there would be a Jewish community in one neighborhood and a Polish in another. In the prayers of intercession in the parish church in England I vividly recall how that the priest and congregation prayed for the local community and its various leaders and needs.
In the decades since the 1960s, it has become more and more fashionable to speak of the church itself as the Christian community. The apparent reason for this usage is that community became in the 1960s the preferred word to speak of the coming together of individuals (= individual human persons). Here the logic was that individualism is supreme in western society; that each human being is an individual (an adjective become a noun); and that a collection of “individuals” for a common purpose is a community. (At the same time as this usage developed, the traditional Irish, Polish, Italian local communities in cities were breaking-up as their inhabitants moved to the suburbs).
In the book which introduced the 1979 Prayer Book (Introducing the Proposed Book, p.43), to the Episcopal Church, Charles P. Price singled out “Christian Community” as one of the major emphases of this innovatory Prayer Book. If the assurance of immortality was the need of people in the patristic era, and forgiveness the need in the sixteenth century, said Price, then community is the need in our time. And he saw it writ large in the structure and content of this new kind of Prayer Book (not by any means an edition of the classical Anglican Book of Common Prayer).
Most people bought this idea and freely used the expression “Christian community” and it is very much in vogue these says by all parties within the ECUSA. Yet an evangelical theologian, Philip Turner, then the Dean of Berkely Divinity School at Yale, took a very different position. “To turn the Church into a ‘Christian Community’ is unacceptable to God,” he said. And writing in The Anglican Digest (Michaelmas 1992) he explained:
What I have come to believe is that if Christians look to the Church in any of its manifestations or institutional forms to provide them with a community, they distort the nature of the Church and, more seriously, construct an idol that, like all idols, is but the mirror image of themselves. If, however, they learn, in coming to God through Christ, to long for and rejoice in the communion of the saints, they will find union with God and with the saints of God that both transcends and transfigures any community they have ever known or will know.
He describes how, in seeking to create “a community” everyone is expected to become like everyone else; but this is an impossible goal. So everyone has to become like the inner community which is seeking to impose its identifying features and ways upon everyone so that all may be a real community (just as a Polish community is all Poles and Jewish one, all Jews).
So he concludes his piece by stating that the extent that churches,
Are motivated by a search for “Christian community” they will most certainly prove inhospitable, oppressive and divisive. To the extent that they are motivated by a longing for communion with God and communion in Jesus Christ with people from very different communities, we may even as strangers, hope for hospitality, liberty, and unity with God and with one another.
The Church is a congregation of people from a variety of human communities, ethnic, political, social, who meet together for and in communion and fellowship (communion and koinonia) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the presence of the Holy Ghost, in order to worship and serve the Father.
In the history of the Episcopal Church since the 1970s we have seen what this idol of community has allowed and fostered. Attendance is down, traditional Episcopalians are not welcome, new doctrine and morality are espoused and celebrated, new forms of worship with new ways of speaking to Deity are in place, and all in all the Church is in one big crisis and mess.
One sad feature of this story is that many who ought to know better have embraced this use of “Christian community” and in so doing have lost the biblical and dynamic sense of koinonia as a the biblical word for fellowship one with another in the Body of Christ under Christ the Head. Koinonia is NOT community but an anticipation of heaven on earth within the Household of God and Body of Christ!
Those who seek to be orthodox in the Anglican Way should, I suggest, try to go one week 1) without calling a human person an individual, 2) without using the word “community” of the local church congregation, and 3) without describing the holy relation to God brought about by the divine work of regeneration and sanctification as “a relationship”. There are so many good words and phrases in the Bible and holy tradition for the church and her members and how they relate to God.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon, May 18, 2005
(For a solid but readable critique of the structure, content and style of the 1979 Book see NEITHER ORTHODOXY NOR A FORMULARY by Lou Tarsitano and Peter Toon, available by calling 1-800-727-1928)
Monday, May 16, 2005
LEX ORANDI: LEX CREDENDI
A popular expression, much loved of those engaged in the study of liturgy in the modern Anglicanism of the West, is this: lex orandi: lex credendi. It is usually quoted in this Latin, which sounds more imposing and awesome than the English translation, "the law of praying: the law of believing." (Technically it may also be translated "the law of believing: the law of praying.")
The Preface to the BAS (1985) of the Canadian Church clearly reveals that the architects of this book (based on the USA 1979 prayer book) believed they were working according to this supposed hallowed principle. We read that,
This is a remarkable paragraph based as much on ignorance as prejudice. Similar statements both spoken and written abound and their abundance testifies to the move away from the classic Anglican Way by those who, for the most part, now effectively order and run the worship of Anglicans. The same type of claims were made by those who created the BCP (1979) of the ECUSA, although at first they pretended that they were merely updating the Common Prayer Tradition and keeping its doctrinal framework.
Wrong way round?
First of all, the claim "it is precisely..." supposes that the writers have done careful historical research and can document their case. Such a possibility is doubtful. In fact if the Pope, and particularly Pope Pius XII, is any guide, then this expression is not a safe or sure guide. In his famous encyclical letter, Mediator Dei (1947), this Pope referred to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who claim that the sacred Liturgy is a kind of proving?ground for the truths to be held by faith. Such is not what the Church teaches and enjoins, he maintained. The entire Liturgy ought to have the Catholic Faith for its content, inasmuch as the Liturgy bears witness to the Faith of the Church.
He certainly recognized that on occasions the content of the Liturgy has been examined as one way (alongside others) of gaining insight into a controversial or doubtful truth. Yet the Pope concluded: "If one desires to differentiate and describe the relation between Faith and the sacred Liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say: Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi (let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer)." We note that this is precisely the opposite of the way lex orandi: lex credendi is used today.
In fact the origin of the expression, lex orandi: lex credendi, seems to have been with Prosper, a disciple of the great St Augustine of Hippo. He did not actually use it but another similar one, which is the fore?runner of it: lex supplicandi statuat legem credendi (let the rule of prayer determine the rule of faith). Prosper was involved in a controversy [known as the Pelagian controversy] concerning the grace of God offered in Christ and the freedom of man to accept or reject it. Being a disciple of Augustine, he held that our wills are in a bondage to sin and until God releases them and gives them the freedom to choose Christ and to believe on His name then we are not able to do so. In order to show that this doctrine of God's sovereign grace was truly the faith of the Church, he appealed to the contents of the prayers offered by Christians. He believed that these assumed that without God we can do nothing for our salvation.
