Monday, September 30, 2002
Iraq, War, Peace & Prayer
"Give peace our time, O Lord;
Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God." [Mattins]
The talk of possible or impending war is daily discussed in the media and especially in that of the USA and Great Britain.
There is growing genuine disagreement between well-informed and well-intentioned people not only as to whether or not there should be a war against Iraq but also by whose decision such a war should be declared.
All agree that the government of Iraq has flagrantly disregarded and disobeyed resolutions of the UN over a decade and more. All agree that this government has committed many terrible deeds against its own people and other countries. Yet all do not agree that invasion of the country, removal of its government, destruction of its weaponry, and the installation of a new government is a clear duty for either the UN or for the USA and any allies. Yet most agree that the Weapons' Inspectors should go in and get on with their work.
Those advising President Bush seem to have a vision of the world that will only become a decent place if and only if it is made in the image of American democracy and capitalism. Thus for them this glorious end justifies the means. To bring about this state of affairs for the good of mankind, intermediate acts that disregard human rights, fall below the best standards and appear unjust or cruel may be necessary - such as holding prisoners without trial & the loss of innocent life in the war against supposed terrorism.
Motives ascribed to the Bush administration for its war talk on Iraq include the following: to put in place a government that thinks and acts like a good American government; to remove a source of chemical & biological agents being used for terrorism; to eliminate any nuclear devises; to gain control of 11% of the oil resources of the world and guarantee future supply of it to the western world; to eliminate the major enemy of Israel, the friend of the USA; to be in place to handle Saudi Arabia if it descends into internal disruption & anarchy and to ensure the oil supply from there for the future.
Whether public opinion & the Congress in the USA will allow the Bush administration to go ahead with its war plans and do so alone is difficult to assess right now. It seems that they will do so if and only if there is at least some partial endorsement by the UN. Certainly it looks more and more in Great Britain that involvement in any such war by her forces will only take place if there is some minimal UN approval for it.
Those who think that the Bush administration is much too influenced by one kind of think-tank and ideology and who want the greatest pressure to be put on Iraq by the UN for the immediate future, insist that time be given to allow the Inspectors to do their job and if in the end they are not able to do it thoroughly, then it be decided then and only then what to do. They fear that war [or heavy threat of war] will cause more problems than it solve - it will ensure that the outgoing government, having little regard for its own people, does as much damage as it can when attacked, that means of mass destruction get immediately into the hands of terrorists who are standing by to receive them, that oil wells are set on fire, that many thousands of innocent people die, that a whole region will be destabilized, that the economy of the world will be greatly disturbed; that Israel may be pressured to use atomic bombs; that the cleaning up operation will be ten times more difficult than in Afghanistan (which remains very unstable) and so on. Further, they point out that USA policy is not even-handed in the Middle East for it turns a blind eye to the non-compliance with UN resolutions of Israel.
What is particularly troubling to thinking Christians is the naivete of (a) liberal church leaders who speak of peace without due regard to justice and the containment of evil, and (b) evangelical preachers who judge and pronounce upon the events in the Middle East on the basis of their subjective interpretation of difficult passages of OT & NT prophecy and apocalyptic, which they read as a kind of right-wing manifesto.
We are called upon to pray fervently for the leaders of the nations that they will be inwardly moved to desire and work for those things that in the providence of God lead us out of the threat of war and into some state of affairs where there is the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the present crisis. "Give peace in our time, O Lord."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 6:47 AM CDT permalink
Sunday, September 29, 2002
Thank you
While the expression "thank-you-ma'am" (= a bump or depression in the road) has not entered the language of public prayer and worship, the shorter expression, "thank you" did so, and at least from the beginning of the 20th century.
In fact the use of "thank you" addressed to God in some prayers, choruses and children's hymns existed alongside the strict rule [in place until the 1960s] of, "We say, 'Thou, Thee' to God and 'you' to man" (originally framed by John Wesley as a grammatical rule for schoolchildren).
Why is this?
"Thank you" is a shortened form of "I thank you" and it has been around as such in English usage for a very long time, since the middle ages. So by 1900 it was an expression that had lost its original verbal structure and functioned as an appreciative way of giving thanks to someone. The "you" had no particular stress and was not thought of as singular, plural or distinctive.
Thus singing or praying, "Thank you God for everything," or "Thank you, Lord, for saving my soul" was a simple, idiomatic modification of the Wesleyan principle and was, clearly, natural and authentic.
The move to saying, "I thank you, God, for everything," was not simple or natural or authentic. It was revolutionary when it occurred in the 1960s in the public prayer and liturgies of the major Churches, from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist. Never before had the "You-God" been addressed in public worship.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 9:07 AM CDT permalink
Saturday, September 28, 2002
Catholic Philosopher Jean-Luc Marion Points to Nihilism
(I commend to you the thoughts of this distinguished Christian philospher on an important topic --P.T.)
TRENT, Italy, SEPT. 27, 2002 (ZENIT.org-Avvenire).- Jean-Luc Marion, professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne in Paris, is the father of the so-called phenomenology of gift and a respected Catholic thinker.
Here, Marion reflects on the theme of the congress that brought him to Italy
recently: "Between Religion and Non-Religion: Fundamentalism and Indifference."
Q: Can fundamentalism and religious indifference be regarded as two sides of the same coin?
Marion: From my perspective, this coin is nihilism. The question is, if faith is a product made up by us, for our use and consumption or, instead, as I believe, if our recognition of a fact is stronger than we are, independent of us.
Q: How can one emerge from the morass of religious indifference and fundamentalism?
Marion: If religion is reduced to our own knowledge, we would only be able to choose between indifference and fundamentalism. We would use religion as a means of personal gratification, of self-identification.
Instead, if we conceive religion as a RELATION, then this implies experience -- perhaps even suffered -- of otherness; as revelation begins on the other side of the world, by the distant One who comes close to me. I cannot use it as a means of self-identification. In Christianity, the Other is the most distant Father, who existed long before me.
In sum, I think that revelation is the antidote for the double illusion of fundamentalism and indifference.
Q: But the problem arises when the other closes himself, as is typical of fundamentalism. Is it not illusory to seek an opening in the other when we meet only with blind opposition?
Marion: I think the first problem is not in opening up to those who are closed, but in the risk of our becoming as closed as they are. The first difficulty is not to convert others but that we not behave as they do. It is easy in these times to transform the other, regarding him as a "thinking object." Instead, we must experience fraternity, beginning with the experience of the otherness of God.
And what does this mean? I was able to ask myself. Even if we are very different, this difference between us men is much smaller that the greatness of God in relation to us. Our common Father is much greater than all our great differences.
Q: What contribution can philosophy make to spirituality?
Marion: I think spirituality can give more to philosophy than what philosophy can give. For example, the very concepts of otherness or of gazing do not belong to metaphysics.
Q: You are famous for your book on the phenomenology of gift, and now you will publish in France a new text on the philosophy of love. Can you tell us something about your latest research?
Marion: The principal idea is that love is not a secondary, peripheral determination of human experience, but the center. We must review, from its origin, the definition of the subjectivity of love.
In the history of metaphysics, I think in Descartes or in Hegel, the first definition of man was elaborated on the basis of the concept of knowledge of the object. The experience of feeling and of love was studied later. I think that the first question we must ask ourselves is not "what can I know in truth?" but rather "Is there someone who loves me?" This is the first question.
Q: You stress the centrality of love, despite the crisis of Western thought that still seems to be mired in the void of a nihilist crisis. Could your philosophical perspective be judged as too optimistic in relation to the historical facts and the report of events?
Marion: Optimism and pessimism are categories for imbeciles, Georges Bernanos said. Nihilism is the result of a crisis that has its origin in the definition of philosophy beginning with knowledge.
Instead, I think that the initial element of philosophy is included in its own name, it is the "desire to know." Why do we have this need? Well, precisely because we have a need to love! By definition, philosophy is a question arising from the desire to love.
To overcome nihilism, the only way open is to return, beyond knowledge, to the desire to know, the love of learning. Therefore, we must ask ourselves about the meaning of our first need to love and desire.
Q: This meeting held in a castle in northeastern Italy, has remained enveloped in mist. What is the mist that impedes contemporary man from confronting truth?
Marion: Fear of fear. We are very afraid. We all feel the weight of our culpability, of our fear. We are convinced that we have lost, although we do not know what it is that we have lost. But we are convinced that the game is over.
Q: What can help us to overcome this fear?
Marion: The only force to overcome the force of fear is the experience of being loved. The only remedy that contemporary man has to overcome fear and despair is to understand that we alone cannot give ourselves hope. ZE02092722
posted by John at 8:20 AM CDT permalink
Friday, September 27, 2002
The divorce culture, its mindset and implications
A short meditation
Since the 1970s I have been watching the development of the divorce culture of the West and in the USA particularly. In the latter especially because there it has been absorbed by many of those [who constitute millions] who call themselves biblical and orthodox and evangelical and charismatic – as well, of course, as those who are liberals.
A long time ago I organized seminars and conferences in Oxford University for the study of revival and church growth and not a few of the big names in these areas came from America and several of them stayed with me. In two of them (very well known persons) I noticed a major change in their approach to the nature of marriage and morality from one year to another and then I realized that in both cases their children had been divorced and remarried and they were having to accommodate to this fact and it was painful and embarrassing. One immediate sign was that they talked of the ideal of one man and one woman in a one flesh union for life and avoided their previous [strong] talk of the commandment of God for such! (Another friend of mine who became a distinguished professor at Fuller Seminary has recently written in favour of blessing faithful homosexual partnerships based on the rights given to divorced people to remarry.)
Then when I lived in the USA from 1990 I noticed that the experience of divorce and remarriage caused many of those directly and indirectly involved to feel obliged to begin to approve various expressions of a lowered standard of morality, doctrine and forms of expression in other areas of life . Why? I guess not to be accused by themselves or by others of being judgmental. In other words, what they knew in their minds objectively to be that which is good and right and true, they were not able always fully to support because they felt that they had themselves failed and been given a new start and so did not want to be judgmental. So they gave support to a less-than-excellent standard. And of course different personalities expressed this in different ways, with varying levels of emotion.
I also noticed that the fact of a 40 percent divorce and remarriage rate in the churches and amongst clergy was rarely spoken about openly. Not a taboo but generally there was a general consent not to mention it except when really necessary. So it was taken off the table and discussions of doctrine and morality proceeded as if this powerful culture did not exist and was not affecting many of those who sat at table. Further, it was seen not as a doctrinal but as a psychotherapy problem and so entered quietly the massive field on non-judgmental counselling. At the same time serious attention was given to the care of children affected by the family upheavals; yet, sadly, this did not always work out into good mental health.
Yet, even though it is rarely mentioned, the discussion at the table is deeply affected by it because those who are obliged to support the divorce culture due to their personal participation in it (or via family) are influenced by this reality and instinctively feel a need to justify it or themselves or both. I do not say that they engage in justification in obvious ways; but rather, in supporting other things that dumb down standards they therefore in a general way give a kind of blanket approval to lowered standards that undergird the divorce culture. In particular they tend to support experiental religion in “community” where there is much emphasis either by ceremonial or by music or both on the feelings and coming to feel good about oneself, God, relationships, one’s partner and friends.
One exception to the rule of dumbing down seems to be – in evangelical circles - that there is little toleration for homosexual activity. This is strange because one of the reasons why the homosexual lobby has advanced in society & the churches is that it has appealed much to the divorce culture and said, “If you can exchange partners to achieve happiness and self-esteem why can’t we do our own thing?”
I think that one reason for the special attention being given by the conservative end of the divorce culture to opposition of the claimed rights of homosexual persons is that these supposed rights come too close to the claimed (and generally approved) rights of divorced and remarried persons [e.g., the right to personal happiness and personal fulfilment and the right to a second and third chance if the first fails etc.] and so they have to be silenced. Thus the arguments used against homosexuality are primarily at the level of biology, that it is the male and female bodies are made to fit together in sexual union (with scriptural verses added). And the case is made (as it has been recently over New Westminster) that homosexual acts are somehow more sinful than illicit heterosexual ones because only the latter are truly natural.
If those who are against the homosexual acts were to argue for chastity and that there is no automatic right given unto any of us for personal happiness, personal, realization and the like, then this would also be an argument against much of the foundation of the divorce culture. So it is rarely used.
In short, I think that when churches are so deeply involved in the divorce culture and are using primarily psycotherapeutical means to deal with it, then their whole ability to worship God aright, to create and understand doctrine, and to exercise discipline is deeply affected in negative ways (even if not perceived as such). They are in serious danger of engaging in much self-deception and of thinking that their experientialism is experience of the living God and that their search for self-esteem and self-fulfilment is sanctification.
I submit that the Episcopal Church could never have gone so quickly (1965 onwards) towards the denial of historic doctrine and morality had it not been a church which had by the 1960s absorbed the divorce culture and maintained this union through the decades. Thousands have entered the ECUSA in the last two decades from R Catholicism because there is a welcome for divorced and remarried persons in ECUSA and ready admittance to the “Eucharist”. There is little or no marital discipline in the ECUSA these days and this is celebrated as human freedom.
And this general spiritual disease affects all of us, however far we distance ourselves from the main-line/old line churches, and whether we participate in the divorce culture directly or not. Dumbing down because of it is the way things seem to be and look like being for a long time yet for all of us.
Regrettably the Church of England seems all geared up to follow after the ECUSA!
Thanks be to GOD that He is merciful and compassionate and in his justice remembers mercy!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 5:21 AM CDT permalink
Interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey
ACNS 3146 - AUSTRALIA - 26 September 2002
For broadcast on "The Religion Report", Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 25 September 2002
Stephen Crittenden: Dr Carey, thanks for taking the time to join us. In your speech the other day, you appealed for unity and said you feared the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican communion. You seemed pretty pessimistic. Is some kind of schism between liberals and traditionalists in the church a real possibility at this time?
Archbishop Carey: Well look, no, I'm certainly not pessimistic. In my time as Archbishop of Canterbury I've seen a growing sense of unity and mission. And here at our Anglican Consultative Council we have many reports of growth and great encouragement. What I think, Stephen, I'm trying to do, is to alert people to potential problems. And so in my warnings I was pointing to a number of incidents around the communion that could undermine our growing sense of communion - of becoming a global communion. So that's why I pointed to New Westminster in Canada, to incidents in the United States, and Sydney itself.
SC: Well let's take up this particular incident in Canada, where the Bishop of New Westminster, Bishop Michael Ingham, has decided to allow the blessing of same-sex unions. Now, Bishop Ingham has subsequently replied to your speech, saying your criticisms were "inappropriate", "oversimplified" and that you did a "great disservice to truth". That's a surprisingly direct and heated response!
GC: Yes, it was really, and I was sad he didn't have an opportunity to come and talk to me about his concerns. But my response to him will take the following form: first of all I had to refer to him and his diocese by name - otherwise there was no way of people understanding what I was describing. Secondly, that I do regard what is happening in New Westminster as a very serious problem for the communion if we don't address it. For example, he says he has had regard - due regard - for the rest of us, but in fact he hasn't. He hasn't spoken to me about it, and I'm one of the key points of unity in the communion. He hasn't referred it to the primates' meeting. You see, in other words, he hasn't really consulted. Secondly, the issue of blessing raises major questions about marriage itself. It undermines -
SC: Well can I take up this question of consultation. He says his synod has been pushing him in this direction over a number of years, that his decision has only come after a long and cautious process, that he has been consultative. Does he have any choice BUT to respond to the synod and the people who've elected him, in the end?
GC: No, because as a bishop in the church he has a wider responsibility. The church appoints him to a ministry like this. He's accountable as a bishop to guard the faith, and so I think he's oversimplified it himself. He's not simply accountable to his people. Indeed, I think he's been a bit of an evangelist on this issue. He's been pushing the issue, and my warning to him is that he must consult. And I'm hoping that he might do this and take this to his House of Bishops when it meets in two weeks time. I'm hoping the House of Bishops in Canada will try to draw him back from this decision. Whether it can, I don't know.
SC: On the theological side of the issue, same-sex marriages have been introduced in a number of countries in northern Europe - perhaps they're even on the cards in New Zealand. Here in Australia, two of our four political parties at a federal level are now led by gay men. Even the military seems able to come to terms with same-sex relationships. Is the church basically holding out against an unstoppable tide?
GC: What I'd say about that is that we must respect homosexuals in the church. I've got many homosexual friends, the issue is not in any way a homophobic reaction on my part. There's a tenderness, a deep desire to understand, and to draw them into the fellowship. What I think is that we in the church - and especially I as an Archbishop - I'm responsible for maintaining our rules, and making sure we hold to unity in the Body of Christ. Now, I'd want to put it this way: If a person says to me, what is the largest mammal in the world - it's got big ears and a long nose? I would say it sounds very much like an elephant to me. If someone talks about union, fidelity, a monogamous relationship, love, blessing, I would say it sounds like marriage to me. And blessing, you see, I think is undermining our sacrament of marriage. That's why the issue is a theological one, and it's not a minor matter in the hierarchy of Christian truth. That's why it's important. But that's why, also, we must listen to one another. Homosexuals matter. We want to hear their voice in the church - that's what the Lambeth Conference said in 1998 - and I'm anxious to maintain that unity while we listen to one another. But what we mustn't do is to rush ahead of a decision that belongs to us all.
SC: You've also been critical of the Diocese of Sydney over the issue of lay presidency. Can I put it to you that, in fact, that's a far more substantial issue - it actually has the capacity to shake the very foundations upon which Anglicanism is built, to undermine the whole idea of priesthood, and indeed to demolish that whole flank of Anglicanism which it holds in common with the Catholic Church.
GC: Well, let me put it this way on that issue, that I'm very conscious about Sydney, and if it goes ahead with lay presidency. I've been in touch with Archbishop Peter Jensen, and let me say I respect his view on this very much indeed. Sydney is a strong diocese. Its commitment to social welfare is second to none, I respect it as a diocese. It is, as you say, Stephen, a very important issue, and it could undermine ecumenical relationships - undermine our notion of what it is to be a church that is Reformed and Catholic. I wouldn't want to, though, in terms of the hierarchy of truths, say it's a more serious problem than New Westminster. Both these issues are important, they're different in kind. And I think my motion, that I want to present later today, which talks about "interdependence", I think hits both issues, and so there's an evenness, an even- handedness about it.
SC: There is a tension here, isn't there, between an appeal to the universal church - to unity - and then the contrary impulse which is the local impulse?
GC: Absolutely. We've got to hold on to both, you see. And it's important for Sydney to listen to these concerns. I don't know much about this, but I would imagine that the issue of lay presidency is driven by a concern to deepen the faith, to share together, to develop new congregations -
SC: And to do away with anything that smacks of the Mass?
GC: Well, that could well be, and therefore it's anti-Catholic. And if it's anti- tradition, then it does undermine the way we have traditionally perceived being a church which at the Reformation didn't toss out the baby with the bath water. That is, I fear, what Sydney may be doing. But the other issue of homosexuality is equally important. What we've got to do, is to find ways of handling disagreement in a loving Christian way.
SC: You've raised the Reformation. The Sydney diocese is involved in a debate over the nature of Anglicanism, in fact, which goes way back to your predecessor Thomas Cranmer, who I suppose was a bit of a "proto-Calvinist". The question I've had stored up that I've always wanted to ask you: I know that you're pretty evangelical in your own views, but I don't know how important Calvinism was in your own formation. My question is: What does Calvinism have to offer in the 21st century?
GC: Well I am not a Calvinist, and wouldn't want to go along with that, and I'm not quite sure if Cranmer was a full-bodied Calvinist himself. I think what Calvinism may offer us is that God's in charge of his world. But I don't think God is the kind of God who predetermines us to destruction, Hades, or eternal life. I mean he's compassionate - that's why I suppose I'm a bit of an Arminian as well as balancing that with Calvinism. God loves us all, wants us all to share his kingdom, has a role for us all. And what we have to do in the church today is to look out at a very needy world, seek to serve it, and to show that unity we have in Jesus Christ.
SC: Archbishop Carey, what do you look back on as your great achievement in your time as Archbishop of Canterbury?
GC: Well I want other people to judge that, it's not for me to do so. I mean can look back with great pleasure on what has happened in Sudan, and our commitment to people who are persecuted in that kind of way. I think in my own country, at the way we've seen through the ordination of women to the priesthood, which I'm delighted about, and that will move on to another level before very long. We've coped with a huge financial crisis in the Church of England, Stephen, in 1992. I think we've been able to reform our structures in such a way to ensure this never happens again, and we've brought together policy and money - which I can tell you in the Church of England is quite a big thing to do. On the inter-faith level, Stephen, I've put a lot of energy into that in recent years, especially over the last year since September 11 - trying to understand Islam, and trying to make sure that we listen to one another there. And that without in any way reneging to our commitment to mission and so on, to find out what we have in common for the sake of our world.
SC: I was very interested to hear that the dialogue with Muslims was actually underwritten by the British government. That's very interesting.
GC: Well that was post September 11, when I had a call from the Prime Minister asking if I could take some initiatives in this area to convene an international scholarly seminar between Muslims and Christians, which we did at Lambeth Palace in January. And it's now going on to a second phase, when a Muslim government in Qatar - the Emir of Qatar - is organising the next one, next April. My successor, Rowan Williams, will of course be involved in that. This is very good, this is governments realising that religion must be part of the answer, as well as part of the problem, as it often is. We've got to find ways of confronting the issues that divide - and at the heart of cultural issues, you often find religious.
SC: Your successor, Rowan Williams, is not a member of the established Church of England, he's part of the dis-established Church in Wales. Are we likely do you think - and would you like to see, a move towards the dis-establishment of the Church of England? Which after all, must look stranger and stranger in a multicultural Britain, to have the Prime Minister of Great Britain approve the next Archbishop of Canterbury?
GC: Well the issue of establishment, of course, is a moving target. It's changed a lot over the last hundred years, and no doubt will change further. I'm on record as being understood to be a supporter of a reformed establishment, in which other Christian denominations, and other faiths, play a major part. But there's no great desire in England to do anything like that at the present moment. And other faiths actually do appreciate the enormous role that the Church of England plays in representing them.
SC: Do you think that the next coronation will be a very different affair from the last one?
GC: Well it will be, obviously. We've got to take into account a changed England, and that of course goes without saying.
SC: Would you like to see some kind of ecumenical service?
GC: Well it will be definitely ecumenical, I'm sure, when the time comes. It won't be part of my responsibility, but it will be the Archbishop of Canterbury's, whoever's in charge then, whoever is the Archbishop of Canterbury will obviously have a very significant role in formulating that service.
SC: Could I turn, finally, to the momentous events in the Middle East, where the Anglican Church has a long history. The Christian churches have spoken out against another war on Iraq with almost one voice. Public opinion in Britain, and in Australia, is strongly opposed. What do you think about the way that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has been trying to talk the British public into the war?
GC: I think Tony Blair has been trying to help the American government to realise that an isolationist policy is doomed. Reading between the lines, I think he's been playing his cards very skillfully. But as you have intimated, I am among those who would be very wary of any military action in the light of Saddam Hussein's willingness to allow the weapons inspectors to go in. I see no grounds whatsoever for taking any military action. It will undermine - well, I think it would deepen the crisis of terrorism in the world. I think it would be a shocking thing if the Americans went in on their own without the backing of the United Nations, and we need to be convinced that Saddam Hussein actually poses a real threat.
SC: Over the past week we have heard the United States President, George W. Bush, disparagingly compare the United Nations with the League of Nations. At the weekend, we saw the emergence of what seems to be a new American doctrine, which says that America has no intention of ever relinquishing its military pre-eminence. Now, the international community has spent 50 years trying to develop a co-operative framework of law to overcome the old framework of militarism. Is America coming close to junking all that hard work?
GC: All I do is refer to the sermon I preached on September 11 in New York - that even though America has the might, and has the means, what I think constitutes a great nation is the moral quality to say, even though we have the might and the means to do this, we have to take into account what should be done, what ought to be done as a great nation. And I hope America will realise as the only superpower now, it really must use its power in a way that's going to build up the world, and to support the United Nations. So that would be my response.
SC: Just finally, Dr Carey, to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Israeli army is now demolishing Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramullah. There's talk of the need for a new generation Palestinian leaders. What do you think of this approach?
GC: Well honestly, I'd want to say, Stephen, that I'm closely in contact with the situation in the Holy Land, I grieve at the suffering of the Palestinian people, but again, we've got to be even-handed. The Israelis have suffered a great deal, we must condemn suicide bombers, and we must never say that the plight of the Palestinians justifies this terrible thing. But what we also have to say: the Palestinians deserve and should have a valid and proper state of their own, and we must work on that. If America is going to use its great influence, it ought to be doing so in the Middle East, and condemning the pressure on Chairman Arafat at the present moment, which is actually not only undermining his office, not only undermining him, but making it impossible to deal with the roots of terrorism within his own ranks.
SC: Would his forced removal be a mistake?
GC: Well let me put it this way, Stephen. I'm not a politician. We've got to trust the politicians with these decisions. What I can do as a Christian leader, is to find ways in which I can support the people on the ground there. And, indeed, I've been actively involved in what is called the Alexandrian Declaration of Peace between the religious leaders in the Holy Land. We're having a meeting in a couple of weeks time in Lambeth Palace. I'm taking a lot of responsibility for that. At the heart of it is the issue of religion again. We can make a contribution there, and hope that the politicians will follow our good example, and come up with a declaration that will lead to a lasting peace in a land that's beloved to all Christians and people of all faiths.
SC: Archbishop Carey thank-you for your time.
posted by John at 5:19 AM CDT permalink
Official Anglican Web Portal launched by the Anglican Consultative Council
Subject: ACNS3144 [ACC12] Official Anglican Web Portal launched
ACNS 3144 - ACC12 Media Release No 14 - 24 September 2002
[Hong Kong - ACNS] A major expansion of the Anglican Communion web site, published by the Anglican Communion Office, London, was announced on 23rd September at the 12th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. The web site will become the Official Anglican Web Portal and be a comprehensive source for news, photos, information, and educational resources and have links to other official Anglican web sites around the world.
ACC members gave the news of the Anglican Web Portal a rousing welcome and enthusiastic endorsement. The Revd Canon Emmanuel Adekola, Director of Communication for the Church of Nigeria, was also present and offered a powerpoint explanation of CHONACONet, the latest development in 'global private telecommunications.'
The new portal will be available soon at www.anglicancommunion.org and is expected to improve the way information about the life and work of Anglicans is accessed on the worldwide web. Members and leaders in the Church, the public and the media will be able to use the portal to locate or request information about the worldwide Anglican Communion and its 38 primarily national Provinces with 70 million members.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, who presided at the portal launch, was praised and thanked by the Revd Canon Oge Beauvoir of the Parish of Trinity Church, Wall Street, New York, as a model for Anglican leaders by the way he has used email and the web to stay in touch with issues and colleagues during his extensive travel and global ministry. Canon Beauvoir said, "He has been a model by his avid and even experimental use of the internet as a tool for research and intercommunication in his own ministry."
Canon James M Rosenthal, Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion, said, "The web portal will allow us to provide much more than web pages. It will be the hub of a computer networking system on the Internet that will offer online collaboration tools for church related committees and staff; private email based discussion groups for bishops and other leaders; and an enlarged online shop for books and materials about the life and mission of Anglicans."
This telecommunications initiative is being funded by a two year grant from the Parish of Trinity Church, Wall Street, New York City, in response to requests and consultations from and with web specialists and communication officers from Anglican Provinces and Dioceses, many who already are developing web sites in their parts of the world. They have cited the need for a coordinated and comprehensive web portal, a "Window on the Web," to represent and serve the Anglican Communion.
The Trinity Grants program has supported innovative telecommunications ministries since 1985, recognizing before many others, the potential for using emerging technologies to further the Gospel and the mission and ministry of the Church, according to the Revd James G Callaway Jr, Trinity Parish Deputy for Grants.
The Revd Clement W K Lee from the Office of Communication in the Episcopal Church, USA, and an adjunct staff member of the Anglican Communion Office is convener of the working group developing the new portal. The group, doing most of its work online, includes Canon James Rosenthal and Mr Christopher Took, from the Anglican Communion Office, the Revd Dr Joan Butler Ford (California), Dr Dennis Johnson (Washington, DC), Mr Tom Lopez (New Mexico), Mr John Allen (New York), the Revd Canon Emmanuel Adekola (Abuja, Nigeria), and the Revd Peter Moore (Gilgandra, Australia).
ENDS
(From the ACC News Team: Dan England, Margaret Rodgers, James Rosenthal)
posted by John at 5:11 AM CDT permalink
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Church, church & community (not forgetting relation, relatedness & relationships)
Let us consider this sentence:
"I went to church in the hill-top community where my friend lives and in the church service, as the local assembled church, we prayed for the Church militant here on earth."
Here we have "church" [Greek kyriakon] referring to the local temple or building consecrated to the worship of God in the name of a Saint or an Apostle - e.g., St Thomas Church. And this church may be further identified as e.g., "St. Thomas Church, Embdon, Diocese of Havercroft."
Then we have "community" (Latin word not Greek) referring to a geographical area where there is a village or town where people live in an ordered way, bound together by basic laws, customs and culture. We have called this Embdon. Here there are relations and relatedness of blood, kith and kin. There are relatives who may or may not like each other.
Finally we have the "Church" that is prayed for - the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church [ekklesia] which is the people of God, the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Ghost - and the local assembly as a microcosm of the former, which is also the local "church". Here there are relations established by grace, between man and God and between men in Christ Jesus unto salvation. Further, where people know God experientially there are those high moments of relationship (experienceds relation) when the Spirit witnesses with the human spirit.
[Let us admit that the meaning of the word church as both building and assembled people can be confusing, but this usage is very long established and we live with it.]
When we start to call the local or the universal expression of the Ekklesia of God by the name of "community" then we can easily get confused.
There are already 90 or so images/models/metaphors of the Church of God in the New Testament (see Paul Minear, Images of the Church in the NT) and community is not one of them in the translations adopted in all the older and in most modern versions of the Bible.
Why then has community become so popular since the 1960s?
Translations of the documents of Vatican II made much use of the word [which has a long history in Catholicism due to the calling of Monasteries and Convents by the name of Communities) and it stuck! Communion was used of the spiritual union between the Lord and his Church and community was sometimes used (along with other words) for the human membership of the Church, usually in once place, with its property.
But for Protestants the use of community came more and more into use because of the desire to combat what was seen as excessive individualism. One of the great emphases of the liturgical movement was the participation of all people in the Liturgy and community was used as the word to indicate that "individuals" were united as one in the liturgy in a shared celebration. Once the word got into general church usage then it was taken up by bible translators and preachers and church newsletters etc. The Creed was changed from "I believe" to "We" in order to force this sense of "community" (forgetting that the "I" of the Creed is the Body of Christ addressing its Head as one membership, thus in the 1st person singular).
But in the wider world, community is now used in a very expansive way - the old usage as of an inhabited area with laws and customs remains (as in my public prayers on Sunday!) but we also have the word being used for the associations of people/nations of like mind or like profession - community of scientists, social-work community, medical community, international community of the United Nations, and now also community of pets. In the modern usage a community is not necessarily stable but lasts as long as that which unites is prominent and is accepted by all.
So if used of a group of people who meet for worship, it is an imprecise word (for the use of it in modern English gives no strong, specific content) and points at most to people of like mind meeting for a common purpose and seeking to help each other in appropriate ways.
It seems to me that when in the Bible and in Christian tradition there is such a bountiful supply of words to use of the assembly of the baptized for the worship of the LORD God through His Son on the Lord's Day, it is regrettable that we simply imitate the fashion of the times and go for a word that at best relates primarily to the subjective aspects of religion.
And if we call the assembly/congregation/ekklesia by the name of "community" what do we call the Irish neighbourhood, the Afro-American neighbourhood, the Mexican quarter and so on?
And if we translate "koinonia or communio" as community then how do we distinguish the invisible binding power of the Holy Ghost from the external ordered societies of human beings?
Of course it is not heresy in normal circumstances to call the assembly of the faithful by the name of Christian community. But it is to add further imprecision to the general imprecision of modern Christian discourse.
In the edition of THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH that I have the only use of "community" in an entry is of the name of a religious society that has property (monastery & college).
In the very recently published edition of THE NEW SCM DICTIONARY OF LITURGY AND WORSHIP (2002) there is no article or entry on community of any kind.
Let us speak of the Church of God wherein people are related to Christ Jesus unto the Father, and to each other, in fellowship and by grace, and that this Church is IN the world, FOR the World , but not of the world (local community). Yet She exists for the world!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 7:20 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Social Justice & Rights & Christian Discourse
Churches talk about social justice as if it were obvious as to what it is and how it is justified. One of my correspondents thinks that the expression SOCIAL JUSTICE is not appropriate for Christian discourse because,
* It implies that bad things that happen to people (such as poverty) are always the result of injustice on a grand and collective scale, rather than as a result of wrong actions (either by the victim himself or by some other individual person), simple bad luck, or the human condition.
* It is rooted in the "rights culture", which is essentially first-person focused (rights demanded for oneself) rather than second-person focused (loving one's neighbour) and is therefore the antithesis of Christianity.
* It is part of a way of thinking which seeks to build God's kingdom here on earth - surely a futile, if not blasphemous, ambition? - at the expense of true Christianity, which is about winning hearts, minds and souls.
NOW I invite you to read this short piece by an American professor of economics which states something similar.
September 25, 2002
Right versus wishes
We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.
At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.
Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from?
If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.
Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"
As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."
By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.
If you're a Christian or simply a moral human being, you should be against these so-called rights. After all, when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure that he didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there is a majority vote in Congress. Moreover, I'm sure that if you were to have a heart-to-heart conversation with God and asked him, "God, is it OK to be a recipient of stolen property, property that Congress has taken from another American?" I'm guessing He'd say that being a recipient of stolen property is also sinful.
Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.
Contact Walter Williams | Read his biography
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
RIGHTS TALK HAS TO BE BALANCED BY DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TALK!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 11:20 PM CDT permalink
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Community of Faith & Household of Faith
Is the use of "Community" for the assembled congregation of Christians/the church a right and good use of this word?
Let us look at the RSV & NRSV to see how they use "community."
1.The RSV does not use the word ( as does not the KJV & RV & ASV). 2. The NRSV uses it 21 times (9 times in Deuteronomy; 2 times in Amos; 5 times in the Apocrypha; and 5 times in the NT). The NT references are John 21:23; Acts 6:2, 5 & 25:24; Ephesians 6:23.
If we examine the N T use we find the following:
John 21:23; the Greek word is adelphoi (literally brethren) and this is an example of inclusivism and bad translation. RSV has brethren.
Acts 6:2 & 5; the Greek word is plethos (literally multitude) and refers to the whole body of the disciples whom the12 called together. RSV uses first "body" and then "multitude." Community is hardly the best translation. The REB has "whole company" and the NJB has "whole assembly."