Therefore he could confidently say, in this specific context, that the rule of prayer tells us what is the rule of faith. Of course he and his master, Augustine, did not stop there; they also turned to the Scripture to study its message and to the Creeds of the Church to learn what they declared. In fact for the early fathers of the Church the lex credendi was to be found first of all in the Holy Scriptures and to this the Liturgy was to witness and had to conform. If it conformed then it could be said in a strictly limited way that the law of prayer is the law of faith -- e.g. it confirmed Prosper's point that we are dependent upon God's grace in order to choose Christ. But such a law was not then, and cannot be now, of total or universal application in all circumstances.
Lex & the Common Prayer
Certainly since the sixteenth century, Anglicans have believed that in the Book of Common Prayer (in which historically were bound also the Ordinal and the Thirty?Nine Articles) is the lex credendi. For where you have the commitment to the authority of the Scriptures (the written Word of God), and a further commitment both to the catholic Creeds, and alongside the Creeds to the Thirty?Nine Articles, then you certainly have a lex credendi -- which is more developed if you add the doctrines of the Ordinal concerning the Threefold Ministry. However, the lex is not primarily to be found in the whole Book but specifically in the doctrinal truth of the Scriptures and the dogma of the Creeds as summarizing the truth of Scripture. Thus to claim with the BAS (1985) that the lex orandi: lex credendi is a principle particularly treasured by Anglicans is true but only in a limited way. Further, it is true only of the classic Common Prayer Tradition in which the Canadian BAS (1985) and the American BCP (1979) hardly partake.
--Peter Toon
The Preface to the BAS (1985) of the Canadian Church clearly reveals that the architects of this book (based on the USA 1979 prayer book) believed they were working according to this supposed hallowed principle. We read that,
It is precisely the intimate relationship of gospel, liturgy and service that stands behind the theological principle, lex orandi: lex credendi,- i. e., the law of prayer is the law of belief. This principle, particularly treasured by Anglicans, means that theology as the statement of the Church belief is drawn from the liturgy, i.e., from the point at which the gospel and the challenge of Christian life meet in prayer. The development of theology is not a legislative process which is imposed on liturgy; liturgy is a reflective process in which theology may be discovered. The Church must be open to liturgical change in order to maintain sensitivity to the impact of the gospel on the world and to permit the continuous development of a living theology.
This is a remarkable paragraph based as much on ignorance as prejudice. Similar statements both spoken and written abound and their abundance testifies to the move away from the classic Anglican Way by those who, for the most part, now effectively order and run the worship of Anglicans. The same type of claims were made by those who created the BCP (1979) of the ECUSA, although at first they pretended that they were merely updating the Common Prayer Tradition and keeping its doctrinal framework.
Wrong way round?
First of all, the claim "it is precisely..." supposes that the writers have done careful historical research and can document their case. Such a possibility is doubtful. In fact if the Pope, and particularly Pope Pius XII, is any guide, then this expression is not a safe or sure guide. In his famous encyclical letter, Mediator Dei (1947), this Pope referred to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who claim that the sacred Liturgy is a kind of proving?ground for the truths to be held by faith. Such is not what the Church teaches and enjoins, he maintained. The entire Liturgy ought to have the Catholic Faith for its content, inasmuch as the Liturgy bears witness to the Faith of the Church.
He certainly recognized that on occasions the content of the Liturgy has been examined as one way (alongside others) of gaining insight into a controversial or doubtful truth. Yet the Pope concluded: "If one desires to differentiate and describe the relation between Faith and the sacred Liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say: Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi (let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer)." We note that this is precisely the opposite of the way lex orandi: lex credendi is used today.
In fact the origin of the expression, lex orandi: lex credendi, seems to have been with Prosper, a disciple of the great St Augustine of Hippo. He did not actually use it but another similar one, which is the fore?runner of it: lex supplicandi statuat legem credendi (let the rule of prayer determine the rule of faith). Prosper was involved in a controversy [known as the Pelagian controversy] concerning the grace of God offered in Christ and the freedom of man to accept or reject it. Being a disciple of Augustine, he held that our wills are in a bondage to sin and until God releases them and gives them the freedom to choose Christ and to believe on His name then we are not able to do so. In order to show that this doctrine of God's sovereign grace was truly the faith of the Church, he appealed to the contents of the prayers offered by Christians. He believed that these assumed that without God we can do nothing for our salvation.
Therefore he could confidently say, in this specific context, that the rule of prayer tells us what is the rule of faith. Of course he and his master, Augustine, did not stop there; they also turned to the Scripture to study its message and to the Creeds of the Church to learn what they declared. In fact for the early fathers of the Church the lex credendi was to be found first of all in the Holy Scriptures and to this the Liturgy was to witness and had to conform. If it conformed then it could be said in a strictly limited way that the law of prayer is the law of faith -- e.g. it confirmed Prosper's point that we are dependent upon God's grace in order to choose Christ. But such a law was not then, and cannot be now, of total or universal application in all circumstances.
Lex & the Common Prayer
Certainly since the sixteenth century, Anglicans have believed that in the Book of Common Prayer (in which historically were bound also the Ordinal and the Thirty?Nine Articles) is the lex credendi. For where you have the commitment to the authority of the Scriptures (the written Word of God), and a further commitment both to the catholic Creeds, and alongside the Creeds to the Thirty?Nine Articles, then you certainly have a lex credendi -- which is more developed if you add the doctrines of the Ordinal concerning the Threefold Ministry. However, the lex is not primarily to be found in the whole Book but specifically in the doctrinal truth of the Scriptures and the dogma of the Creeds as summarizing the truth of Scripture. Thus to claim with the BAS (1985) that the lex orandi: lex credendi is a principle particularly treasured by Anglicans is true but only in a limited way. Further, it is true only of the classic Common Prayer Tradition in which the Canadian BAS (1985) and the American BCP (1979) hardly partake.
--Peter Toon
Friday, May 13, 2005
Who are we? And What is our Name?
For the consideration of Anglicans, Episcopalians and the like.
It is becoming difficult to know how to name and describe those who profess to live within and to maintain the Anglican Way, as a form of reformed Catholicism or authentic Protestantism, and who are outside the Episcopal Church.
Obviously members of The Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., whether they be progressives or traditionalists, high church or low church, are all Episcopalians, who may also in some circumstances decide to call themselves Anglicans. At least they all, conservatives and liberals alike, claim to belong to the international family of Anglican Churches.
If we use the term “extra-mural Anglicans” (or “extra-mural Episcopalians”) for those claiming to be of the Anglican Way, but outside of the Episcopal Church, then there are problems and some folks get upset. For example, some think that by this expression those outside are being declared to be inferior to those inside and, further, it is being suggested that the outsiders are dependent upon the institution of the Episcopal Church, even though outside its walls.