Acts 25:24; the Greek word is again plethos and refers to the local Jewish people. RSV has "whole Jewish people."
Ephesians 6:23; the Greek word is adelphoi (literally brethren) and the RSV has brethren. Again as with John 21:23 the NRSV is into inclusivism and seeking not to upset feminists.
Of these five only the use at Acts 25:24 is in line with the common usage in standard English (British and American) where a community is a recognizable people living in an area with their own structures and organizations (e.g., a village, or the Jewish part of a city, or the Irish part/descendants of Chicago, or the Mexican areas of San Antonio, or the Cuban parts of Miami etc etc).
Yet there has developed in modern liturgy and modern theology the very strong habit of referring to the gathered Christian congregation for worship as "community." As so used it is difficult to distinguish the gathered church as being in the world, but not of the world and yet for the world from the various communities from where its members come.
And when we follow another modern habit and speak of "community/communities of faith" then we enter into subjectivism. We are saying that what unites this people is something that is within them and which they recognize as all of them having in some degree or another.
In the NT the Church is described in many ways, one of which is Household of God (not Household of Faith). This image of the Church, along with such others as Temple of the Holy Ghost, Body of Christ, People of God and so on, takes us out of subjectivism into talk that gives objective status in true reality to the Church.
The constant talk of the Church as community and the equating of the N T supernatural reality of "koinonia" (fellowship or communion) with community are assisted by a variety of factors which include:
1. translations into English from German where community is preferred when the meaning has also reference to communion 2. usage within medieval Catholicism and since of community to describe monasteries etc where there is territory involved 3. the desire to combat modern individualism and bring people together as a working whole with structures (this also leads to the use of "we" in creeds) 4. the general dumbing down of the supernatural aspects of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God to make the church as one group alongside other groups in this world.
If the Church is not OF this world but is IN this world and exists for mission TO and FOR this world then to use the word of it that is already used of local groups, ethnicities, and the like is to confuse people.
Further, to speak of the Church as the Community of faith is to make it merely and only a group whose experiential an subjective experiences mark it out from others!
There are in all 90 or so images/metaphors/pictures of the Church in the NT and community as understood in standard English is not one of them! We need to be able as the people of God to pray for the communities from which our people come and we need to be able to evangelise these communities so that the converts can enter into the fellowship of Christ's Body, the Church & Household of God the Father.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 5:26 AM CDT permalink
AVOID RELATIONSHIPS
It is amazing how some words come into everyday speech and then having arrived there seem to be indispensable. Such is RELATIONSHIP.
Until the mid-20th century it was comparatively rare. It was the word used to denote the experience of, or the enjoyment of, a relation; and a relation [the key word] was a permanent kind of association or union or partnership between persons, even as a relative is a person to whom one is bound for ever by ties of blood or marriage.
In fact relation [Latin relatio] was hallowed because it is the word used in classic Christian theology of that which with the one divine nature unites the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Since these relations between Father & Son, Father and Holy Ghost, Son and Holy Ghost are eternal, ineffable and infinite, then relation was used in human affairs of permanent unions and links, not temporary ones.
Since World War II, one usage of relationship as an empirical reality that accelerated its entry into common vocabulary was that of avoiding speaking of fornication or of adultery by saying that "he was having a relationship." This took any moral judgment out of what he was doing.
Now, it has come to refer to be used indiscriminately of any kind of association or union or partnership or cooperation or being alongside of persons, organisations, countries, pets and so on. It is a word (like
values) that has no moral content and is merely intended to be descriptive of an association that can be broken at any time by one or other of the participants.
Listen to the Radio for an hour any day any time and you will be sure to hear its use in all kinds of ways - I have just done so with the BBC Radio with references to the broken relationship between the USA and Germany and of relationships between person well known in them media and of same-sex partnerships.
Try to go for a day without using the word and you will see how common it is!
Why should we avoid it in Christian discourse, especially evangelism, preaching and teaching and language in worship?
1.To speak of a relationship with God is to demean God, his covenant of grace and ourselves. The relation into which we enter through baptism/faith/conversion and signified through justification is not an ephemeral, temporary one but is an eternal being "in Christ" unto the Father. Even if we are faithless HE holds on to us for the covenant of grace is sure. The Bible provides us with many words by which to speak of this holy relation and we do not need to use the word relationship.
If we offer people a relationship with God we are offering them something that bears no relation to the biblical data and to the Christian doctrine of the new covenant!
2. To speak of marriage as a relationship (which most of the popular books and sermons seem to do so) is to demean God, the institution of marriage and ourselves. Marriage is a relation, an order within creation, and is intended by God's design to be permanent, not merely as long as one of the spouses feels like it. If we offer people a relationship via marriage we offer them the divorce culture. Again there is a sufficient supply of words available in the Bible and Christian tradition to describe marriage and we do not need to use relationship.
3. To speak of relationships between the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is to speak heresy and is to blaspheme! That which binds the Three together and which also distinguishes their separate Personhoods are relations of Holy Order and are more than eternal and more than infinite. Since the time of St Augustine the Church has called these RELATIONS.
Sept 24,2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 5:25 AM CDT permalink
Presiding Bishop John Paterson elected Chairman of Anglican Consultative Council
ACNS 3140 - ACC12 MEDIA RELEASE NO 8 - 21 September 2002
In the closest of votes, the Primate of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and Bishop of Auckland, the Most Revd John Paterson was elected chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) during its 12th meeting in Hong Kong on 21 September 2002. The other nominee was Professor George Koshy of India, a lay person.
The vote was 34/33 in favour of the Primate Paterson over Professor Koshy. Both candidates have been long-serving ACC members with Bishop Paterson just completing his term as vice-chair. There was one spoiled ballot.
Principal nominations speeches were made by Archdeacon Winston Halapua for Bishop Paterson and by Bishop James Tengatenga for Prof Koshy.
Great care was taken by Mr John Rea, head of the nominations committee, to instruct ACC members in the voting mechanics. Voting was supervised by the ACC Chancellor, the Revd Canon John Rees.
Following the announcement of the election, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey led the assembly in prayer with both Bishop Paterson and Prof Koshy at his side.
The new chairman will be installed at the final Eucharist of the meeting on Wednesday, along with the new vice-chairman, to be elected early next week.
The ACC meeting continues until 26 September. On Sunday the 22nd the group will worship at Holy Trinity Parish, Kowloon, with Archbishop Carey preaching and the Archbishop of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui presiding. In the afternoon the ACC members will join local church members in dedicating a new home for the elderly, after which a Chinese Autumn Festival celebration will be held for the international guests.
posted by John at 5:24 AM CDT permalink
Monday, September 23, 2002
The BBC, David Moyer and Who is a Christian
On Sunday, 22 September, I listened to the programme on BBC Radio 4 entitled 'Sunday'. It is the weekly BBC religious affairs programme and goes nationwide to presumably millions of listeners in Great Britain and abroad.
The Bishop of PA and David Moyer were interviewed as were also two other 'experts' who commented on the Rosemont affair and its relation to the Anglican Communion.
The Bishop said in a clear matter of fact way that he had followed the Canons of the Episcopal Church and that, as he understood them, it was his duty to follow the path they lay down. He had no alternative and these canons took their course with the result of the removal of David from the Ministry.
David Moyer said that he had advised the Bishop not to come to his parish but that he had not forbidden him. He explained that if the Bishop had turned up on a Sunday he would have invited the congregation to go with him into the church hall for 'Mass' and leave the church to the Bishop and whoever stayed. When asked, 'Why?' he replied that he regarded the Bishop as NOT a Christian. Later he accepted that he had wanted at least in part to create a crisis and bring to a head the deep problems in the ECUSA. Thus the Rosemont affair was a kind of microcosm of the whole Church in crisis.
The statement that the Bishop is not a Christian is very puzzling to most British people - at least if the people I know are representative.
In old respectable British society, Christian - Gentleman. Anyone who plays cricket and does not eat his peas at dinner off a knife is necessarily a Christian - so for David to say that Bennison is not a Christian might well be translated here as "He is no gentleman"! Yet such a viewpoint is rare these days. In the modern multi-religious society people ask, 'If the American bishop is not a Christian is he a Muslim or Hindu or Sikh or Jew or is he an Atheist or an Agnostic or something like that?'
I think that David is choosing the wrong explanation by saying the Bishop is not a Christian. The Bishop was baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity and confirmed in the same. He was validly ordained as a deacon and presbyter and probably also as a bishop. So by all the outward signs (and what else can one go by when speaking in a secular yet multi-religious and multi-ethnic society) he is a Christian and furthermore he believes and says that he is. Any law court would assume that he is [i.e. at least a nominal Christian].
What David means, I presume, is that he is a nominal Christian who does not confess the basic tenets of orthodox Faith and Morality (David told the BBC that the Bishop does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the Bible as the inspired Word of God etc.). Now there have been many liberals who have held such views in all the Churches; but, in terms of a contrast with Muslim and Jew they are Christians in that they have been baptized and they do not leave the Church. So they are heretics or backsliders or apostates according to traditional orthodox standards. Yet in the modern Church, especially the ECUSA, heresy & apostasy are normal for much of the
time and for many people, and so it is not wise to call them heretics or apostate in public for it makes little or no sense there.
The point I am making is that to say the Bishop is not a Christian is not the kind of statement that makes much sense - in fact it sounds preposterous - in a secular context. As far as the world is concerned there is an internal dispute in the church amongst its members between those who believe this and those who believe that.
If our stories from within ECUSA are to be taken to the secular press (in contrast to Christian radio stations) and if we are to be willing to be interviewed (for it is our choice whether we are) then we need to find a way to state the problem which makes sense in the secular context. If we cannot it is best I think to keep quiet.
The more I ponder this story & dispute, the more I realize that it is nearly impossible to make sense of it in secular terms, other than a fight to the end of two men, both of whom have strong views, one of a traditional kind and one of a radical liberal kind, and one who is very critical of the new religion of ECUSA and one who has embraced the new religion of ECUSA. At the human level the Bishop is seen by many as justified for it is well accepted that the CEO a manager cannot tolerate indefinitely one who does not keep to the company rules.
Since I share much of what David believes, teaches and confesses I heartily sympathized and continue to sympathize with him. Yet I think his explanation that the Bishop is not a Christian is not helping his cause at least on THIS side of the great Pond.
He needs to say - we need to say - in simple terms that the Bishop has said and done things which by their very nature make him into a person whom it is unreasonable and impious for priests to obey. But to do this in a Radio Interview may be impossible due to time factors. The case of Bp Bennison is so much easier to present in a short time - here is a disobedient priest with whom I was patient for a long time and in the end I had to apply the canon law to him.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon Sept 23, 2002
posted by John at 9:56 PM CDT permalink
Harvest Festival, English style?
Harvest Festivals have been so much part of the Church of England scene for a century or so that it is difficult to believe that it was only in 1862 that permission was granted in the Church of England for there to be a special service that served as a harvest festival. Thus virtually all the hymns sung at harvest festivals were written in the Victorian era.
The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 contains no provision for such a service for it was assumed that prayer for the crops and thanksgiving for the harvests were part of the general annual rhythm and cycle of prayer and praise.
In England the origin of modern Harvest Festivals is only in the 19th century and seems to be associated with giving a religious dimension to the long-standing and popular harvest home thanksgivings (the celebration in food and drink and dance) on the farms, in the villages and market towns when the various crops were safely gathered in. Of course the clergy had gone to these for centuries and offered prayer when asked.
From 1862 until the arrival of liturgical revision and the new liturgical freedoms in the 1970s a harvest festival could be held on any day of the week and had to make use of and adapt officially approved forms of service (e.g., Morning or Evening Prayer with appropriate Bible readings and extra collects). The proposed revision of the BCP that was rejected by Parliament in 1928 did contain a Collect, Epistle and Gospel for such a festival if it were to involve Holy Communion. In the new prayer books of the late 20th century and early 21st, provision is made for a Harvest Festival but it is not a required service.
In the USA, the American edition of the BCP provides for Harvest Festival on a specific date – Thanksgiving Day in November. This is a major holiday (moreso than is Christmas) and had its origins in the thanksgiving of the Pilgrims in New England after they had survived a year in America in 1621.
I do not think that the intention in 1862 was that these local Festivals in the C of E would be held on a Sunday. Rather they would be held on the day of the local celebrations of harvest-home, and the people would go from church to feast and jollity. The move to have the religious service on a Sunday as the major service of the day, with the decoration of the church as if it were a major Christian festival -- and then a meal/feast on a weekday -- is relatively new and, I suspect, against the historic Christian understanding of Sunday worship.
If we look back through history, the Jewish Church, being a nation, people and territory, did have major festivals to celebrate the ingathering of harvest (e.g., Pentecost). This was not so of the Church of Jesus Christ for she understood the New Covenant to be of the supernatural order and so all her major festivals are a celebration of one or another aspect of the Incarnation of the only-begotten Son of the Father and the Acts of Redemption from sin and into eternal life.
This is not to say that the Church paid no attention to this world and the necessary harvest each year for bodily sustenance.
In the West for example, November 11, the feast of St Martin of Tours, was celebrated as a harvest thanksgiving, the ingathering of the harvest. Apart from attendance at Mass, it was essentially secular in character being a public holiday in many areas. [It was this celebration continued in the Netherlands after the Protestant Reformation that the Pilgrim Fathers experienced there and took with them to New England, there to become the origin of Thanksgiving as a holiday in the USA.]
In England, August l, was a feast of thanksgiving for the firstfruit of the grain harvest and was called Lammas [Loaf Mass] Day. Bread made from the new corn was presented at the Mass and solemnly blessed. This custom ceased in the 16th century (a few tried to revive it in the 19th century but the new harvest festival made their attempts redundant).
There is, as already noted, within the classic BCP, used from 1549 through to the 1970s in all parishes of the C of E and abroad, rogation days and specific prayers of thanksgiving for harvest as well as prayers for the growth of the same. These prayers are for use on Sundays and weekdays as required. Then there were/are local customs of going out from the church to bless the fields, animals and crops.
Where the modern Sunday harvest festival of the C of E departs from Christian tradition is that it takes over the major Sunday service and thereby a celebration of the old creation is made central on the Lord’s Day, which is intended to be Always a day which is the festival of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Happily American thanksgiving day is never on a Sunday.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 6:12 AM CDT permalink
Orthodox - is it any longer a useful adjective?
We seem to know what is orthodoxy and who is orthodox; yet "we" are not one unit but many units and thus there are multiple definitions of orthodoxy and differing interpretations of who is orthodox.
This is perhaps inevitable when the Church scene at its more conservative end is that both of competitive denominations/jurisdictions and competitive groups within a denomination.
Because of individualism begin taken as a given in Western society, we speak of this or that person and this or that group being "orthodox." Yet there is no commonly agreed definition of orthodoxy.
Of course, if we accept that older patristic definition of orthodoxy, as that is still embraced in the Orthodox Churches and by the Roman Catholic Church, then we say that orthodoxy is first and foremost an attribute or quality of the true Church and that a member thereof is orthodox because as a baptized believer he has embraced the true Faith, believed, taught and confessed by the true Church. Here there is no individualism as such for the attribute belongs only to the Church as Church and is applied only to faithful members thereof. [One may find a similar approach in the Caroline Divines of the C of E in the 17th Century.]
From my observations it is also true that we Anglicans or Episcopalians change our definitions of orthodoxy in order to serve the cause that we have embraced. For example, you will hear Forward in Faith members defining orthodoxy to include the Threefold Ministry as being by Christ's design a male-only Ministry. Then when they want to praise certain Bishops in the AAC, who ordain women, but who have been kind to F in F members they will call them orthodox.
This implies that orthodoxy has a minimal and maximum definition and perhaps also that the minimal is what is necessary to eternal salvation in Christ Jesus while the maximum is the listing of everything that should be believed in a perfect situation. It may also imply a hierarchy of truths wherein the all-male Ministry may not be in the top ten.
I have never read a definition of orthodoxy from either F in F or from the AAC. But neither have I from the AMiA. The Prayer Book Society has always assumed that those who use the classic Book of Common Prayer according to its internal spirit and rubrics will be orthodox at least in intention.
Maybe in a pragmatic world and for practical purposes, it is best that there is not any clear and final definition of orthodoxy for without such there can be a fluid situation when political necessity requires cooperation with & affirmation of the other (or the opposite!). So one can move from a minimal to a maximum and from a maximum to a minimal as occasion requires.
When it comes to bringing together (in convergence & congress and then into comprehensiveness in a National Anglican Church) the various schools and expressions of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism that claim to be or aspire to be orthodox, obviously the very minimal definition will have to be used first of all in order for there to any possibility of the meeting of minds and the beginnings of conversation and cooperation. That is, a general acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, the truth of the Creeds, the necessity of the two dominical Sacraments, the Three fold Ministry and the historic Formularies of the Anglican Way (classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles). This acceptance would not be an agreement as to the interpretation of these Standards but the granting that they are basic to what has been and is Anglicanism. Thus it would leave room at the start of dialogue for those who believed that women were to be within the Threefold Ministry and for those who wanted to use modern prayer books (but with the classic BCP as the standard of worship & doctrine) and so on and so forth.
In the end, orthodoxy (minimal or maximum) as right belief, without the holiness of the members of the beauty, reverence of worship and warm-hearted evangelization, is cold and hard. In fact genuine orthodoxy embraces worship, doctrine and discipline.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor, England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 6:10 AM CDT permalink
Saturday, September 21, 2002
Values or Virtues
I do not intend to write about my friend, David Virtue, or his web news service, Virtuosity, but about Virtues (plural) as an ethical theme!
A well known best-selling book entitled THE BOOK OF VIRTUES was originally intended to be called, THE BOOK OF VALUES. Then the distinguished author, William Bennett, was told by friends (including I think Gertrude Himmelfarb, who has written eloquently on Victorian Virtues) that what he had written about was "Virtues" not "Values" and the publisher agreed to change the title.
Mrs Margaret Thatcher is well known for her espousal of "Victorian Values" [e.g., hard work, thrift, intelligence, sobriety, fidelity, self-reliance, self-discipline, respect for the law, devotion to family and community, cleanliness, God-fearing and so on] but according to her autobiography she originally spoke of "Virtues" and the Media changed the word to "Values" and she did not try to change it once it had taken off, as it were. So she is associated with the rightness of "Victorian Values" even though the Victorians themselves most carefully and distinctly referred to "Virtues." They did not use "Virtues" in its plural form.
But there is a big difference (if we use words aright) between values and virtues.
From Aristotle we get the cardinal virtues - wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage, together with prudence, magnanimity, munificence, liberality and gentleness. From Christian tradition we get faith, hope and love/charity as the theological virtues. The classical philosophical, together with the Christian tradition, saw moral standards and law as objective and so virtues belonged to objective reality and standards. Virtues were very serious things possessing authority (for they were anchored in objective reality).
In contrast, "values" as a plural noun was first used by F Nietzsche not as a verb meaning "to esteem something" (e.g., I value his contribution) and not as a singular noun meaning the measure of a thing (i.e., the economic value of money or labor or property) but describing the attitudes and beliefs, moral and social, of a given society.
Max Weber the sociologist took up this use of "values" and so it moved from sociology to ordinary speech, accelerated into common conversation by the radical & revolutionary 1960s. This use of "values" came with the general assumption that all moral norms and ideas are entirely subjective and relative for they are mere customs, conventions and mores, that belong to different societies at different times in their history and experiences.
Thus for sociologists it can be a most useful word!
However, it is really disastrous for Christian discourse and teaching when the word values is used in such expressions as "biblical values"!!! Regrettably American and British Evangelicals seem wedded to this and like expressions and do not seem to realize that they undermine the whole basis of the norms of God in creation and in redemption by using such a word. The only biblical values that there are - and this is a sobering thought - are those condemned by prophet, Messiah and apostles in the OT and NT as being of the world, the flesh and the devil and of being totally opposed to [that which is commended] the virtues or fruit produced by the indwelling Spirit of the Lord in the Church of God. The Bible as a whole places supreme value on the objectivity of the revelation of God's law and of the standards [virtues] or righteousness and holiness therein set forth.
I recall that at the first meeting of what has become the Anglican Congress Movement (Richard Kew et al) I had to protest strongly to get the word "values" out of the major statement that was produced (I think in the end they went for kingdom norms). I suspect that few people really appreciated what I was talking about for the word is so much used by those who claim to be biblically-based! [But alas so are many other words and phrases which by their use actually make the norms and standards of the Bible subjective and relative!]
Let us use "value" both as a verb and as a singular noun, and let us seek to avoid it in its plural form when we are referring to objective, God-revealed norms and standards.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 6:45 AM CDT permalink
The Relation of AMIA to SE Asia
This makes clear the relation of the AMiA to the Province of S E Asia --P.T.
From the Anglican Messenger of the Diocese of West Malaysia
Provincial Synod
The second meeting of the second session of the Synod of the Province of South East Asia was held from 6 to 8 March 2002 at Bayu Beach Resort, Port Dickson. The theme was "Grow Up Into Christ". This was followed by the third meeting of the second session of the Provincial Standing Committee from 8 to 9 March 2002.
Once the Provincial Synod meetings began, they were immediately overshadowed by the issue of Archbishop Datuk Yong Ping Chung's co-consecration of four bishops for the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. on 24 June 2001 in the absence of any consensus between him and the Diocesan Bishops of Kuching, Singapore and West Malaysia. The AMiA brings together Anglican clergy and laity in the U.S. who are against, among other things, the ordination of practising homosexual priests and the celebration of same-sex unions, but exists outside the recognised Episocpal Church of the U.S.A (ECUSA). Because they are outside ECUSA, they are not considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury to be in communion with him.
Archibishop Yong used his opening address to the Provincial Synod to defend his actions against chrges that he had acted unconstitutionally. He insisted that the call to uphold biblical authority, orthodoxy and morality, which was obedience to God's laws, outweighed adherence to the consitution of the Province, which was man-made.
In reply, Bishop Lim Cheng Ean reminded delegates that the co-consecrations did no have the approval of the House of Bishops, and furthermore, went against the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose advice had been sought by the Diocesan Bishops of Kuching, Singapore and West Malaysia. It also went against accepted practice for an Archbishop to exercise his archiepiscopal authority in another province. While the events in the U.S. were important in the effect that it had on the world-wide Anglican Communion, so too did Archbishop Yong's disregard of convention.
While sympathetic to the issue of biblical authority, orthodoxy and morality, the Diocese of West Malaysia nonetheless felt it necessary to propose a motion to distance the Province from the co-consecrations and the AMiA, arguing that it was unconstitutional and against the concept of consensus practiced by the House of Bishops for Archbishop Yong to have proceeded. The Diocese of Sabah in turn proposed a motion affirming and supporting the actions of Archbishop Yong. After an extremely robust debat, the Provincial Synod endorsed and supported a compromise resolution from the House of Bishops proposed by the Dioceses of Kuching and Singapore which, while accepting the status quo of the consecrations, confirmed that all further consecrations of bishops must observe the due process of election, appointment and consecration contained in the constitution of the Province. The AMiA was placed under Archbishop Yong's own covering, and no longer involved the Province. However in order to address issues that are presently adversely affecting the biblical and apostolic faith, life and mission of the Anglican Communion, the Province would take a broad-based approach to mobilse and link up with like-minded Provinces and Dioceses, Primates and Bishops, through for example the South-South Encounter. The motion was carried by 24 votes for to none against, with 5 abstentions.
Once the issue of AMia was out of the way, Provincial Synod got down to a review of developments within the province itself. Each constituent diocese presented a report on activities and developments within their respective dioceses. The Diocese of Singapore reported on their project to upgrade their 9 diocesan schools and new construction over a period of 5-7 years, as wells as the S$68 million development of St. Andrew's Village, a 30-acre site that will house the relocated St. Andrew's Junior College, the new St. Andrew's Secondary, upgraded Junior Schools, the Ascension kindergarten and the new Diocesan Centre.
There were also reports on the Province of South East Asia Mission Services (PROSEAMS) and the various "joint ventures" between dioceses in outreach, for example to West Kalimantan, Indonesia (between Kuching and Singapore), to Phnom Penh, Cambodia and Tarakan in East Kalimantan, Indonesia (both between Sabah and Singapore), and in Medan in Sumatra, Indonesia (between Singapore and West Malaysia). Provincial Synod also received reports on the growth of the Anglican churches in Indonesia (which aims to establish 10 parished by 2005 and is working towards the goal of becoming a Diocese by 2008), Thailand (now an Archdeaconry, and working to become a Diocese by 2009), Laos, Cambodia and Nepal (which became part of the Diocese of Singapore in February 200) and Vietnam.
The Provincial Youth Network (PYNET) reported on their various activities of drawing together the youth of the Province, for example through the PYNET Conference in Sepang, Malaysia in August 2001, youth/young adult camps and through sports ministry. There were also opportunities for youth to participate in overseas activities, e.g. with the Dioceses of Oxford and Lichfield.
The Provincial Synod ended with a reminder that there were 400 million people who lived in the countries of Southeast Asia. As such, there were so many more people to reach out to.
Although the Provincial Synod meets once every 2 years, the next meeting will be held in Kota Kinabalu from 18 to 21 November 2003. The highlight of that meeting will be the election of the next Archbishop of the Province of South East Asia in succession to Archbishop Yong.
Andrew Khoo
posted by John at 6:43 AM CDT permalink
The Cross Is a Symbol of Love, Says Pope
On Memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy SEPT. 15, 2002 (Zenit.org).- In an increasingly secularized world it is crucial that the faithful see in the cross a source of blessing and salvation, says John Paul II.
"For man, tormented by doubt and sin, it reveals that 'God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life,'" the Pope said today, quoting the Gospel of St. John.
"In a word, the cross is the supreme symbol of love," he added.
The Holy Father delivered his comments at midday to several thousand pilgrims in the courtyard of the papal summer residence. He is staying in Castel Gandolfo until the end of the month.
On Saturday the Church celebrated the liturgical feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, he noted, and today it marked the memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows.
"Christianity has its principal symbol in the cross," the Pope explained. "Wherever the Gospel has put down roots, the cross is there to indicate the presence of Christians."
"In churches and homes, in hospitals and schools, in cemeteries -- the cross has become the sign par excellence of a culture that draws truth and liberty, trust and hope from the message of Christ," he continued.
"In the process of secularization, which characterizes a great part of the contemporary world, it is all the more important that believers fix their gaze on this central sign of Revelation and gather its original and authentic meaning," he said.
In proclaiming the reality of the cross of Christ, the Church presents to the world "the ultimate and full meaning of every single existence and of the whole of human history," John Paul II emphasized.
"Christian young people carry it with pride through the streets of the world," he said. Over the past year, the World Youth Day cross was carried throughout Canada and even made it to 9/11's ground zero in New York. The cross will be carried throughout Germany before World Youth Day 2005 in Cologne.
The Pontiff concluded by entrusting to the Virgin Mary "young people and families, nations and the whole of humanity" especially "the sick and the suffering," "innocent victims of injustice and violence" and "Christians persecuted because of their faith."
"May the glorious cross of Christ be for all a pledge of hope, rescue and peace," he said.
This summer at Castel Gandolfo the Pope has come down to the courtyard to meet the faithful, instead of greeting them from a window. As at Wednesday general audiences, he has also greeted a few pilgrims personally at the end of the Sunday encounters.
posted by John at 6:37 AM CDT permalink
Friday, September 20, 2002
a friend wrote to me saying,
The language of "ideals" moves matrimony from the realm of the real world into the realm of pure ideas, more or less granting in advance that in the mundane realm the ideal will not be possible because even the best marriage will be less "pure" than the idea of marriage.
Under the canon of modern pragmatism, to fail to accomplish that which is impossible cannot truly be a "sin." One merely learns from his mistakes and tries, tries, tries again.
This same pragmatism builds on the common experience of multiple marriages in a divorce culture as a demonstration that lifelong, monogamous marriage is an unrealizable ideal (and thus, in the end, impossible) to do away with all commandments, which are in turn transformed into ideals themselves. "All have fallen short" ceases to be a confession of sin and a plea for mercy, becoming instead a sort of "So what. Everybody does it."
The net result is a type of practical incomprehension of the meaning of the doctrines of grace. Why should anyone who tries his best to do the impossible be thought "guilty" or in need of an unmerited redemption? Thus, we end up telling one another that we're all good chaps after all, which leaves Jesus hanging on the cross for no particular reason.
The first generation or two that treat marriage and other commandments as an ideal may very well retain some sense of sin and redemption, however vague. But the generations of children that they raise, who see their parents and their pastors doing what God forbids and not doing what God commands, will tend to draw the inference that the whole business of sin and redemption is quaint and out of date. They don't, after all, see any major consequences of sin or failure in this world. If anything, they see a great deal of self-affirmation among those who have departed from God in this or some other particular.
But if we imagine Adam and Eve declaring to God that they had a right to happiness and that the forbidden fruit was an integral part of that happiness, we can see how silly such arguments are.
We need to keep fighting on this line.
posted by John at 4:16 AM CDT permalink
Ideals and Commandments
(I have been asked various questions about the content of my opinion piece on Ideals, Values & Relationships. Here is a response to questions about marriage as an ideal.)
What is an ideal?
It is an idea in the mind of what is possible & desirable & attainable with effort and thus what should be aimed at as a goal of a life-commitment or a major pattern of behaviour.
That ideal may be the equivalent in terms of definition and realization of a moral duty derived from conscience, natural law or revealed, divine law.
The difference between describing it as an ideal and a commandment/duty/divine ordinance is in the realm of how one assesses one relation to it and thus how one assesses failure to achieve it.
In modern society & the modern Church to try hard and to fail to reach the ideal (especially if it is difficult like life-long marriage in a divorce
culture) is a cause for congratulations and the real possibility of general agreement of the opportunity of a second chance.
In biblical terms and in the Gospel Church to fail to obey a commandment, however difficult and for whatever reason, is a sin against God and requires penitence and absolution before even the possibility of a second chance to obey can be considered or properly in place.
There is no doubt that Jesus taught that the divine ordinance of marriage was a one-flesh union of two persons until death parted them. Under the Old Covenant because of the weakness [hardness of heart] of human beings God allowed divorce under certain conditions; but, this permission did not change the basic order of creation and divine order within the covenant of grace. Jesus republished the original law and ordinance of God for marriage as binding on his disciples - what God has joined together let no man (modern let no-one) put asunder - and offered to them the Spirit of the new covenant to assist them obey divine Law.
Thus in no way can the Christian doctrine of marriage be said to be an ideal for baptized believers. It is not only an ordinance of creation but it is also a commandment of the Lord to those who are members of the new covenant and of the Household of God.
Of course in a divorce culture, pastoral care (a) for those who are involved in seeking to obey the commandment faithfully & lovingly and (b) for those who break the commandment of one-flesh union for life must be available, gracious and in line with the will of God, making use more of Gospel-based moral and spiritual advice than modern therapeutical norms and methods, which are related to ideals not divine ordinances.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 4:13 AM CDT permalink
Thursday, September 19, 2002
Ideals & Values & Relationships
An Opinion Piece & A Discussion Starter
I find it very strange that those who claim to be biblical and desirous of expressing biblical theology & morality make much positive use of such words as "ideal" & "values" and "relationships."
I think that this usage is a sure sign of how pervasive was the social and cultural revolution of the 1960s and how powerful have been its after-effects in terms of the influence of social science and psychotherapy, to mention only two areas.
In popular evangelical books, sermons and radio/tv talks we hear of "the ideal of marriage as a life-long union and commitment," of "biblical values" for church, world and individuals and of the need for "a relationship with God" and for good "human relationships."
1. For Christians to speak of life-long marriage as an ideal rather than as an ordinance of God "until death us do part" is to diminish the Christian doctrine of marriage. An ideal is only to be worked towards and aimed at: it is not a command or a duty to be performed by the express commandment & will of God and with his grace to help. To portray or to preach on marriage as an ideal is thus not to preach biblical doctrine but a way of escape from duty, if the way is hard.
2. For Christians to refer to biblical values is to diminish the biblical presentation of the absolute commands of God and the perfect principles of the kingdom of heaven. The plural word "values" was coined by sociologists in order to have a neutral word to speak of the general rules & mores by which people and societies live, as observed by social scientists. The word was used in order to avoid the use any of the traditional words of the Christian moral and ethical vocabulary. Thus a sociologist could study the behaviour of Christians of a particular area or church and then tell us by what values they lived. Yet at the same time those Christians, if genuine, would be looking to commandments, statutes, ordinances, laws, duties and responsibilities set forth in Scripture and Christian tradition, and looking to them not as values but as revealed Law for they refer to the relation of people to God.
3. Finally, for Christians to claim that they have a relationship with God and that also they have a warm relationship with other Christians is to claim something less than the biblical norm. The whole doctrine of the covenant of grace and the doctrine of justification by grace are premised on the fact that God the Father God establishes a relation through & in Christ with those who repent and believe in Christ. This is not a temporary kind of easy going association or coming together while we feel like it (as are relationships in modern experience & talk) but a permanent order of grace. Likewise the key word for speaking of what unites the Persons of the Trinity is relation [relatio in Latin] not relationship. And moving on we may note that in the order of creation we have "relatives" by blood and by marriage and we have them whether we like them or not. These are permanent human relations. To speak of relationships is to speak of voluntary associations or unions that can be broken at anytime by one or other of the participants or partners. Thus relationship is a bad word to describe union with God through Christ and union in holy matrimony until death us do part.
In good translations of the Bible and sound Christian books you will not find the words "ideal, values or relationships" used in translation where the reference is to God's positive commandments for his children! And the reason is because there is nothing in the positive self-revelation of God than can be accurately conveyed by these words. However, you will probably find them in modern paraphrases and popular commentaries, where there is a dumbing-down of the perfect standards of God's holy word.
There are other over-used and/or carelessly-used words such as "I feel" & "community of faith" & "Celebration" and "Presider" but I will not deal with such here!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 8:40 PM CDT permalink
Homilette On The Web
Patient Friends,
In Web language, a Homilette is a Homily available in digital form that can he heard via the computer from a web site. It is not a deliberely short homily or sermon!
At the web site of the small English parish of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor, you may hear if you have sound facilities with your computer, the latest homilette by myself.
It is a shortened form of the Homily delivered in the Chapel of Sidney Sussex College Chapel, University of Cambridge, to members of the Prayer Book Society of England on Sept 15th at Choral Mattins.
It takes about 12 mins and does not not have any of the local references or references to the mission of the PBS in the C of E, which were part of the original Homily. It is Homilette 2. There is also Homilette 1 and lasts 8 minutes and this commends traditional reverent and intimate language in the addressing of the Almighty Father through His only-begotten Son.
Go to www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk
The site is faithfully and regularly maintained by Barbara Rabett who is joyful person even though she lives with permanent disability
Thank you.