So “extra-mural” as an expression from the field of university education is suspect when used of those outside the walls of the Episcopal Church.
If we use (as “The Communion Network” seems to be doing) the term “diaspora” we also run into trouble. For, as is well known, the Jewish diaspora look to Jerusalem as the origin and center of their religious existence; but, those of the Anglican Way outside the Episcopal Church and its New York City offices, claim to look away from rather than towards this modern center!
So “diaspora” as an expression from Jewish history is suspect, when used of those who do not look to the National Church headquarters of the Episcopal Church.
What term or terms then can we use?
Those who left the Episcopal Church in the late 1970s called themselves “the Continuing” Church and so we have the expression “Continuing Anglicans” or “Continuing Episcopalians.” However, before this exodus took place there had been the exodus of both those who called themselves Reformed Episcopalians in the 19th century and various small groups in the 1950s and 1960s, who objected to the social changes in the [Protestant] Episcopal Church, due to such things as the impact of civil rights.
The Continuing Anglicans from the 1970s are now represented by several groups (e.g., the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of America).
In the late 1990s they all were joined by those now known as the Anglican Mission in America, which is an evangelical (and sometimes charismatic) movement looking for guidance to Archbishops in S.E.Asia and Africa. More recently we have witnessed the adoption of individual parishes, which have left the Episcopal Church, by a growing number of overseas bishops from South America and Africa. Further, overseas bishops have authorized the forming of parishes of immigrants from their region (e.g., Nigerians & Indians) in the U.S.A. as missionary arms of the home dioceses. And, finally, congregations from a pentecostalist or evangelical background have been embracing the Anglican Way and forming their own jurisdictions (e.g. The Charismatic Episcopal Church).
So the picture of those who are Anglicans or Episcopalians is a varied and a changing one and shows little sign of being anything else but this for the immediate future.
Is there one word that covers the anglo-catholics, who are the majority amongst the Continuers, and the hearty evangelicals, who are the majority in the Anglican Mission in America, and the charismatics who are found in all the newer groups? Perhaps “Anglican” but then, when referring to any one congregation or any group, an adjective would be usually needed, and that is where feelings begin to be inflamed. Too many are too sensitive and thus, to in defending their own distinguishing marks, tend to major in minors.
The Latin name of the Church of England is Ecclesia Anglicana and so the use of the word Anglican is well-founded. As already noted it is the adjective or the phrase that is added to it which often raises the emotions.
The problem of name and title is seen not only in e-mail exchanges but also at every church notice-board be it erected outside the church building or in a web-site on the internet.
Does one write, “St. Mark’s Anglican Mission in America Church;” “Christ Reformed Episcopal Church;” and “St. Anne’s Anglican Church in America Church”? Or does not respect the integrity of the dedication of the building and write, “St. Mark’s Church, Anglican Mission in America;” “Christ Church, Reformed Episcopal Church;” and “St. Anne’s Church, Anglican Church in America”? In the latter case the place where the church is situated could then be the third line. So one could have, “Christ Church, Reformed Episcopal Diocese of the South, Austin, Texas.”
Perhaps one thing can be said. The fact of the variety and the fact of sensitivity over names and titles they do point to life! The Anglican Way is not yet dead!
--Peter Toon
It is becoming difficult to know how to name and describe those who profess to live within and to maintain the Anglican Way, as a form of reformed Catholicism or authentic Protestantism, and who are outside the Episcopal Church.
Obviously members of The Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., whether they be progressives or traditionalists, high church or low church, are all Episcopalians, who may also in some circumstances decide to call themselves Anglicans. At least they all, conservatives and liberals alike, claim to belong to the international family of Anglican Churches.
If we use the term “extra-mural Anglicans” (or “extra-mural Episcopalians”) for those claiming to be of the Anglican Way, but outside of the Episcopal Church, then there are problems and some folks get upset. For example, some think that by this expression those outside are being declared to be inferior to those inside and, further, it is being suggested that the outsiders are dependent upon the institution of the Episcopal Church, even though outside its walls.
So “extra-mural” as an expression from the field of university education is suspect when used of those outside the walls of the Episcopal Church.
If we use (as “The Communion Network” seems to be doing) the term “diaspora” we also run into trouble. For, as is well known, the Jewish diaspora look to Jerusalem as the origin and center of their religious existence; but, those of the Anglican Way outside the Episcopal Church and its New York City offices, claim to look away from rather than towards this modern center!
So “diaspora” as an expression from Jewish history is suspect, when used of those who do not look to the National Church headquarters of the Episcopal Church.
What term or terms then can we use?
Those who left the Episcopal Church in the late 1970s called themselves “the Continuing” Church and so we have the expression “Continuing Anglicans” or “Continuing Episcopalians.” However, before this exodus took place there had been the exodus of both those who called themselves Reformed Episcopalians in the 19th century and various small groups in the 1950s and 1960s, who objected to the social changes in the [Protestant] Episcopal Church, due to such things as the impact of civil rights.
The Continuing Anglicans from the 1970s are now represented by several groups (e.g., the Anglican Province of Christ the King, the Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of America).
In the late 1990s they all were joined by those now known as the Anglican Mission in America, which is an evangelical (and sometimes charismatic) movement looking for guidance to Archbishops in S.E.Asia and Africa. More recently we have witnessed the adoption of individual parishes, which have left the Episcopal Church, by a growing number of overseas bishops from South America and Africa. Further, overseas bishops have authorized the forming of parishes of immigrants from their region (e.g., Nigerians & Indians) in the U.S.A. as missionary arms of the home dioceses. And, finally, congregations from a pentecostalist or evangelical background have been embracing the Anglican Way and forming their own jurisdictions (e.g. The Charismatic Episcopal Church).
So the picture of those who are Anglicans or Episcopalians is a varied and a changing one and shows little sign of being anything else but this for the immediate future.
Is there one word that covers the anglo-catholics, who are the majority amongst the Continuers, and the hearty evangelicals, who are the majority in the Anglican Mission in America, and the charismatics who are found in all the newer groups? Perhaps “Anglican” but then, when referring to any one congregation or any group, an adjective would be usually needed, and that is where feelings begin to be inflamed. Too many are too sensitive and thus, to in defending their own distinguishing marks, tend to major in minors.
The Latin name of the Church of England is Ecclesia Anglicana and so the use of the word Anglican is well-founded. As already noted it is the adjective or the phrase that is added to it which often raises the emotions.