ONE MORE THING IF I MAY
The latest issue of Mandate with a full page photo of Rowan Williams on the front is now available both on the Web Site of the PBS (www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928) or as a trial free copy from PBS, Box 35220, Philadelphia, Pa. 19128-0220
Let us press on....
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
posted by John at 7:03 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
On thanking God for Thomas Cranmer in the wrong way!
Dr George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a copy of the book, Celebrating Common Prayer [1992], to all the Bishops who attended the 1998 Lambeth Conference. This book of 710 pages is a version of the Daily Office of the [Anglican] Society of Saint Francis of Assisi and carries a commendation by the Archbishop.
The reason why Dr Carey commends this book is that he wants to help people pray daily in "a reflective and structured way." He does not believe that the official Book of Common Prayer [1662] of the Church of England does truly help people to do this and to relate their daily prayer to Sunday eucharistic worship. As he explains:
"Although Cranmer's version of Morning and Evening Prayer [in the BCP] has long provided a non-eucharistic form of public worship on Sundays, and has done much to characterise Anglican public worship, it has only patchily achieved his other purpose of being the regular worship attended by the whole congregation and offered day by day in parish churches throughout the land."
So we have the amazing spectacle of the Primate of all England commending for daily use a Prayer Book that has not been approved by the General Synod, that he judges to be superior to the BCP (a formulary of the C of E), and that he presents to all the Bishops of the Anglican Communion of Churches for their daily use.
We note that this prayerbook addresses only the "You-God" (it does not know the "Thou-God") and it has inclusive language in Psalms and Canticles. Psalm 1 begins, "Happy are they."
But let us see how this Prayer Book leads us to pray in thanksgiving for Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, the editor of the BCP of 1549 & 1552, and by common consent a genius in terms of creating an English prose for public worship.
THOMAS CRANMER Bishop & Martyr (21 March)
Everlasting God,
your servant Thomas Cranmer
restored the language of the people
in the prayers of the Church.
makes us always thankful for this heritage
and help us to pray in the Spirit
and with understanding,
that we may worthily glorify your holy Name,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
What do we think would Cranmer, who showed his literary genius most particularly in the composing of Collects for the Church Year, make of this Collect, dedicated to his memory? I think the following.
First of all, he would be amazed and horrified that he was being remembered in this way. Secondly, he would be taken aback and horrified that a Collect, which is prose and not poetry, is being printed on the page as if it were poetry. Thirdly, he would be humbled and horrified that God is being addressed as "You" and not "Thou,Thee," since in the vernacular and in Latin in England over the centuries before his time God had been addressed using the distinct second person singular pronouns.
Fourthly, he would be shocked and horrified at the impiety of the words in that the Lord God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, supremely omniscient and omnipotent, is being told what he knows already and knows perfectly. We recall that one of the achievements of Cranmer as a writer of prose prayers was the use of the relative clause. For example, "Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts.." But here, in a prayer to remember him, that which Cranmer would never have done (tell the Almighty what he knows) is done! The Collect could have said, "whose servant Thomas Cranmer restored the language of the people in the prayers of the Church, make us.," but it chose to tell God what he knew.
Happily in the Collects for use with the new prayer book of the Church of England, Common Worship [2000], the Collect in "traditional language" for Cranmer does retain the style that he perfected:
"Father of all mercies, who through the work of thy servant Thomas Cranmer didst renew the worship of thy Church and through his death didst reveal thy strength in human weakness, strengthen us by thy grace so to worship thee in spirit and in truth that we may come to the joys of thy everlasting kingdom.."
If we are going to thank God for Thomas Cranmer in public prayer let us do so with appropriate, dignified English!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 8:31 PM CDT permalink
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
More On Autonomy Arrogance and Prayer Book Reform
Further to my piece on Autonomy Arrogance and Prayer Book Reform in ECUSA, you may care to consider these quotes
See Dean Holmes' remarks in The Anglican Theological Review (Vol. LXII, No. 1, January 1980, p. 13)
"A second illustration of the dilemma of an effective interaction between theology and religion in the Episcopal Church today is in the debate over Prayer Book revision. After beginning in the 1950's with fervent protestations that no theological change was to be contemplated or tolerated, the Standing Liturgical Commission (SLC) grew progressively more silent on the subject in the face of the charges of the Society for the Preservation of the Book of Common Prayer (SPBCP) that this was indeed what was happening. No matter what one may think of the SPBCP, we know that they are correct. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer indicates a notable shift in theology from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. There is no problem with changing theology through liturgical revision; it is how Anglicans do it. But whether or not the silence of the SLC before the charges of the SPBCP was simply a matter of strategy or not, their failure to reveal to the church the theological implications of what was happening could hardly be considered an act of reconciliation between theology and religion."
You might also want to consider "A Roman Catholic's Appreciation," a review of what became the 1979 Book by the Roman liturgist Aidan Kavanagh, OSB, in The Anglican Theological Review (Vol. LVIII, No. 3, July 1976, p. 362):
"First, the Book as a whole is clearly not a mere updated revision of its predecessors since 1549. It is nothing if not a new formulary that contains some structural and phraseological traces of what has gone before but which goes quite beyond it."
Here is the key -- NEW FORMULARY and this without consulting the Anglican Communion. An autonomous act that pushed along the spirit of autonomy in the Church and led to more exercise of arrogany autonomy.
Had the BCP 1928 been retained and the new Book been the ASB or BAS or A New ECUSA Prayer Book the history of the ECUSA would have been much different!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 11:27 PM CDT permalink
ECUSA, Autonomy and Arrogance.
Was the change of official Prayer Book in 1976/9 the sole or even the major cause of the massive change of religion that occurred in the Episcopal Church, USA in the latter part of the 20th century?
Let us investigate.
Most careful observers of the Episcopal Church would agree that the religion expressed in rites, ceremonies, doctrines, ethics, discipline and ethos of this Church in 2002 is very different from what it was 40 years ago in 1962. Those of a traditional and orthodox mind judge that the changes have been for the worse so that what was heresy in 1962 is now orthodoxy in 2002 and what was immorality in 1962 is now morality in 2002. In contrast, those who favour the new situation insist that changes were necessary to make the Episcopal Church reflect the religious experience of its members who had passed through the revolutionary 1960s and who include feminists and homosexual persons.
It may be recalled Prayer Book Revision began in earnest around 1967. Initially the idea was to update and revise the official Prayer Book of 1928 [itself a revision of the 1662, 1789 & 1892 editions of The Book of Common Prayer]; yet, as the project proceeded it became no longer that of gentle revision but a task to produce a new kind of Prayer Book, one that had within it a certain range of options. When it appeared it had Rite I [ the “Thou-God”] and Rite II [the “You-God”] services and a Psalter and various canticles that had been modified to accommodate feminist requests for inclusiveness. Further, new forms of words were used to express the doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Christ. It was not “The Book of Common Prayer” as that had been understood since 1549; rather it was what was called in the Church of England, “The Alternative Services Book” and in Canada, “The Book of Alternative Services.”
In Canada and England “The Book of Common Prayer” remained intact and alongside it was the new Prayer Book. The latter was the product of provincial autonomy but only within the guidelines of the Lambeth Conferences of 1958 & 1968.
In contrast, the Episcopal Church expressed its autonomy as an independent Province of the Anglican Communion not only by engaging in liturgical reform like other Provinces, but also by deciding to call an experimental type of new inclusive prayer book by the ancient name of “The Book of Common Prayer.” This action also included the putting of the genuine Book of Common Prayer [latest edition, 1928] into the archives.
This exercise of autonomy in liturgical reform was an act of arrogance and defiance for it involved changing the very basis of the Standards & Formularies of the Province without consulting the rest of the Communion.
Of course what ECUSA did was lawful for, as an autonomous province, it had power to make its own laws; but, in terms of natural justice and the general canon law of the whole Anglican Communion of Churches what it did was a crime. Autonomy for Provinces was never intended to allow them to make changes in Faith and Order without the consent of the whole Communion.
What seems to have happened in the USA is that autonomous freedom was experienced with relish in engaging in liturgical reform, and, in the Zeitgeist of the 1960s it was difficult to put any brakes on this freedom and so it was exercised arrogantly. What should have been produced was a “Book of Alternative Services” to go alongside “The Book of Common Prayer, 1928”. In the end, “the Book of Alternative Services” was actually called “The Book of Common Prayer, 1979” and it was imposed in dioceses often by ruthless power.
Once this autonomous freedom had become part of the ethos of the Episcopal Church in the mid-1970s, and many of the older traditional membership were leaving [there was a very major loss in membership in the 1970 into the early 1980s], this same arrogant power was used in other ways, notably the ordination of women ahead of any legal provision and then the legalising it after the event. And the same type of thing has since happened with respect to the ordination of active homosexual persons and the blessing of same-sex couples [matters which George Carey now fears will tear the Communion apart]. The case of Bennison versus Moyer in the diocese of Pa in 2002 is yet another example of the use of this autonomous, arrogant power.
So back to the question.
Yes, the bringing in of the new Prayer Book was a defiant act of autonomy and arrogance and as such it set a pattern that has intensified and expanded in the ECUSA (and has been imitated more recently by other provinces).
The ECUSA will never go forward into an expression of genuine orthodoxy – despite great efforts by the American Anglican Council and the like -- unless and until there is genuine repentance for this arrogance before history, before the Anglican Way, before the Anglican Communion and pre-eminently before Almighty God the Judge of all of us. For ECUSA to repent means for all its membership and most especially its pastors to repent. Regrettably, too many (even in F in F N/A) who claim to be orthodox embrace this falsely named Book of Common Prayer as though it were a truly orthodox BCP and Ordinal.
Of course, there were other factors at work before the 1960s that paved the way for the revolutionary changes in the ECUSA; but, without the taste of autonomy and freedom in the late 1960s through liturgical reform these factors (e.g., the divorce culture) would not have been sufficiently powerful to effect dramatic changes.
September 17, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 5:55 AM CDT permalink
Monday, September 16, 2002
GEORGE CAREY'S GREATEST WORRY
As expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential Address at the 12th Meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, Hong Kong Monday 16 September 2002 at 11:15 a.m. The address is entitled, RE-IMAGINING THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION
".. It is at this point as the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury that I must point to my greatest worry. I would be failing in my duty if I recoiled away from it out of an assumption that silence is the safer option.
In short, my concern is that our Communion is being steadily undermined by dioceses and individual bishops taking unilateral action, usually (but not
always) in matters to do with sexuality; and as a result steadily driving us towards serious fragmentation and the real possibility of two (or, more likely, many more) distinct Anglican bodies emerging. This erosion of communion through the adoption of 'local options' has been going for some thirty years but in my opinion is reaching crisis proportions today.
We have seen the formation of AMiA in the United States and scarcely a week goes by without some report reaching me of clergy teetering on the brink of leaving the Anglican Communion for that body. I have been clear in my condemnation of the schism created by AMiA and the actions of those Primates and other bishops who consecrated the six bishops. Sadly, I see little sign of willingness on the part of some bishops in the Communion to play their part in discouraging teaching or action that leads some conscientious clergy to conclude that they have no option other than to leave us for AMiA.
It is not my intention to address now the issue that has led some clergy in the diocese of New Westminster to rebel against their own bishop and their diocesan Synod. I respect the sincerity of Bishop Michael Ingham and his diocesan synod, and I do not doubt that they believe that they are acting in the best interests of all, as they see it.
But I deeply regret that Michael and his synod, and other bishops and dioceses in similar situations in North America seem to be making such decisions without regard to the rest of us and against the clear statements of Lambeth '98. And, on the other hand, as I have said, it is disappointing to note the steps that have been taken in reaction by a number of clergy, bishops and even Archbishops in our Communion, equally in disregard of carefully thought-out Lambeth Conference resolutions.
It is for this reason that I have submitted to this ACC a resolution that I hope you will strongly support. In short the Resolution calls upon all dioceses that are considering matters of faith and order that could affect the unity of the Communion to consult widely in their provinces, and beyond, before final decisions are made or action is taken. We cannot insist that they do so, but as a Consultative Body we can urge them to do so.
And let me remind you that this resolution is not novel. Indeed, it was the unilateral action of one bishop, Bishop Colenso of Natal, that led to the first Lambeth Conference of 1867. The fourth resolution of that first Lambeth Conference in fact called upon all dioceses to submit to 'superior synods.' This constant emphasis on interdependence and mutual responsibility towards one another - especially in those matters upon which we disagree -
Of course, the issue is far more than a matter of internal discipline, though it is certainly that. It affects our mission, and relationships with other churches. Let me say clearly that I believe far too much energy is going into fanning the flames of argument on these matters that divide us taking our attention away from the critical needs of evangelism and mission.
But it also has serious ecumenical implications. I have had countless conversations with leaders of other Churches who have spoken gently but sternly of our internal disorderliness on issues such as this. It is viewed as a major stumbling block to the unity we claim we seek with the universal Church.
And let me make quite clear that the resolution is not merely about handling issues to do with sexuality, but it applies to all sensitive matters that threaten our common life. That is to say, it entreats the diocese of Sydney on the issue of Lay Presidency to submit the matter to its Province, and to have regard to the effect of any decision it makes on the wider Communion to which it belongs, just as much as it applies to a diocese contemplating the official introduction of services in relation to same-sex unions. Likewise the resolution is as relevant to the deposition of Fr. David Moyer by Bishop Charles Bennison in the diocese of Pennsylvania, which has consequences not only for that diocese but for the entire Communion.
The issues we face in our time are as demanding and painful as any our forebears have had to wrestle with; and there are lessons we can learn from them, as to how we too may find ways to discern God's will for us by listening to one another, carefully considering the impact of our actions on one another, and above all praying for one another. I hope my Resolution will receive your clear endorsement, and so send out a strong signal that it is not enough to carry on talking about being a Communion while we take actions that contradict our words.."
COMMENT by PT
We thank the Archbishop of Canterbury for expressing this concern to the Anglican Consultative Council (of laity and clergy and one of the "instruments of unity" of the Anglican Family); and we appreciate the Resolution (which will pass) that calls upon all dioceses that are considering matters of faith and order that could affect the unity of the Communion to consult widely in their provinces, and beyond, before final decisions are made or action is taken.
Of course, his resolution merely states what has been the central Anglican mind ever since the Church of England gained sisters and the Communion came into being. However, the original practical unity of the Anglican Communion, based upon the use everywhere of an edition of The Book of Common Prayer, has been gradually eroded since the 1970s. The taste of provincial and diocesan autonomy experienced in the creation of new services (new shapes of the liturgy) as recommended by the Lambeth Conference of 1968 became the basis of further innovation in worship, doctrine and discipline at the local level, without consultation. And thus in the last thirty or so years we have heard much of "the instruments of unity" [ see of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council & Primates' Meeting] whereas before it was assumed that the use of the BCP was the central unifying reality.
First of all, then, provinces in autonomy developed their own new forms of service and the classic BCP was pushed into the background and this was felt especially by travellers who found that where they once could recognize the service (even if another language) now they were strangers in their own Communion. The result now is that when there is a meeting of worldwide Anglicans there is no common form of worship that all can share (cf. the R C 's with the Latin Mass). The last Lambeth Conference did NOT use the classic BCP for any major, public service.
Secondly, some provinces decided to use their autonomy to innovate by ordaining women to the presbyterate and later to the episcopate. This has been and remains divisive and has led to all kinds of official and unofficial urgent attempts to keep dioceses, provinces and the Communion itself together. With the ordaining of women has come changes in the way that the Bible is translated, Liturgy expressed, prayers formed and God addressed.
Before going on to the third point, it needs to be said here that George Carey himself has pushed the two innovations of new services and women's ordination. And he has not always done so in the most attractive or charitable ways. Yet as far as I know he has never expressed any regret for his part in aiding and abetting the move to excessive provincial autonomy which these innovations have helped to foster.
Thirdly, some dioceses and perhaps the province of ECUSA have decided to recognize faithful & long term partnerships between same sex couples as no bar to their receiving the sacraments of the Church or her Blessing. They have done this in the context of using the analogy of the ECUSA blessing second and third marriages of some of her clergy & members, and of the very different doctrines of sexuality and the purpose of marriage taught since the availability of contraception..
Dr Carey has expressed himself very strongly against the innovation concerning homosexual persons and in this he speaks in much the same way as the evangelical majority in the Anglican Communion. He does not seem to share, however, the Catholic view of marriage (in contrast to the Erasmian and Protestant view) for he appears to support the right to re-marriage in church of divorcees in a limited way.
Therefore, it has to be said that George Carey's greatest worry is about something (excessive local autonomy) that he has fostered even though that fostering was not his intention in supporting innovations in worship and ordination. I suspect that his words will have little power and weight for this reason.
His successor, Rowan Williams, has declared that he will support the majority mind of the Communion on the matter of homosexuality. But such is the nature of the innovation of same-sex unions with blessings by the Church that it will probably continue to spread in the older parts of the Communion for the next decade or more. There is no stopping it now in the USA and Canada. It will run its course.
The troubled state of the Communion will thus continue, I believe, but, at the same time there will be stories of God's grace emanating from North, South, East and West and somehow the Communion will stick together for there is still a lot of old glue in there holding it together. And God the Father looks not upon our sins but upon the perfect righteousness of His only begotten and Incarnate Son and gives us more than we can ever deserve or merit.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 9:44 PM CDT permalink
The CHIEF PASTOR of the ECUSA speaks
The following has been sent out by the Anglican Communion Office in London to all parts of the world. It had already been circulated in the USA. My comments on it follow the text.
ACNS 3128 - USA - 11 September 2002
'The difficulties . . . are at heart pastoral':
The Presiding Bishop's statement on the conflict at Church of the Good ShepherdFor more than a year I have sought to resolve the impasse between the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania and the rector and vestry of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont. Although I have no canonical authority in this diocesan matter, I have employed every means at my disposal to help find a way forward that honored the concerns of all, and strongly urged that they enter into a process of mediation. During this time, I have met with Bishop Bennison as well as Father Moyer and members of the Vestry of the Church of the Good Shepherd.
To my mind the difficulties between the parties are at heart pastoral, and therefore resolution could have been found without recourse to canons and rubrics. This failure to resolve the conflict has been costly for all involved. As chief pastor of the Episcopal Church in the United States it grieves me deeply that this rift has occurred in the body of Christ. It grieves me further when a bishop's ministry is not welcomed by a congregation, a diocese loses the services of one of its priests, and the mission of the church risks losing the commitment and energies of dedicated members of a congregation.
I am aware that some have said this conflict is an indication that those with "traditionalist" views do not have a place in the Episcopal Church. I cannot say strongly enough that this is not the case. Unfortunately, it is the difficult and anomalous situations that draw notice, as if they were normative. Indeed, this occurrence is a sad exception to how the ecclesial life of the Episcopal Church in the United States is lived.
The Most Revd Frank T Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
Comments by the Revd Dr. Peter Toon on the above.
1.Bishop Griswold believes that the real issue between the parties was/is pastoral. I am not clear whether he means the pastoral care of the bishop for his priest, the pastoral care of the bishop for this one parish, a part of his diocesan flock, or in reverse the pastoral submission of a priest to his bishop, as well as the pastoral care of a parish by the rector. It could be one or all or more than these things. "Pastoral" is a word often used in the ECUSA imprecisely and seems to be a way of saying that the matter involves emotions, convictions, and principles which cause people to disagree or argue or separate, and that suitable dialogue, conversation, therapy and patience will usually help - and that legal action does not help.
2. Bishop Griswold does not seem sufficiently to allow that there are within the ECUSA (as in the Anglicanism of the North or West) emerging doctrinal & ethical divisions that are so wide and deep that no means of uniting them are in sight-not even the best "pastoral" means. That is why various emergency measures like Flying Bishops have been used in England in order to mitigate such emerging divisions. The only way that churches such as Rosemont (and e.g., All Saints' Wynnewood and St James the Less, Philadelphia) can stay within the diocese of PA and in the ECUSA is if reasonable recognition is made of these divisions in Anglicanism and in their light politically wise and genuinely caring decisions are taken by the majority to give space to the minority (the so-called traditionalists), who have often asked for such consideration in the ECUSA.
3. Bishop Griswold says that traditionalists are not being pushed out of the ECUSA. I think that this is what he genuinely believes, even though it may not be supported by the public evidence. However, if they are not being pushed out, and if their doctrinal position is to be taken seriously, then he most surely knows that traditional parishes committed to historic orthodox doctrine and ethics cannot in conscience allow into their chancels and pulpits bishops who knowingly and clearly reject such orthodox teaching and deliberately teach what is ( to traditional people) heresy and immorality. Not a few such "heretical" bishops sit on the ECUSA bench of bishops.
4. Bishop Griswold ought (not should, for it is surely a moral duty) in the light of his own stated views be seeking to implement with all speed a generous and soundly based system of Flying Bishops as a means for the immediate future of keeping traditionalist parishes in the ECUSA in a state where they are not under threat but are encouraged to grow and prosper. And part of this moral duty includes persuading his fellow bishops of the need for and rightness of such a system.
5. If Bishop Griswold is - as he here claims to be - the CHIEF PASTOR of the ECUSA [this seems to be a promotion from presiding bishop of the house of bishops] then his moral duty is absolutely clear. There are some sheep in his fold with a good pedigree who are being badly treated by some of the rest. As the senior shepherd he needs to manage and guide his flock in a better way so that this persecution ceases. If needs be, he must make special provision for grazing rights for the minority until such time as all can graze in the same field.
6. If Bishop Griswold would set out in a major statement on a major occasion his intention of making honourable space for traditional Anglicans in the ECUSA , including provision of suitable Episcopal care, then I for one would believe that he is acting PASTORALLY in his capacity as CHIEF PASTOR. Then he must move quickly from words to deeds so that relative peace can be obtained.
7. Bishop Griswold with his present stance of doing nothing to preserve and commend classic orthodoxy is making a strong case to the world for an alternative National Anglican Church in the USA made up of orthodox-minded people who have already left the ECUSA together with the remnant of orthodox-minded people who remain within the same.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 6:03 AM CDT permalink
CAREY SEES TWO ANGLICAN BODIES AS REAL POSSIBILITY
Steady drive towards fragmentation could split Communion, says leader
Special Report
By David W. Virtue
HONG KONG (Sept. 16) -The leader of the Anglican Communion Dr. George Carey told delegates to a consultation of world Anglican leaders that the Communion is being steadily undermined by dioceses and individual bishops taking unilateral action on sexuality issues that could lead to serious fragmentation resulting in the formation of two or more distinct Anglican bodies.
In his farewell address as president of the Anglican Consultative Council, Carey stunned his hearers saying that the "erosion of communion through the adoption of 'local options' has been going on for some thirty years but in my opinion is reaching crisis proportions today."
"We have seen the formation of the AMIA (Anglican Mission in America) in the United States and scarcely a week goes by without some report reaching me of clergy teetering on the brink of leaving the Anglican Communion for that body."
"I have been clear in my condemnation of the schism created by AMIA and the actions of those primates and other bishops who consecrated the six bishops. Sadly, I see little sign of willingness on the part of some bishops in the Communion to play their part in discouraging teaching or action that leads some conscientious clergy to conclude that they have no option other than to leave us for the AMIA."
Addressing the situation in the Diocese of New Westminster where Bishop Michael Ingham is in conflict with a dozen clergy over recently passed diocesan legislation approving rites for same-sex marriage, Carey said, "I deeply regret that Michael and his synod, and other bishops and dioceses in similar situations in North America seem to be making such decisions without regard to the rest of us and against the clear statements of Lambeth '98."
"On the other hand, it is disappointing to note the steps that have been taken in reaction by a number of clergy, bishops and even Archbishops in our Communion, equally in disregard of carefully thought out Lambeth Conference resolutions."
Carey said the actions of certain dioceses and provinces undermined ecumenicity. "I have had countless conversations with leaders of other
Churches who have spoken gently but sternly on our internal disorderliness on issues such as this. It is viewed as a major stumbling block to the unity we claim we seek with the universal Church."
Carey submitted a resolution calling upon all dioceses to consult widely in their provinces, and beyond, before final decisions are made or action is taken.
The Anglican leader said his resolution was relevant to the deposition of Fr. David Moyer by Bishop Charles Bennison in the diocese of Pennsylvania, and had consequences not only for that diocese but also for the entire Communion.
"The issues we face in our time are as demanding and painful as any our forbears have had to wrestle with; and there are lessons we can learn from them, as to how we too may find ways to discern God's will for us by listening to one another, carefully considering the impact of our actions on one another, and above all praying for one another."
Carey said his resolution also asked the diocese of Sydney on the issue of Lay Presidency to submit the matter to its Province, and to have regard to the effect of any decision it makes on the wider Communion to which it belongs, just as it applies to a diocese contemplating the official introduction of services in relation to same-sex unions.
END
posted by John at 5:59 AM CDT permalink
Friday, September 13, 2002
More on Convergence, Comprehensiveness and Congress
This short reflection continues the theme of Convergence, Comprehensiveness and Congress. Again I commend the paper by Dr Tarsitano as a basis for more thorough reflection - not necessarily to agree with it but as a starter to serious thought.
First, quotes from two distinguished men.
Philip Schaff, one of the great scholars of 19th century America and one who passionately desired Christian unity on sound principles observed that in America: "Every theological vagabond and peddler may drive here his bungling trade, without passport or license, and sell his false ware at pleasure." In 1939 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who gave up life in America to return to Nazi Germany and sure death, wrote: "In has been granted to the Americans less than any other nation of the earth to realize on earth the visible unity of the Church of God.American Christianity has no central organization, no common creed, no common church history and no common ethical or political principles."
And I myself, a mere, traditional Anglican, and careful observer of the USA scene, have written often of "the supermarket of religions" in the USA and of the little corner of that supermarket where there are thirty to forty varieties of Anglicanism on sale or being advertised.
The divided and multi-faceted Anglican or Episcopal scene in the USA probably does not worry those who rejoice in, or are conditioned by, the tremendous choice in goods, food and pleasure activities in America. After all some people celebrate the fact that there are as many opinions in the country as there are residents.
However, to those who have a deep sense of the unity of the Church (as had Schaff & Bonhoeffer) as the One Body of Christ, and the vocation on earth to realize that unity, the lack of any unity is embarrassing, to say the least.
And with respect to the Anglican Way, as one jurisdiction of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (with a duty herself to find ways to unity with other Jurisdictions), there is surely a duty of all Anglicans in the USA, who believe themselves to be genuinely desirous of being orthodox and biblically based, to look for ways of convergence and a unity that is generously comprehensive. I say a duty for that is what is first necessary, and we do not know what will happen if all seek to implement this duty.
True enough we start from the position where there are apparently tremendous differences in so many areas - in forms of worship, in priorities in doctrine, in discipline, in general ethos and style and so on. Then we have reality of human beings in positions of authority and power who are understandingly hesitant to relinquish any of this - e.g., the 100 plus bishops in the Continuing Churches, not to mention the would-be orthodox bishops of ECUSA. And all this in a society where individualism and pragmatism and utilitarianism and the like reign without much competition.
This is why I suggested that the fact of and FULL doctrine of our Baptism into Christ and in the Name of the Holy Trinity be the starting point towards convergence and then comprehensiveness. Not the end point but the starting point. By the full doctrine I meant that which is conveyed and presumed in the historic Anglican Rites for Baptism. [Others suggest the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as a starting point but this is really meant for discussion with non-Anglicans.]
I believe that the varieties of Anglican expression need to be brought together under the same roof for a sufficiently long period for any convergence to begin. In dialogue, which is aimed at the honouring of the LORD of unity, differences will be understood and narrowed and, if God so please, progress will be made. Such a meeting would not have "The Eucharist" but would have times of prayer and reflection, with a mixture of styles. At this preliminary stage the Eucharist does not unite because there is no agreement as to its Shape and its Celebrant!
In dialogue we seek to understand each other and why we believe and act as we do and why we think this or that to be important. By this method we can by God's grace move slowly and painfully at first to a convergence and after that maybe to comprehensiveness in a new National Anglican Church for the USA. To do nothing or to stand on our individualistic and pragmatic separate ground and shout at others, will not help anyone, certainly not the cause of the Church of God on earth.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 7:10 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
No common standards, no common faith & no common prayer!
The purpose of translating the Bible into the vernacular was so that everyone who could read would have access to its contents. The purpose of putting the Church’s common prayer into the vernacular was so that everyone could follow and participate in divine worship. The purpose of translating the Creeds into the vernacular was so that everyone would be able to learn them off by heart and thus have the faith in their souls.
The original impulse to bring the Faith to the people did not include the notion that all who read the Bible would become biblical scholars, that all who used the common prayer would become liturgiologists, and that all who knew the creeds would become dogmatic theologians. The Faith was meant to save them for eternity and instruct and comfort them through space and time.
After some competition between the King James Bible [KJV] and the Geneva Bible, the KJV became THE English Bible and was used in public worship by all English-speaking Protestants around the world until the 1960s. People learned parts of it off by heart and many of its phrases became part of the general usage of Standard English.
The Book of Common Prayer [BCP] was used in the Church of England at home and in the Colonies from 1549 to the 1960s (with a couple of brief lapses in the 16th & 17th centuries) without any competition and its contents created what we may call the English language of prayer. Ministers in other Churches prayed publicly in language that ran parallel to that of the BCP.
Since the 1960s there has been an explosion of Versions of the Bible and of forms of public prayer (alternative services). There is no sign that this explosion has ceased or even that it is near to ceasing. More and more groups and sub-cultures demand their own version of the Bible and their own form of public prayer for their “comunity.” Further, publishing companies are constantly looking for new ideas for new versions from which they can make money.
The result is confusion because there is no standard text by which every new production can be tested.
With respect to Bibles, the Hebrew and Greek original texts cannot be the standards for 99 per cent of the users of Bible since they do not know these languages; and the KJV cannot be the standard English text because it has been “rubbished” so much by those who wanted to sell their versions in the 1970s that people have forgotten how to trust it.
With respect to Prayer Books, Booklets, and Services to be downloaded from a Web Site, the situation is the same. The Book of Common Prayer has been “rubbished” by scholars pushing their revisions, and its name has been used for books other than the true BCP (cf. the USA & West Indian official Prayer Books) with the result that people have forgotten how to trust it as the standard (although in the Canon Law of the Church of England it [BCP 1662] remains so).
Going to “a worship service” today one does not know what to expect in terms of the version of the Bible, the structure/form/shape of the service, and the content of the hymns, songs and choruses (let alone the way people dress and how they conduct themselves in this activity). As long as people tend to thrive on choice, variety, personal opinion, individualism, pragmatism and egalitarianism this situation is unlikely to change.
A friend who has reflected upon this situation, which is so evident in the West and in the USA particularly, recently sent me a note in which he said the following, which I include as part of this general reflection. His last paragraph is most poignant.
“There is, I think, a curiously scholastic quality about the new liturgies and bible translations. By constantly tweaking the liturgy and repeatedly replacing one bible translation with another (supposedly on the basis of advanced studies), the clergy have taken both liturgy and Bible out of the hands of the laity at least as much as any medieval priest or prelate. Once again, only the seminary or university trained scholar is considered really fit to have either a knowledge of, or an opinion about, liturgy and Bible.
The loss of common, general texts that anyone of even moderate intelligence in the congregations can read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest has re-clericalized religion. Of course there is a place for scholarly editions and papers, but that place is not the congregation or the pious home. Those who work in most other fields of knowledge have cheerfully provided introductory texts to students that lay out the general concerns of their fields in a fairly simple way, without feeling obligated to involve
non-specialists in the more complex considerations, debates, or vexed questions of their professions. In fact, those fields of knowledge that have over-complicated the introductory textbooks have been accused of something like "clericalization."
We seem, too, to have lost the willingness to provide self-identified commentaries on text, whether liturgical or scriptural. The student who picks up a commentary has voluntarily decided to probe more deeply into a subject, which act of volition is good both for student and teacher. On the other hand, the desire for self-interpreting texts and for commentaries masquerading as texts, when it is indulged, leaves the people without a common text or a common prayer. Thus, the line between text and opinion
becomes blurred, and at some point a great number of people will tend to decide that their opinions are just as good as anyone else's. This tendency towards equality of opinion goes a long way, I think, to illuminating today's trend towards liturgical and doctrinal relativism.
The evangelical consequences are significant. The unbeliever does not encounter a common text and general agreement (plus the advanced considerations and ponderings of scholars), but only a Babel of opinion. The unbeliever who has been moved by the Holy Ghost to approach true faith is delivered by the Church, not a Rock of Ages, but what amounts to a bundle of school reports.
The ecclesiological consequences are equally severe. Comprehensiveness is not possible without a shared basis for mutual toleration. The lack of a general text undercuts the meaning of all texts--which sounds rather like the irritant to which the post-modernists are reacting.
There is, in the final analysis, a vast difference between the toleration of a variety of opinions about a general text and the substitution of private opinions (however learned) for a general text. Such an observation, it ought to be said, does not preclude the refinement of the text or of the general understanding of the text over time, but it does make the wholesale replacement of the text by fiat suicidal.”
The doctrine of private judgement is out of control! And getting worse I think.
What I am now going to state will seem completely stupid to some of my readers but I shall state it all the same as a suggestion.
There is a case to be made for the restoration of the KJV and the BCP to their position as THE English language Bible and THE English language Prayer Book so that they are the standards against which others are judged. This would not make them the strict equivalents of the Vulgate Bible and the Latin Originals of Services for the R C Church or of the similar standards of the Orthodox Churches; but, it would help to bring over time some order to the scene and preserve some standards of excellence for the public worship of Almighty God our heavenly Father in the Anglican and related families of Churches.
September 11, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 7:24 AM CDT permalink
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
Deposed Philadelphia Priest celebrated Mass at Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh
This message concerning recent events in the dioceses of Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh has been circulated by the Anglican Communion Office, London, and for once, the bias of sympathy in the article is with the victim of the ECUSA's style, here David Moyer.
Forward in Faith priestly members in England, who seek the protection of a flying bishop if their own diocesan bishop ordains women, are puzzled as to why David accepted protection from a kind and courageous bishop, but yet a bishop who by F in F of England standards is a kindly heretic. Why not protection from Fort Worth or Quincy or an overseas Bishop, they ask.
Perhaps the simple answer is that the situation in the ECUSA is so confused and confusing that the solid rules employed in England by F in F priests are not applicable in the USA and thus one finds shelter wherever it is offered. After all in the hierarchy of truth, the ordination of women is somewhat below the dogma of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ and other doctrines.
But what I see here is a report that does not whitewash the ECUSA! David Moyer comes out as the hero rather than the guilty one and the Bishop of Pittsburgh is presented as a courageous man.