The problem of name and title is seen not only in e-mail exchanges but also at every church notice-board be it erected outside the church building or in a web-site on the internet.
Does one write, “St. Mark’s Anglican Mission in America Church;” “Christ Reformed Episcopal Church;” and “St. Anne’s Anglican Church in America Church”? Or does not respect the integrity of the dedication of the building and write, “St. Mark’s Church, Anglican Mission in America;” “Christ Church, Reformed Episcopal Church;” and “St. Anne’s Church, Anglican Church in America”? In the latter case the place where the church is situated could then be the third line. So one could have, “Christ Church, Reformed Episcopal Diocese of the South, Austin, Texas.”
Perhaps one thing can be said. The fact of the variety and the fact of sensitivity over names and titles they do point to life! The Anglican Way is not yet dead!
--Peter Toon
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Christ has ASCENDED. Alleluia & Alleluia.
In words from the Collect for the Ascension Day: “we do believe thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to have ascended into the heavens.” And from the Preface for the Ascension Day: “in their sight he ascended up into heaven to prepare a place for us; that where he is, thither we might also ascend and reign with him in glory.” Finally from the Acts of the Apostles: “While they beheld, he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight.”
The only-begotten Son of the Father was made man in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary; there he took our flesh and nature so that he Who had been One Person with one nature, now became One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. He was born and named Jesus (The LORD is our salvation). As the new Israel and the new Adam, he lived for us; he taught us; he revealed the Kingdom of God to and for us; as our Representative and Substitute he died for us, was buried, was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Apostles and disciples witnessed his crucifixion, death and burial. But no-one witnessed his bodily resurrection – except perhaps the angels. Yet many disciples with the apostles met the risen Lord Jesus in the forty days from Easter Day. They certainly knew that he was alive, yet alive in a new and exalted form.
Since no apostle or disciple would be able to see the Lord Jesus when he had ascended into heaven and when he was seated at the right hand of the Father in the glory of heaven, a select number were given the high privilege of seeing his Ascension -- of watching him, as far as the human eye would allow, ascend into heaven. On that hillside heaven was powerfully represented by the Shekinah, the cloud of glory, which the Israelites had known in the wilderness and Solomon had known at the dedication of the Temple. Further, two messengers from heaven, assuming a kind of human form, confirmed that Jesus had truly ascended and would come again at the end of the age to complete the Father’s will.
Let us be clear of mind. The Ascension of the Lord is the festival which places the crown on the previous festivals. The Lord who descended from heaven to perform his revealing and redeeming work has now ascended into heaven. The Lord, who did for us what we could never in millions of ages do for ourselves, has returned with his perfected huyman nature and body to the sphere from which he came. By his ascension the Lord shows that he is truly the resurrected One, truly the new Adam, truly the One Mediator between God and mankind.
Had there been no Ascension there would have always been the suspicion that though resurrected he was not exalted. Thus this Festival is one of great joy and encouragement and hope. No wonder the Church sings Psalm 24 on this day. The Lord of hosts, the King of glory, even the Lord Jesus Christ is not only risen but ascended and exalted. He has begun his session for us in heaven. He will send the Paraclete. Praise be unto him, the crucified, risen and glorified Son of the Father.
So as we proclaim the Ascension on this day we extinguish the Paschal Candle to signify that he is no longer visiting his disciples on earth but he is now at the right hand of the Father, our exalted Prophet, Priest and King, who through the Spirit is with and in all his faithful, baptized people, even as they are with him.
In liturgical time, we the people of God now wait ten days for the promise of the same Lord Jesus to be fulfilled, when he will send the Paraclete, the Spirit who comes in his name with his graces, virtues and gifts. We walk in faith, hope and charity, watching and praying, between The Feast of the Ascension and the Feast of Pentecost, Whit-Sunday.
--Peter Toon
The only-begotten Son of the Father was made man in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary; there he took our flesh and nature so that he Who had been One Person with one nature, now became One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. He was born and named Jesus (The LORD is our salvation). As the new Israel and the new Adam, he lived for us; he taught us; he revealed the Kingdom of God to and for us; as our Representative and Substitute he died for us, was buried, was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Apostles and disciples witnessed his crucifixion, death and burial. But no-one witnessed his bodily resurrection – except perhaps the angels. Yet many disciples with the apostles met the risen Lord Jesus in the forty days from Easter Day. They certainly knew that he was alive, yet alive in a new and exalted form.
Since no apostle or disciple would be able to see the Lord Jesus when he had ascended into heaven and when he was seated at the right hand of the Father in the glory of heaven, a select number were given the high privilege of seeing his Ascension -- of watching him, as far as the human eye would allow, ascend into heaven. On that hillside heaven was powerfully represented by the Shekinah, the cloud of glory, which the Israelites had known in the wilderness and Solomon had known at the dedication of the Temple. Further, two messengers from heaven, assuming a kind of human form, confirmed that Jesus had truly ascended and would come again at the end of the age to complete the Father’s will.
Let us be clear of mind. The Ascension of the Lord is the festival which places the crown on the previous festivals. The Lord who descended from heaven to perform his revealing and redeeming work has now ascended into heaven. The Lord, who did for us what we could never in millions of ages do for ourselves, has returned with his perfected huyman nature and body to the sphere from which he came. By his ascension the Lord shows that he is truly the resurrected One, truly the new Adam, truly the One Mediator between God and mankind.
Had there been no Ascension there would have always been the suspicion that though resurrected he was not exalted. Thus this Festival is one of great joy and encouragement and hope. No wonder the Church sings Psalm 24 on this day. The Lord of hosts, the King of glory, even the Lord Jesus Christ is not only risen but ascended and exalted. He has begun his session for us in heaven. He will send the Paraclete. Praise be unto him, the crucified, risen and glorified Son of the Father.
So as we proclaim the Ascension on this day we extinguish the Paschal Candle to signify that he is no longer visiting his disciples on earth but he is now at the right hand of the Father, our exalted Prophet, Priest and King, who through the Spirit is with and in all his faithful, baptized people, even as they are with him.
In liturgical time, we the people of God now wait ten days for the promise of the same Lord Jesus to be fulfilled, when he will send the Paraclete, the Spirit who comes in his name with his graces, virtues and gifts. We walk in faith, hope and charity, watching and praying, between The Feast of the Ascension and the Feast of Pentecost, Whit-Sunday.
--Peter Toon
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Baptism but not Holy Baptism
Why do “the Orthodox” within ECUSA actively support Progressive Doctrine & Ideology?
There is a very clear connection and route from the content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church to its major innovations in sexuality of 2003-5. And that connection is through the constant use of the text of the “Service of Holy Baptism” (pp.299ff.).
I recall vividly being present at a meeting of the Standing Liturgical Commission at the Convention of 2000, where I was giving evidence on behalf of the use of the classic BCP of 1928. It was agreed that with the local bishop’s permission and under certain conditions certain services of the 1928 BCP could be used. However, of one thing they were all clear, and the female priests there present most clear. This was that there was no substitute possible for the use of the Baptismal Service. For herein was contained what they obviously believed was an essential part of the progressive religion of the modernized Episcopal Church.
I also recall vividly watching the installation – by himself! – in the National Cathedral at Washington of Griswold as the Presiding Bishop. Here it was made very clear that in Baptism God sows the seed of all possible ministry and ministries in the Church, lay and ordained. Thus at any time a baptized person may be called to any ministry, whatever the person’s sex or “orientation.” So, once baptized, any person is a potential candidate for all ministries and the fact of having been baptized is always to be the primary consideration.
Turning to the Service itself, one reads with horror the first sentence of the introductory comments: “Holy Baptism is full initiation….” A word that belongs chiefly to the human sciences such as anthropology and culture-studies, and that was used rarely in the Early Church of Baptism but has been pushed by the liberal ecumenical movement, is here used as the primary word of description for what Baptism is all about. It is the ritual entrance into a community (a community in modern terms is the coming together of “individuals” for a common purpose).
But what kind of community? This is presented within what is called “The Baptismal Covenant”. Though there is promise to be committed to certain traditional things such as church attendance, resisting of evil and proclaiming the Gospel, the innovation is in the questions which require an affirmative reply: “Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? And , Will you strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being?”
The Passing of the Peace, which often includes much physical contact, and is used often and widely within ECUSA, is intimately related to these commitment as a kind of outward and visible form of creating a community of people who affirm one another.
Anyone who has followed the debates and resolutions of the General Convention from the 1960s through to 2003 will have no doubt of the great importance attached to these innovative commitments, which provided for not a few Conventions their titles and themes. What these commitments mean – if we listen to the General Convention and the Executive Council – is a virtually total dedication to the expanding agenda of civil and human rights and the support of all moves to affirm self-worth and human dignity. Thus anyone making these commitments within the context of the Episcopal Church is virtually committing himself/herself to all the innovations introduced by the General Convention since the 1960s, from the right to divorce and remarriage in church, through a variety of women’s and minority rights, to the rights of homosexual persons to be true to their orientation. That is a commitment to a community which is not only in the world and for the world but is also of the world, differing only from the world (enlightened culture) in using “God-language” for human ideas and activity.
In the traditional Services of Holy Baptism, the emphasis is upon regeneration, birth from above, and dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ, for membership of a heavenly communion (not an earthly, activist community) where life on earth is a pilgrimage and where as a soldier and servant of Christ one is at war with the world, the flesh and the devil in the service of the heavenly Father. Let my reader compare the content of the 1979 service with that in the BCP of 1662 or 1928 in order to get the complete contrast between the doctrine, style and emphases as well as the content of the two different forms of entrance into Christian Faith.
Of course, there is sufficient traditional material in the 1979 Baptismal Service to hide its real and true purpose, which is that of initiating people into an activist community which, in the name of God, and with some use of traditional language and means, is primarily committed to bringing or reflecting change in human society, so that in it equality, justice and peace are to be found, and war and discrimination against persons are no more.
So I am very surprised, indeed shocked, that those who claim to be “the orthodox remnant” within ECUSA use this service all the time and seem not to realize that by using it they are supporting the very agenda that they say they oppose! I am more shocked that AMiA clergy use it as well!
Let them instead use the classic Anglican Service and, if they insist that it be in so-called contemporary language, some of us will be happy to provide such a text for them immediately.
May 4, 2005, Eve of the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. The Revd Dr Peter Toon
There is a very clear connection and route from the content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church to its major innovations in sexuality of 2003-5. And that connection is through the constant use of the text of the “Service of Holy Baptism” (pp.299ff.).
I recall vividly being present at a meeting of the Standing Liturgical Commission at the Convention of 2000, where I was giving evidence on behalf of the use of the classic BCP of 1928. It was agreed that with the local bishop’s permission and under certain conditions certain services of the 1928 BCP could be used. However, of one thing they were all clear, and the female priests there present most clear. This was that there was no substitute possible for the use of the Baptismal Service. For herein was contained what they obviously believed was an essential part of the progressive religion of the modernized Episcopal Church.
I also recall vividly watching the installation – by himself! – in the National Cathedral at Washington of Griswold as the Presiding Bishop. Here it was made very clear that in Baptism God sows the seed of all possible ministry and ministries in the Church, lay and ordained. Thus at any time a baptized person may be called to any ministry, whatever the person’s sex or “orientation.” So, once baptized, any person is a potential candidate for all ministries and the fact of having been baptized is always to be the primary consideration.
Turning to the Service itself, one reads with horror the first sentence of the introductory comments: “Holy Baptism is full initiation….” A word that belongs chiefly to the human sciences such as anthropology and culture-studies, and that was used rarely in the Early Church of Baptism but has been pushed by the liberal ecumenical movement, is here used as the primary word of description for what Baptism is all about. It is the ritual entrance into a community (a community in modern terms is the coming together of “individuals” for a common purpose).
But what kind of community? This is presented within what is called “The Baptismal Covenant”. Though there is promise to be committed to certain traditional things such as church attendance, resisting of evil and proclaiming the Gospel, the innovation is in the questions which require an affirmative reply: “Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? And , Will you strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being?”
The Passing of the Peace, which often includes much physical contact, and is used often and widely within ECUSA, is intimately related to these commitment as a kind of outward and visible form of creating a community of people who affirm one another.
Anyone who has followed the debates and resolutions of the General Convention from the 1960s through to 2003 will have no doubt of the great importance attached to these innovative commitments, which provided for not a few Conventions their titles and themes. What these commitments mean – if we listen to the General Convention and the Executive Council – is a virtually total dedication to the expanding agenda of civil and human rights and the support of all moves to affirm self-worth and human dignity. Thus anyone making these commitments within the context of the Episcopal Church is virtually committing himself/herself to all the innovations introduced by the General Convention since the 1960s, from the right to divorce and remarriage in church, through a variety of women’s and minority rights, to the rights of homosexual persons to be true to their orientation. That is a commitment to a community which is not only in the world and for the world but is also of the world, differing only from the world (enlightened culture) in using “God-language” for human ideas and activity.