Let us pray for the Bishops involved and also for David that in all this God will bring good out of evil and will pour his grace into the hearts of all the members of the congregations involved. -- Peter Toon
ACNS 3121 - USA - 10 September 2002
Deposed Philadelphia Priest celebrated Mass at Trinity Cathedral, Pittsburgh
[Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh] Deposed Episcopal priest, the Revd David L
Moyer, celebrated mass at 12:05 on Friday 6 September at Trinity Cathedral
in downtown Pittsburgh. The mass at Trinity Cathedral was scheduled to
remind everyone of the heritage of religious toleration of the founder of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, William Penn, on whose lands Trinity
Cathedral (Pittsburgh) is built.
For thirteen years Fr Moyer served as the Rector of the Church of the Good
Shepherd, Rosemont, a conservative Anglo-Catholic parish in the Diocese of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). For the last six months Fr Moyer has been under
a sentence of suspension (inhibition) and was yesterday "deposed" by the
Bishop of Pennsylvania, the Rt Revd Charles E Bennison.
Fr Moyer was "deposed" on the grounds that he has "abandoned the Communion"
by not allowing Bishop Bennison to preach or preside at Communion or
Confirmation at Church of the Good Shepherd. Fr Moyer has countered that
Bishop Bennison is too liberal and cannot be trusted in the pulpit of his
Anglo-Catholic church. Anglo-Catholics are traditionally considered the most
traditional members of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church in the United
States.
Conservative Episcopalians in the 70,000-member Diocese of Pennsylvania
(comprised of Philadelphia, Chester and Bucks counties) have also been
unhappy with their bishop's position on the Resurrection and his disbelief
that Christianity is the only way to salvation.
Many bishops and primates throughout the world, including the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Most Revd George L Carey, spiritual head of the 70
million-member Anglican Communion, have refused to acknowledge the validity
of either the inhibition or the deposition of Fr Moyer.
Today, Bishop Robert Duncan of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has taken
action to receive the Revd David L Moyer as a priest in good standing of the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. In August the House of Bishops of the
Province of Central Africa approved David L Moyer as a priest in good
standing there, in order that he might be transferred to Pittsburgh were
Bishop Duncan to make that request.
Many American bishops and many bishops worldwide have attempted to mediate
the dispute between the Bishop of Pennsylvania and the Rector of Rosemont.
All of this has been to no avail. Bishop Duncan (Pittsburgh) has repeatedly
implored his brother bishop not to proceed to depose this priest. Bishop
Duncan has made it abundantly clear on several occasions, most recently in
person this past June, that, were Bishop Charles Benison (Philadelphia) to
proceed as he has now done, there would be no alternative to the kind of
action Duncan and others are now taking.
The Revd Garrin Dickinson, curate of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, is also a
priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Fr Dickinson has informed Bishop Duncan
that his license to officiate in the Diocese of Pennsylvania has been
withdrawn. Bishop Duncan has instructed Fr Garrin to remain at his post,
without a license. If Bishop Bennison desires that this young priest be
tried for "invasion" because he is committed to the flock at Rosemont, then
it will be in the ecclesiastical court at Pittsburgh where he will have to
be tried, as the canons direct.
Bishop Duncan's statements for intervention:
1 Because I have long known Fr Moyer as a good and godly priest, and he has
appealed to me for protection.
2 Because the canon under which the Bishop of Pennsylvania has acted is
precedent- setting, opportunistic, and due-process denying.
3 Because the soul of the Episcopal Church is at stake as innovation
supplants received Faith and Order.
4 Because traditionalist witness in the Episcopal Church will always have my
active support and creative encouragement.
5 Because the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has failed to avert
the deposition, nevertheless calling the course undertaken by the Bishop of
Pennsylvania "utterly unacceptable."
6 Because I believe there to be an inherent imbalance of power between a
bishop and a priest, leading in such a dispute to an abuse of power. The
dispute will now necessarily become a dispute between bishops, who are by
definition power equals.
7 Because recent actions both by Bishop Charles Bennison and by other
bishops, each acting contrary to the expressed will of the House of Bishops
or the Lambeth Conference, have been based on an assertion that the bishop
is absolute in his own diocese, an assertion I desire hereby to put to the
test.
"It is in light of all these factors that I have received, from the Diocese
of the Upper Shire, the Revd David L Moyer, as a priest in good standing of
the Diocese of Pittsburgh," commented Bishop Duncan. Furthermore, "It is
also in light of all these factors that I assess the inhibition and
deposition of the Revd David L Moyer by the Bishop of Pennsylvania to be
utterly null and void, both legally and morally, and to have no bearing on
the decision I have made."
It is anticipated that both Fr Moyer and Fr Dickinson will remain resident
at Rosemont for the foreseeable future. This circumstance notwithstanding,
Fr Moyer will be named Priest Associate of Grace Church, Mount Washington,
an Anglo-Catholic parish in the City of Pittsburgh. Fr Moyer's regular
function in our diocese will be based at Grace.
_________________________________________________________
The ACNSlist is published by the Anglican Communion Office, London.
Please send QUESTIONS or COMMENTS to acnslist@anglicancommunion.org. Any comments about the content of the article should be directed to the author. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message, as any replies are discarded automatically.
You can subscribe/unsubscribe online at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/subscribe.html
ACNS mailing list
posted by John at 10:37 PM CDT permalink
Standing, Kneeling & Speaking to GOD
(before I begin this meditation may I say that I think the right posture for all prayer on Sept 11th is prostration and/or kneeling. Standing is hardly appropriate and sitting & lying down is out completely, except for the disabled and sick)
Is there a connection between (a) the late 20th century change from kneeling to standing before God during the Prayer of Consecration (Eucharistic Prayer) and (b) the late 20th century change from addressing God as "Thee,Thou" to "You" in the Order for Holy Communion (The Eucharist)?
Yes there is.
First of all the changes occurred at the same time - from the 1970s or even the late 1960s right into the 1990s.
Secondly, the changes occurred as a result of the teaching of the Liturgical Movement at its most influential in the 1960s and 1970s.
Thirdly, the changes occurred as a result of the new ethos of subjectivity in worship generated by the values of the revolutionary 1960s.
Let us recall that rules provided in italics in The Book of Common Prayer (1662, 1928) alongside the Order for Holy Communion instruct the assembled congregation to kneel during the Prayer of Consecration (and also before it). Now the bodily posture of kneeling can be interpreted in terms of the adorer kneeling before the Adored or the penitent kneeling before the Judge, or both.
The universal custom of the assembly kneeling during the Prayer of Consecration in the West seems to have begun in the early Middle Ages and continued to the late 1960s. And it is very possible that the sense of being a penitential people before God originally guided this posture.
The instructions in contemporary language Rites (generated as a result of the Liturgical Movement) from the 1970s for The Eucharist either state or assume that the congregation will stand for the Eucharistic Prayer. In explanation it is said that this posture was the general norm in the Early Church (especially in the Easter period) and that it is to be interpreted in terms of the Easter people of God, rejoicing in the Resurrection and thus standing up on the Lord's Day to praise the Lord but doing so in a respectful posture (do we not stand in the presence of an authority figure?) rather than a penitential posture (which it is said was reserved for days of fasting etc.).
So far so good. But regrettably both Vatican II and the influence of the Liturgical Movement upon Anglicanism came at precisely the same time as the winds of change created by the revolutionary 1960s were blowing at gale force! Therefore, there was never a serious discussion in the churches at large as to whether there was need to modify the rubrics of the classic Prayer Books and to allow for standing, say in the period from Easter Day till Ascension.
Instead of sensible discussion, standing before God became associated in many minds in the 1970s with cultivating self-esteem, self-respect, self-dignity and self-realization - themes of the 1960s. Kneeling before God was said to create low self-esteem and to make people have a wrong estimate of themselves and of God. In this period the required attributes of God and of Christ Jesus were those that emphasised the divine accessibility, familiarity, intelligibility, relevance, warmth and acceptance. And all this was cemented by the use of the so-called "passing of the peace" wherein community feeling and a sense of self-worth were strengthened.
And to make the point of standing with self-esteem before the God of warmth and acceptance, this Deity was addressed as "You." Both liturgists on their new principles of congregational participation and meaningfulness and the Zeitgeist of the 1960s joined to insist that God must be addressed as "You." So "You" he became.
Thus the "You-God" and standing instead of kneeling became the norm for the ECUSA etc. and any who maintained the old ways were seen by many bishops and priests and heads of seminaries as rebels!
Let us be clear.
Anyone who studies the sacred Scriptures and the holy tradition and experience of the Church in history will know that there are basically four types of posture to be used in holy Christian worship. There is standing, kneeling, sitting and prostration and each of these is suitable for one or more parts or aspects of worship. Further, there is the possibility of differing interpretations of the right posture for a given act of worship or devotion. And because there is difference of opinion in matters of secondary importance, there should be charity in human relations.
Problems arise when an ideology requires that everyone do it the new way because the new way is the only way. Today many churches have removed all the hassocks and kneeling benches in their intention to make everyone conform to the rule - the rule recently invented by those in whose minds the revolutionary ideas of the 1960s fused with certain important insights of the Liturgical Movement.
There is nothing wrong in standing before God if we stand humbly before the One to whom all authority in heaven and earth has been given, the Lord Jesus Christ. BUT to stand there in self-esteem full of our own rights and virtues is to stand as a condemned sinner!
There is nothing wrong in addressing God as "You" if we do so in ways that are reverent and that recognize Who He truly is! BUT to address God as "You" because we think that we are on familiar terms with him as our great Buddie is to stand before him as a condemned sinner!
Sept 10, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 10:34 PM CDT permalink
Addressing GOD in the light of the Incarnation.
Gail Ramshaw, the well known feminist theologian and liturgist, recently wrote: "Christian communities do not agree whether, taking its cue from the Incarnation, liturgical language should closely resemble everyday speech, or whether hoping to transform the profane by the sacred, liturgical language should be extraordinary speech" (The New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, London, 2002, p.270).
The linking of the language of worship to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, in his Incarnation (taking of human nature, flesh &
blood) is both an interesting and fruitful basis for reflection. I commend it and do only a little of it here.
Ms Ramshaw points to two possible implications of the Incarnation for liturgical language & common prayer/worship. One is that it should resemble everyday speech (whatever precisely this is and where it is found) and another is that it should be so different from everyday speech as to have the power to transform the profane and ordinary into the sacred and holy.
To pursue this line of reflection we need to be aware of a whole set of basic questions. Here are a few of these:
What was the purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God?
Did the Son of God take to himself in the Virgin's womb perfect human nature (as in Adam before the Fall) or human nature as shared by the human race?
What kind of speech did Jesus use when addressing God the Father or teaching others to address the same Father?
What kind of speech did His apostles use in prayer?
If the Incarnation was to save, redeem, teach, sanctify, illuminate and generally restore man to full communion with God the Father, then language about Jesus and for his sake should be such as to communicate these uplifting and elevating themes in clear and dignified terms. It has to be supercharged and purified everyday speech!
If the Son of God took human nature from the Virgin that was perfect in potential and without the bias toward sin and selfishness, and if he perfected this nature through his obedience to the Father right up to the death on the Cross, then language used of him should also aspire to perfection in terms of its grammar, style, syntax and content, that is to a perfection that is the earthen vessel containing the glory of God.
But even if - as some theologians say -- he took human nature with the built in bias towards sin, we believe that by the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit he overcame that bias and offered a perfect obedience to the Father. Thus language about him and for him should seek perfection in its own idiom so that it perfectly obeys the Father in its content, style and movement and raises up the soul of the reader towards the perfection of God.
Further, the eternally-begotten Son of the Father took Jewish flesh and was born into the old covenant. In that covenant the addressing of YHWH, the LORD, was always and everywhere in the most reverent terms, even when being intimate (as in some Psalms).
The way Jesus addressed his Father is seen in such places as Mark 14:36 & John 17. He spoke reverently and intimately addressing his Father as Abba (Aramaic "My dear Father"). He taught his disciples to pray reverently and intimately to his Father in these words, "Our Father which art in heaven." We know from the Epistles that the churches did pray, "Abba, Pater" (Aramaic & Greek) thereby using the name for the first Person of the Holy Trinity learned from Jesus.
"Abba" is NOT everyday speech from the streets, but is rare speech from the patriarchal Jewish home where in deep respect for the father and in devotion to him the child said, "Abba" (my dear father). Pater is the regular Greek word for father. Thus from Jesus we learn that prayer language is to be reverent and intimate, simple yet refined, simple yet dignified, and simple yet dignified.
A study of the prayers of St Paul (e.g. in Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians) and the prayers within the Book of Revelation points to the use of a refined, simple language that is not everyday language, for it has a special vocabulary and it treats God differently from the way it treats human persons. Again we can say that it is both reverent and intimate and does not confuse God with man or the glory of God with the achievements of man. Further, it uses and transforms Old Testament, Hebrew words and themes/ideas, so that the so-called common Greek of the New Testament is in fact not really common at all for it is deeply Hebraic and also deeply moving (and is captured very well - strange to say - by the translation of the KJV, if you can bear the 2nd person singular, Thou/Thee and the verb endings!).
The language of prayer generated by the fact of the Incarnation should be intelligible (if one first understands the basics of Christian Faith as in the Creed), accessible (if one is a baptized believer, in a saving relation to the Father through the Son in the Church of God), simple (in that it can be understood by anyone of average intelligence whose mind has been enlightened by the Holy Ghost) relevant (if the priority of seeking the kingdom of God is accepted) inclusive (if one intends to include all, Jew and Gentile, male and female etc) and mysterious (partaking of a sacramental character). Thus it cannot be (and never has been) simply everyday speech for such can only communicate everyday secular and sacred matters. The language of prayer exists to communicate extraordinary, heavenly and supernatural matters as well as ordinary ones, and all in a reverential and humble manner so that it becomes language in the Spirit through the Son to the Father.
Further, it is a language that should be more stable than everyday speech for the latter has to move with the times and go where culture pushes it, but the truths of God are eternal and have less need for changing styles in human speech. And, also, to revert to Ms Ramshaw, it is not a matter of transforming the profane by and with the sacred. Rather, it is a taking of human words, grammar and syntax and from them creating a form, style, content and ethos that truly fits the principles of the Incarnation and serves to lift man out of sin into the healing presence of the living God.
Sept 10 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 3:02 AM CDT permalink
Monday, September 09, 2002
Convergence, Comprehensiveness and a Congress
In the USA of 2002, within the massive supermarket of religions that is advertised in the Yellow Pages of the massive Telephone Books, there is a rather large number of religions bearing the name "Anglican" or "Episcopal." Some of these are offshoots from the original [Protestant] Episcopal Church of the USA (1789) which is the continuation of the once Church of England of the 13 Colonies. And some are offshoots from the offshoots.
Surely it is difficult, if not impossible, on Christian moral grounds to justify the presence of nearly forty denominations in one country of the one basic jurisdiction, known as the Anglican Way, claiming to be of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is truly and really great incentive in the exhortations of the apostles and the Priestly Prayer of Jesus (John 17) for this Anglican Way to be a united way, at least in essentials.
The absolute basic essential has to be Baptism, but not merely the fact of being baptized, but the whole doctrine that is presupposed in the baptizing of a believer in the Lord Jesus in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. We are baptized into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus so that in him we are raised to newness of life, and thus to holiness of life within the one Household of God, of which we are family members. Further, being baptized into the Name of the Trinity we accept the Creed which declares the Trinity (Apostles' & Nicene) , the Scriptures upon which the Creed & Gospel calling for repentance, faith and Baptism are based, and the Ministry [Three-fold] which has proclaimed, taught and baptized.
If we begin here, and where else can we start, then we can go on to say that there is the ground for talking about a convergence of all Anglican groups that claim to be biblical & orthodox. Convergence can be presented as a moral duty for if we are all members of the one Christ, the one Household, in the One Jurisdiction (Anglican), of the Church, then we are already brothers and sisters by grace, having duties and responsibilities one to another. (Such doctrine and duties are clouded & twisted in the USA by excessive individualism, pragmatism, egalitarianism and utilitarianism.)
Such convergence can be developed into a charitable comprehensiveness, that is the into the practical recognition that with all our faults and failings, errors and majoring on minors, there is a need to embrace each other in a positive way and to give practical evidence that we are all in the one Church of God.
The older forms of comprehensiveness looked for Latitudinarians, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals to be together and work together in the one Province - e.g., the C of E. (With Jim Packer and Roger Beckwith I commended and defended such in the 1970s.) The new form of comprehensiveness, which I now propose, and which is required in the American situation in 2002, has to contain a greater charity and a more flexible approach to worship, doctrine and discipline. In other words, on the Basis of Baptism (as set out above) it has to embrace all the following types - and more.
1.Those who want to retain the worship of the "THOU-God" and those who want only to worship the "YOU-God."
2.Those who desire traditional hymns and music and those who desire only modern songs and music.
3.Those who want to use the classic BCP and those who want a modern Prayer Book.
4.Those who want to preserve an all-male priesthood and those who want to admit women to the presbyterate.
5.Those who want to have a strict approach to remarriage after divorce and those who want a lenient approach.
6.Those who want existing bishops [100 plus] to step down to being functionally only presbyters and those who want to retain all bishops as bishops functionally.
7.Those whose model of the Church & Ministry is generated from modern non-Anglican evangelical/charismatic teaching and those who look to the classic Anglican model of Reformed Catholicism (17th century Caroline divines).
8.Those who want to be committed to the dogma of 7 ecumenical councils and those who say that only that of 4 is required for general commitment.
9.Those who use terminology like Pontifical High Mass and those who speak of the Lord's Supper.