In the traditional Services of Holy Baptism, the emphasis is upon regeneration, birth from above, and dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ, for membership of a heavenly communion (not an earthly, activist community) where life on earth is a pilgrimage and where as a soldier and servant of Christ one is at war with the world, the flesh and the devil in the service of the heavenly Father. Let my reader compare the content of the 1979 service with that in the BCP of 1662 or 1928 in order to get the complete contrast between the doctrine, style and emphases as well as the content of the two different forms of entrance into Christian Faith.
Of course, there is sufficient traditional material in the 1979 Baptismal Service to hide its real and true purpose, which is that of initiating people into an activist community which, in the name of God, and with some use of traditional language and means, is primarily committed to bringing or reflecting change in human society, so that in it equality, justice and peace are to be found, and war and discrimination against persons are no more.
So I am very surprised, indeed shocked, that those who claim to be “the orthodox remnant” within ECUSA use this service all the time and seem not to realize that by using it they are supporting the very agenda that they say they oppose! I am more shocked that AMiA clergy use it as well!
Let them instead use the classic Anglican Service and, if they insist that it be in so-called contemporary language, some of us will be happy to provide such a text for them immediately.
(For a reasoned critique of the 1979 Prayer Book from the vantage point of the classic Anglican Way, see Louis. R Tarsitano & Peter Toon, Neither Orthodoxy Nor A Formulary…. Available on line at www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1-800-727-1928)
May 4, 2005, Eve of the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. The Revd Dr Peter Toon
Sunday, May 01, 2005
American Prayer Books – their similarities and differences
Is Rite I really the same as the BCP of 1928?
In the U.S.A. and in the previous colonies, four prayer books, bearing the title, The Book of Common Prayer, have been in official use in churches which are in communion with the see of Canterbury.
In the colonial period the edition of the BCP was the English of 1662, a book that has been translated into 150 languages. This edition is still the official Prayer Book of the Church of England and of Anglican Churches in the British Commonwealth of nations. After independence, a new edition of the BCP, specifically related to the situation of an autonomous Church in a new country, was produced and authorized in 1789. In the preface the unity with the BCP of 1662 and with the Worship, Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England are clearly affirmed.
Minor editing was done of the 1789 BCP to produce the editions of 1892 and then of 1928. There is a very distinct and clear relation in content and style between these four editions of 1662, 1789, 1892 and 1928 and it is obvious they are editions of one book.
It was the intention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1960s to produce another edition of the same book. However, as the project progressed and as a variety of factors and forces from outside and inside the Church made their impact, the original project of gentle, minimal editing, expanded into a major overhaul, and, this became a project of creating virtually a new book altogether. In other Churches of the Anglican family, similar work was going on, energized by such things as the reforms of Vatican II, the insights of the Liturgical Movement, the social and cultural revolution of the 1960s, the calls for peace and justice and the call for human rights. Yet other Churches decided to treat their new creations of services and prayers as alternatives to those of the BCP and to call their new books by such names as A Book of Alternative Services, or a Prayer Book for South Africa.
The Episcopal Church stood alone in the 1970s in calling its new prayer book,The Book of Common Prayer, when it was – by its purpose and content – very similar to the alternative prayer books in other parts of the world. Thus the Church of England had the BCP and the ASB (Alternative Service Book) while the Episcopal Church had only the one book, a book of varied services, and it chose to call this new type of book of 1976/9 by the ancient name of The BCP! Further, in adopting this new book, it declared that the previous BCP, the authentically Anglican BCP of 1928, should not any longer be in use and should cease to be the Formulary of the Episcopal Church. So adopting a new Prayer Book was also in the USA adopting a new Formulary, a new statement of what the Church believed, taught and confessed, and thus a new form of Anglicanism, set on the path of innovations as culture and society determined, was born.
So what are the chief differences between the authentic BCP of 1928 and the innovatory BCP of 1979, with its Rite I and Rite II parts?
In the U.S.A. and in the previous colonies, four prayer books, bearing the title, The Book of Common Prayer, have been in official use in churches which are in communion with the see of Canterbury.
In the colonial period the edition of the BCP was the English of 1662, a book that has been translated into 150 languages. This edition is still the official Prayer Book of the Church of England and of Anglican Churches in the British Commonwealth of nations. After independence, a new edition of the BCP, specifically related to the situation of an autonomous Church in a new country, was produced and authorized in 1789. In the preface the unity with the BCP of 1662 and with the Worship, Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England are clearly affirmed.
Minor editing was done of the 1789 BCP to produce the editions of 1892 and then of 1928. There is a very distinct and clear relation in content and style between these four editions of 1662, 1789, 1892 and 1928 and it is obvious they are editions of one book.
It was the intention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1960s to produce another edition of the same book. However, as the project progressed and as a variety of factors and forces from outside and inside the Church made their impact, the original project of gentle, minimal editing, expanded into a major overhaul, and, this became a project of creating virtually a new book altogether. In other Churches of the Anglican family, similar work was going on, energized by such things as the reforms of Vatican II, the insights of the Liturgical Movement, the social and cultural revolution of the 1960s, the calls for peace and justice and the call for human rights. Yet other Churches decided to treat their new creations of services and prayers as alternatives to those of the BCP and to call their new books by such names as A Book of Alternative Services, or a Prayer Book for South Africa.
The Episcopal Church stood alone in the 1970s in calling its new prayer book,The Book of Common Prayer, when it was – by its purpose and content – very similar to the alternative prayer books in other parts of the world. Thus the Church of England had the BCP and the ASB (Alternative Service Book) while the Episcopal Church had only the one book, a book of varied services, and it chose to call this new type of book of 1976/9 by the ancient name of The BCP! Further, in adopting this new book, it declared that the previous BCP, the authentically Anglican BCP of 1928, should not any longer be in use and should cease to be the Formulary of the Episcopal Church. So adopting a new Prayer Book was also in the USA adopting a new Formulary, a new statement of what the Church believed, taught and confessed, and thus a new form of Anglicanism, set on the path of innovations as culture and society determined, was born.
So what are the chief differences between the authentic BCP of 1928 and the innovatory BCP of 1979, with its Rite I and Rite II parts?
- The 1928 is consistent in language and style, using the traditional second person singular for both God and the human person – “thou art.” In contrast, Rite I uses the traditional second person singular, as 1928, and Rite II uses the modern form of the second singular; however, not sufficient material is in the Rite I form for this to become a consistent style and content for worship on all occasions. Significantly, Baptism is only possible in modern language.
- The 1928 is consistent in doctrine, presenting patristic orthodoxy and a reformed Catholicism in all its services. In contrast, there is deliberate variety of doctrine in the 1979 book, ranging from reformed Catholicism to modern liberal Catholicism. Thus it presents no coherent system of worship and doctrine.
- The 1928 has one form of each type of service and thus truly presents common prayer, with congregations in a province all using the same basic text/liturgy. Of course, the readings from the OT & NT and the Psalms change each morning and evening and for each Sunday the Gospel and Epistle change, but there is in principle one basic form of each liturgy. In contrast, the 1979 presents the Holy Eucharist in both the Rite I and Rite II forms and within each there is a choice of the main ingredient, the Eucharistic prayer. Thus what the 1979 presents is varied prayer, not common prayer.
- The 1928 recognizes sin for what it is before God and thus places great emphasis on the need for recognizing human sinfulness, confessing one’s sins to God in a humble and penitent manner, turning from sin and looking to God for absolution and remission of sins. Further, the confession of sins before God is seen as a necessary part of the praise of Almighty God, for it is the recognition of his holiness, righteousness and mercy. In contrast, the 1979 places much less emphasis upon the sinfulness of sin and tends to see confession of sin as something to get done quickly so that the real part of worship – celebration – can begin.
- The shape or structure of the service of Holy Communion in 1928 is what may be called the Anglican shape, or the reformed catholic structure, that which is found in the editions of the BCP from the sixteenth century through to the twentieth. In the 1979 the shape for Rite I and II is deliberately different for it claims to be based on the shape found in the liturgies of the Early Church of the third century, with the “passing of the peace” at the center. (In the 1928 the peace of the Lord is communicated by the Sacrament and then verbally with the Blessing at the end … “The Peace of God which passeth all understanding…”
- The version of the Bible used in the Eucharistic Lectionary of 1928 is the KJV except for the Psalter where it is an updated version of the Coverdale translation. The translation of various canticles and of the Psalter in 1979 is dominated by the modern principle of dynamic equivalency and also of anti-sexism (so that “Blessed is the man…” becomes “Happy are they…”).
- The content of the Eucharistic Lectionary in 1928 is ancient, going back through the Middle Ages to the late patristic era and its arrangement conveys particular biblical doctrines. The modern ECUSA Eucharistic Lectionary is based on modern ecumenical projects from the 1970s and 1980s.
- The Calendar in 1928 represents that of reformed Catholicism whereas that in 1979 represents post-1960s ecumenical agreements. For example, in 1979 the whole period of 50 days from Easter Day until Pentecost Day (Whitsunday) is called Easter and the Sundays are numbered with Easter Day as Easter 1. In 1928 only Easter Day (and week) is Easter, with Sundays afterwards being named “Sundays after Easter” until the Feast of the Ascension, after which it is “the Sunday after the Ascension.”
- The construction of Collects in the 1928 is uniform, following the pattern of the Latin Collects from the fifth century. In the 1979 book various changes are made not only in the content but also in the grammar. The most obvious and important is the change from the relative clause to the declarative clause – that is, from e.g., “O God, who knowest what we need before we ask,…” to “God, you know what we need before we ask,…” This grammatical change suggests a change in attitude and piety before God.
- In the 1928 the services of ordination constitute a separate book, The Ordinal, bound for convenience with the BCP. In the 1979 the ordination services are made part of the Prayer Book as such and they are provided only in a modern language form.
In summary, the title of the 1928 BCP is a correct description of what is inside the covers, while the title of the 1979 is not so. It was act of piracy which took the title of one thing and made it the title of a different thing. It was an act of impiety which took away from Episcopalians a consistent form of prayer which has the purpose of guiding people into living a godly life as the congregation of Christ.
Peter Toon
TRINITY SUNDAY AND THE TRINITY SEASON
One God – Yes: One God, One Person – No: One God, Three Persons – Yes: Three Persons, One God – Yes.
The Church in the West was very wise, and no doubt led by then Holy Ghost, to call the Sunday after Whitsuntide, by the name of Trinity Sunday, in order that the focus of worship and devotion be most particularly on that day the Triune LORD God himself – the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Three Persons One God, a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity.
The major festivals of the Christian Year before Trinity Sunday focus on (a) the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, his taking of our human nature and flesh as his own; (b) the sacrificial, atoning death of the Second Person for our sins and his rising again from the dead for our justification; (c) the ascending into heaven with his assumed and now glorified human nature of the Second Person to be the High Priest and King of his people; and (d) his sending, together with the Father, of the Holy Ghost to the Church in order for the Third Person of the Trinity to be the Paraclete of the Incarnate Son, a Counselor and Comforter to his sanctified people.
In the great work of divine revelation and redemption, salvation and sanctification, the Holy Trinity is wholly involved, as the Father sends the Son into the world where he assumed human nature by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and where the Holy Ghost acts in the Name of the Son. So it is most fitting and most appropriate that after the last of the great festivals -- Christmas & Epiphany, Easter, Ascension and Whitsuntide – there should be another festival pointing to the identity of the Lord our God, the God of revelation and redemption, by Whom the divine reality of the great festivals is assured.
The Early Church gave a lot of time and effort to the stating in the best possible and available terms the doctrine of the Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Ghost. That is, the rendering of the dynamic and diverse biblical teaching and insights into clear propositional terms, using particular words in specific ways. This teaching is found in the Nicene Creed (written originally in Greek and immediately translated into Latin) and in the Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult (written originally in Latin and later translated into Greek).
Key words are substance (ousia in Greek) and Person (hypostasis in Greek). And the church teaching is that there is one ousia (Divinity, Godhead) and that each of the Three Persons possesses in whole this one, unique ousia. This one substance, Godhead, is not, as it were, shared and split into three. The Father is wholly God; the Son is wholly God and the Holy Ghost is wholly God. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are homoousios (of the same, identical substance, essence & being) with each other.
The Three Persons differ from one another not in Godhead for each one is wholly God; rather they differ in terms of their relations (not relationships!) one with another. The first Person is the Father of the Only-Begotten Son; the Son is the only-begotten Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. And, of course, in the divine work of creation, redemption, providence and judgment, each of the Three has a different but not an independent role.
It is this Mystery, God as the Holy Trinity, which Mother Church asks her members ( born from above by the Holy Ghost to be the adopted children of the Father) to adore, praise and magnify on Trinity Sunday, and to do so with special effort, concentration and devotion.
Then for the rest of the Christian Year, as each Sunday also bears the Name of the same Holy Trinity, Mother Church asks her members to hear and read the Gospel, the Epistle and the Old Testament as the words to the world and the church of the same Triune God, even as She worships the Undivided and Blessed Trinity, bowing before the Father in the Name of the Son and with the presence and illumination of the Holy Ghost.
Christians will probably begin to get their terminology concerning the Holy Trinity correct when their own worship, devotion and service is truly Trinitarian. When they worship the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Ghost, and as they offer their daily lives in the Spirit, and for the sake of the Lord Jesus, to the Father to glorify his name. It is only when we know God as the Triune Lord God experientially and mentally that we are aware of the need for careful terminology both to preserve sound doctrine and to honor God for who He is and what He has revealed unto us.
One common heresy uttered by people whose devotion is not truly Trinitarian is to treat God as One God who is One Person, which is Unitarianism. However, this is often given a kind of seemingly Trinitarian character by giving to this divine Person three primary Names (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). In this form the heresy is Modalism or Sabellianism, where the One Person of God is said to reveal himself in Three Modes of Being.
Amongst more liberal Christians, the most common heresy is to present the Trinity as if it were One Divine Community wherein there is perfect Diversity, and then to see human community (and even amongst Anglican to see the Anglican Communion of Churches!) in its unity and diversity called to reflect the divine model. This is an extreme form of the doctrine of the “social Trinity” and seems to be very popular in various forms in western churches as people aim to create community locally with “peace and justice” out of diverse human individual beings.
The traditional, orthodox, dogma of the Holy Trinity, upon which all orthodox Christian doctrine and practice is based and must harmonize, is well expressed in The Book of Common Prayer (1662, 1962 Canada and 1928 USA). Here for Trinity Sunday the Collect is unique in its address, for it is offered on this day and during the week following, to the Trinity as Trinity and as One God (not as usual to the Father through the Son and with the Spirit).
And let us add:
The Revd Dr Peter Toon May 2005
The Church in the West was very wise, and no doubt led by then Holy Ghost, to call the Sunday after Whitsuntide, by the name of Trinity Sunday, in order that the focus of worship and devotion be most particularly on that day the Triune LORD God himself – the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Three Persons One God, a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity.
The major festivals of the Christian Year before Trinity Sunday focus on (a) the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, his taking of our human nature and flesh as his own; (b) the sacrificial, atoning death of the Second Person for our sins and his rising again from the dead for our justification; (c) the ascending into heaven with his assumed and now glorified human nature of the Second Person to be the High Priest and King of his people; and (d) his sending, together with the Father, of the Holy Ghost to the Church in order for the Third Person of the Trinity to be the Paraclete of the Incarnate Son, a Counselor and Comforter to his sanctified people.
In the great work of divine revelation and redemption, salvation and sanctification, the Holy Trinity is wholly involved, as the Father sends the Son into the world where he assumed human nature by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and where the Holy Ghost acts in the Name of the Son. So it is most fitting and most appropriate that after the last of the great festivals -- Christmas & Epiphany, Easter, Ascension and Whitsuntide – there should be another festival pointing to the identity of the Lord our God, the God of revelation and redemption, by Whom the divine reality of the great festivals is assured.
The Early Church gave a lot of time and effort to the stating in the best possible and available terms the doctrine of the Holy, Blessed and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Ghost. That is, the rendering of the dynamic and diverse biblical teaching and insights into clear propositional terms, using particular words in specific ways. This teaching is found in the Nicene Creed (written originally in Greek and immediately translated into Latin) and in the Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult (written originally in Latin and later translated into Greek).
Key words are substance (ousia in Greek) and Person (hypostasis in Greek). And the church teaching is that there is one ousia (Divinity, Godhead) and that each of the Three Persons possesses in whole this one, unique ousia. This one substance, Godhead, is not, as it were, shared and split into three. The Father is wholly God; the Son is wholly God and the Holy Ghost is wholly God. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are homoousios (of the same, identical substance, essence & being) with each other.
The Three Persons differ from one another not in Godhead for each one is wholly God; rather they differ in terms of their relations (not relationships!) one with another. The first Person is the Father of the Only-Begotten Son; the Son is the only-begotten Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. And, of course, in the divine work of creation, redemption, providence and judgment, each of the Three has a different but not an independent role.
It is this Mystery, God as the Holy Trinity, which Mother Church asks her members ( born from above by the Holy Ghost to be the adopted children of the Father) to adore, praise and magnify on Trinity Sunday, and to do so with special effort, concentration and devotion.
Then for the rest of the Christian Year, as each Sunday also bears the Name of the same Holy Trinity, Mother Church asks her members to hear and read the Gospel, the Epistle and the Old Testament as the words to the world and the church of the same Triune God, even as She worships the Undivided and Blessed Trinity, bowing before the Father in the Name of the Son and with the presence and illumination of the Holy Ghost.
Christians will probably begin to get their terminology concerning the Holy Trinity correct when their own worship, devotion and service is truly Trinitarian. When they worship the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Ghost, and as they offer their daily lives in the Spirit, and for the sake of the Lord Jesus, to the Father to glorify his name. It is only when we know God as the Triune Lord God experientially and mentally that we are aware of the need for careful terminology both to preserve sound doctrine and to honor God for who He is and what He has revealed unto us.
One common heresy uttered by people whose devotion is not truly Trinitarian is to treat God as One God who is One Person, which is Unitarianism. However, this is often given a kind of seemingly Trinitarian character by giving to this divine Person three primary Names (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). In this form the heresy is Modalism or Sabellianism, where the One Person of God is said to reveal himself in Three Modes of Being.
Amongst more liberal Christians, the most common heresy is to present the Trinity as if it were One Divine Community wherein there is perfect Diversity, and then to see human community (and even amongst Anglican to see the Anglican Communion of Churches!) in its unity and diversity called to reflect the divine model. This is an extreme form of the doctrine of the “social Trinity” and seems to be very popular in various forms in western churches as people aim to create community locally with “peace and justice” out of diverse human individual beings.
The traditional, orthodox, dogma of the Holy Trinity, upon which all orthodox Christian doctrine and practice is based and must harmonize, is well expressed in The Book of Common Prayer (1662, 1962 Canada and 1928 USA). Here for Trinity Sunday the Collect is unique in its address, for it is offered on this day and during the week following, to the Trinity as Trinity and as One God (not as usual to the Father through the Son and with the Spirit).
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the
confession of the true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity,
and in the power of the divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee,
that thou wouldest keep us stedfast in this faith, and evermore defend us from
all adversities, who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.
And let us add:
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost ; As it was in
the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end .
Amen.
Blessed be the kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost; now and always, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon May 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)