10. Those who hope for some reunion with Rome in the long term and those who see Romanism as false religion.
11. Those who see the ECUSA as totally apostate and those who see it as partially so.
Obviously, to look at this list is to open the door to despair and abandonment of the task. But do we not say that with God all things are possible?! And we all claim to worship the Almighty Father, who through his Son, created only one new covenant and only one Ekklesia of God! Let a chorus of voices begin to speak and a host of gracious working hands begin to work for a convergence which by grace can become a comprehensiveness, and which then with brotherly love can truly be known in the one Lord as one Faith, one jurisidiction.
There are various experiments in cooperation and partial communion (e.g., those use in the C of E using flying bishops) that will help to plan the way that comprehensivesness for the USA scene can begin. And there is the excellent paper of Dr Louis Tarsitano to study and work from. At the Atlanta Congress (Dec 4-8) a start can be made.
A final word --waiting to solve doctrinal problems before working for convergence and comprehensiveness is the surest way to failure and to the maintenance of the status quo of anarchy in the Anglican Way in the USA.
Let us press on with this good work unto the good vision for the sake of the GOOD Lord.
Sept 9 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 7:07 AM CDT permalink
Sunday, September 08, 2002
The Affirmation of St Louis (1977), ECUSA and Continuing Anglicanism
What has changed in 25 years?
From September 11-13, 2002, there will be a Conference entitled: “Recapturing the Spirit of St Louis: A Celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Affirmation of St Louis,” organized by the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen.
Twenty-five years ago,1977, marked the origins of the Continuing Anglican Movement, with the Affirmation of St Louis as its original charter or statement (meant to go alongside the classic Anglican Formularies). The apostasy left behind in the ECUSA by the people who gathered at St Louis in 1977, and then left to form a replacement Anglican Church for the USA, centered on the innovation of the ordination of women to the presbyterate and on the rejection of the classic Book of Common Prayer (1789/1892/1928) in favour of a new book (1976/79) by the same name but with innovative content. Behind these innovations was seen a departure from the authority of Scripture and the rejection of holy tradition. Thus the Affirmation insisted on adherence to Scripture and to the teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (thereby requiring more dogma than regular Anglicanism).
We are all aware that the Continuing Church formed in 1977 has had its growing pains and its divisions and is now known by a cluster of names – Province of Christ the King, Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Church in America etc. And since 1977, which was mostly an anglo-catholic departure, there have been further departures from the ECUSA which have been more charismatic or evangelical, the latest being the Anglican Mission in America. These groups, along with the previously existing Reformed Episcopal Church from the 19th century, now have over 100 bishops between them. IF they could be brought together into a working unity they would be a reasonably sized American jurisdiction/denomination which could ask for membership of the Anglican Communion.
What has changed in 25 years?
On the surface not a lot, for we still have the phenomenon wherein some of those those who claim to be orthodox believers insist in staying in the ECUSA while others making the same claim insist on leaving the ECUSA.
That is, there are still those who think the ordination of women is wrong and who have doubts about some of the innovations of the 1979 Prayer Book (and many more about the soon-to-exist new Prayer Book) who remain in the ECUSA. For example, much of the membership of the Forward in Faith N/A movement, including its President, Fr David Moyer, who is now a priest of the diocese of Pittsburgh, where women priests are seen as perfectly legitimate.
At the same time there is a continuing drift of those who think that the ordination of women is wrong and who have serious doubts about the doctrines and practice of the ECUSA. Here the most publicised expression of the moving out has been that of Fr Sam Edwards into the Province of Christ the King.
What seems to be markedly different in 2002 from 1977 is that the commitment of the majority of the leadership of the ECUSA to a decidedly revised form of worship, doctrine and discipline is now very obvious. The few saw it in 1977 but now the whole world is aware of it and the ECUSA publicises it far and wide.
In 2002 the revisionism is clearly focused and seen in the attempts within the Church to satisfy the demands of feminists and lesbigays. This means that what was previously seen as heresy and immorality is now celebrated as the new order of Episcopal religion by many. The previously transcendent, holy “Thou-God” of masculine gender is now the accepting and familiar “You-God” of all genders. This new religion (which has been developing since the 1960s) is what forced Fr David Moyer out of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. (The religion that was rejected by the original Continuers in 1977 would not have driven him out.)
Nevertheless there are pockets of resistance within the ECUSA (e.g., the diocese of Fort Worth) where an attempt is being made to hold on to as much as possible of the received Anglican Way.
The providence of the all-wise Father almighty appears to guide some to stay in the ECUSA and others to leave. Precisely why this is so I do not know. Nevertheless, I ask: Is not the time ripe for the coming together of those who wish to live within the Anglican Way in a biblical and orthodox manner (and a cordial spirit of comprehensiveness!) in order to form a national Anglican Church for America?
Sept 8 2002.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 6:39 AM CDT permalink
Friday, September 06, 2002
MOYER'S ANGUISH POINTS TO POSITIVE POSSIBILITIES
David Moyer is a celebrity in the Anglican world and in his particular situation mirrors some of the major divisions and tensions within the ECUSA.
He has been deposed & defrocked by the Bishop of Diocese of Pennsylvania, and this action has apparently been undertaken according to the letter of the canon law of the ECUSA. To say this is not to say that it has been done according to the spirit of the law or to have been done wisely, for, to all appearances, it has not.
Since the ECUSA is a Church made up of dioceses, each one supposedly in communion [through a shared Baptism and other means] with the others, to be deposed by one is to be regarded as deposed by all. It is to be removed from the National Register of Clergy held at the ECUSA headquarters in NY City and from the right to be in the Clergy Pension Fund.
YET David Moyer has been received as a priest in good standing, without the official, required Letters Dimissory from Pa., and against the guidelines of the ECUSA for receiving priests from outside a diocese, into the Diocese of Pittsburgh. An amazing turn of events.
This reception in Pittsburgh will be judged by some to be courageous (standing against the radical liberal bishops), by others to be illegal (against the canon law of the ECUSA) and by others to be unwise (occurring too quickly, especially since David Moyer makes much of the legal appeal he is making against the decision perhaps there was a case for patience).
What the decision of Pittsburgh makes clear is that there is very open division between bishops in the one Anglican Province of ECUSA and that these bishops are in impaired if not broken communion with each other. And here the issue is not the ordination of women (Pittsburgh ordains women); but, is over the right of a priest to decide that his own & canonical bishop is a heretic (in various ways) and unworthy as a chief pastor to be admitted into his parish which is of course within the bishop's own diocese.
The Bishop of Pittsburgh has obviously decided that there was justice in the cause that Moyer espoused (keeping out the bishop) and that the bishop's insistence on being admitted & other actions of his were unreasonable (to say the least). Therefore he feels that he is able, against all the rules of the ECUSA game, to admit David into his diocese as a priest in good standing.
And Moyer has decided that though Pittsburgh is not a wholly orthodox bishop (for he ordains women which Moyer believes to be biblically wrong &
heretical) he is better in his company than with one of the Continuing Church bishops (to whom his friend Sam Edwards recently turned). Certainly the folks at David's parish in suburban Philadelphia favour being in an ECUSA diocese to being in a Continuing Church.
It would seem that if the legal appeal of Moyer against his deposition by the Bishop of Pa. does not succeed, and if he is retained as in good standing in Pittsburgh, then the Bishop of Pittsburgh himself runs the risk of becoming the target of legal action within ECUSA, for he has obviously and deliberately broken the canon law of the ECUSA. No doubt there will be those who will be looking to set such a process in motion as soon as possible. ECUSA loves to employ lawyers and courts to sort out its day to day operations.
Obviously there is yet more to develop in this story. David Virtue and Dick Kim will keep us posted.
Meanwhile we all need to pray for the main participants - the two bishops and Moyer. All in differing ways URGENTLY need the grace and guidance of Almighty God. Let us not condemn any of them but see them as frail creatures and all in need of the Divine presence. Maybe, if heaven prompts him, we shall soon get a word of wisdom from the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA!
But what this crisis situation does CRY out for - as I look on -- is this --- That those who want to hold to the traditional Anglican worship, doctrine and discipline, which was once held by the ECUSA, need to find ways to get together and to do so urgently, whether they be in the ECUSA or in one or another of the Anglican groups outside the ECUSA within the USA.
There is a great opportunity now to work together to form slowly, humbly and graciously a National Comprehensive Anglican Church for the USA that is biblical, orthodox and makes room for different styles of churchmanship. (Dr Tarsitano of Savannah has written eloquently about this need.)
There are over 100 bishops within the Continuing Churches of the USA and they work within over thirty different expressions (jurisdictions) of the Anglican Way. This does not paint a good picture of the Anglican Way to the world and this situation needs urgent attention by the Divine Hand. At the same time there are thousands in the ECUSA who feel that their Church has left them stranded or is out to get rid of them if they will not change. They also need attention by the Divine Hand.
NOW is the time for a coming together of these groups and for ways to be found in true fellowship to channel all this Anglican energy and faith into a coherent body based on Communion, a National Anglican Church, that can ask for full membership in the Anglican Communion of Churches.
Perhaps the forthcoming Congress in Atlanta (Dec 4-8) will be a part of this coming together.
September 6, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 5:49 AM CDT permalink
MOYER RESPONDS TO BENNISON'S DEPOSITION
Traditionalist Priest Joyfully Received into Diocese of Pittsburgh
"I have been improperly and illegally removed from the Diocese of
Pennsylvania, and I do not recognize the validity of this action." Fr. Moyer
Special Report
By David W. Virtue
ROSEMONT, PA- (Sept. 5) The Evangelical Catholic priest at the Church of the Good Shepherd today applauded the action of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan in receiving him into his diocese.
Tomorrow, Friday, the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer will celebrate mass at Trinity Cathedral in Pittsburgh where he will be received as a priest in good standing in that diocese by Bishop Duncan.
"I cannot adequately express my thanks to Almighty God for raising up Bishop Robert Duncan as a true Christian leader, a true successor of the Apostles, and a godly man of deep prayer and joy in the Lord. I thank God that I have been deemed worthy to receive a call from the Lord to defend the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as the Church has received them, and to be identified in so doing with the Passion of Jesus."
"The persecution of bishops, and priests by those within the Episcopal Church, especially from those in episcopal office is tragic and an offense to God. In my situation, Charles Bennison has refused to publicly affirm basic Christian teachings, and has removed himself from the Church through public pronouncements and teaching that are apostate and heretical. I have always (as a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church and a priest for 25 years) held bishops in high regard, but I cannot do this with a man who has failed his calling as a shepherd and bishop of the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, Jesus Christ. It is not too much to ask that a bishop be a Christian."
"Secondarily, the Deposition is invalid, unjust, illegal, uncanonical, and unchristian. Never before in the history of the Episcopal Church has this particular canon been used to inhibit and depose a priest who seeks to remain in the Episcopal Church as one who has not committed a moral offense. This canon used against me has historically been reserved for a priest who has left the Episcopal Church for the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Protestant denominations. I had no appeal or trial."
"I have been improperly and illegally removed from the Diocese of Pennsylvania, and I do not recognize the validity of this action."
"A lawsuit has been filed on my behalf requesting an order setting aside the Deposition, or in the alternative for damages. I am blessed with the legal representation and expertise of Mr. John H. Lewis, Jr. of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, along with the assistance of Mr. Robert Fitzgerald and Mr. Christopher Pushaw, attorneys."
"I remain a priest called by God, and I welcome the provision to be a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and to be placed on the rolls for the clergy. I welcome the pastoral oversight of Bishop Duncan. I have a hunger and thirst for a strong and caring Father in God."
"I am also so grateful for the recent action by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion. The Most Rev. and Right Honorable Dr. George Carey has communicated to me in order to give me the right to say with confidence that, 'the Archbishop of Canterbury believes me to be in good standing with him and is prepared to offer me Permission to Officiate in the Diocese of Canterbury and a license in the Province of Canterbury'."
"I also have been receiving licenses for priestly ministries and authority conferred by ordination from an increasing number of bishops from throughout the Episcopal Church."
"In addition, I am grateful for the prayers and support of local clergy from other denominations, many of whom came to Good Shepherd on Sept. 4th for a wonderful and rousing ecumenical praise and prayer service. Finally, the prayers and encouragement from people all over the world have been wonderful and a great blessing."
"How special it is at this time for my wife and me to have our lives graced with the presence of The Most Rev. Dr. Bernard Malango, Archbishop of Central Africa, in our home. His Grace came specially to be with us as a source of pastoral support and spiritual guidance."
"My concern has been and now is entirely focused on the spiritual welfare of the good people under my charge as their rector at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, who have been served so well during this time by the faithful and godly priests on my staff. You may remember that adding to his unjust actions and showing no concern for souls of the people committed to my charge, Charles Bennison inhibited me during Lent prior to Holy Week."
"My parishioners have been so steadfast, caring, and supportive of my wife, my family and me, throughout this difficult emotional ordeal. With joy, I have witnessed a deepening in their spiritual lives, and a renewed commitment to Christ Jesus and His Church Catholic and Apostolic. They are poised to move forward with our many ministries to God's glory and the benefit of others."
"Let me conclude with a prayer I have prayed daily for the past six months, written by St. Ignatius of Loyola.
""Teach us, good Lord, to serve Thee as Thou deservest to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to toil and not to seek for rest; to labor and not to ask for any reward-Save that of knowing what we do Thy Will."
END
posted by John at 5:45 AM CDT permalink
Thursday, September 05, 2002
Homilette in original voice
The web site of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor, a small country parish in the Diocese of Lichfield (www.christchurch-biddulph.fsnet.co.uk) now has the potentiality to offer you in voice form a homilette each month via your computer and its sound facilities. For the latest such homilette of 8.75 minutes on "We praise THEE, O God" please go to the site. The church thanks Barbara Rabett for her work in maintaining this website for this tiny parish by this site reaches many persons not only in Great Britain but also in a variety of countries.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 7:26 AM CDT permalink
New West rally draws 1,500
(This is a report on the rally of those who oppose the local Anglican bishop's policy of embracing active gay people in the ministry of the church ....the diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver area) seems to be going the way of the majority of ECUSA dioceses and the reaction of evangelicals and charismatics is much the same in Canada as it was and in part still is in the USA. Regrettably this whole protest is not tied to a full doctrine of sexuality where serial monogamy and the like are seen as much an enemy of Christian morality as are gay partnerships. My own talks with African and Asian bishops reveals to me that they do not yet realise how deeply the divorce culture has invaded charismatics and evangelicals in N America and so proceed as if it were only a minor problem!) --P.T.
http://anglican.ca/news/online/news.html?newsItem=2002-09-04_ll.news
New West rally draws 1,500
Coalition members feel 'listened to'
LEANNE LARMONDIN
WEBSITE MANAGER
VANCOUVER, Sept. 4, 2002 -
If any of the 1,500 people who turned up at a worship and rally for conservative Anglicans protesting the liberalization of their church expected any irregular episcopal consecration or offers of episcopal oversight, they went away disappointed.
Four foreign primates and diocesan bishops came to the diocese of New Westminster over Labour Day weekend to support and consult with dissident parishes which walked out of the diocese's June synod in protest of a vote in favour of moving ahead with same-sex blessings. The weekend culminated in a service of celebration at a Baptist church in nearby Tsawwassen, which drew 1,500.
Although organizers had hinted that up to five primates would be coming to the consultations, they got only two: Southeast Asia's primate Yong Ping Chung and Archbishop Bernard Malanga of the province of Central Africa.
Two bishops also attended: Bishop Andy Fairfield from North Dakota (representing the Anglican Council of Bishops, described at the gathering as the "American counterpart to Essentials") and Bishop Peter Njenga of Mount Kenya South - representing outgoing Kenya primate David Gitari.
Educated at Newfoundland's Memorial University and Queen's College, Archbishop Yong served as a keynote speaker at the 2001 Essentials gathering of conservative Anglicans and is notorious in the Anglican Communion for illegally consecrating bishops in the Episcopal Church in the United States.
The visit was co-ordinated by Rev. Bill Atwood, a Texas priest and head of a conservative, international mission organization called Ekklesia.
A press release from the coalition of eight parishes, which call itself the Anglican Communion in New Westminster, said Archbishop Yong's sermon emphasized the biblical basis for opposition to the blessing of same-sex relationships. He "praised ACiNW's courageous defence of this traditional understanding in the face of unilateral action that many regard as a threat to the unity of the worldwide Anglican church," the release said.
The Sept. 1 service was celebrated in English, Swahili and Cantonese. Three of the coalition parishes are Chinese congregations.
Steve Schuh, president of Integrity Vancouver, the church's gay and lesbian group, attended the evening service and described it as an "upbeat" Evensong-type service with few surprises - "straight out of the Prayer Book."
(Mr. Schuh is a member of the diocese's largest parish, St. John's Shaughnessy, one of parishes that walked out of synod. He continues to worship there because it satisfies his evangelical side.)
The service had a strong charismatic representation (charismatics typically raise their hands in song and worship), said Mr. Schuh, but he acknowledged it was difficult to say how many in attendance were coalition members and how many were onlookers. "I noticed a number of people did not respond to the service with clapping, as many did," he said.
Mr. Schuh said that Mr. Walters, incumbent at St. Matthew's Abbotsford, said the consultations with the visiting prelates were productive since coalition members finally felt they had been listened to.
Another member of St. John's, Rev. Tom Anthony, also attended out of interest. He said he is not a member of the clergy team and does not support the actions of his parish's clergy or its lay leadership.
Mr. Anthony was the national church's director of World Program in the 1970s, when Yong Ping Chung was selected to study in Canada by his department's Asia secretary. He said he finds it ironic that "Archbishop Yong knows better than the Canadian church what's best for the Canadian church." That, said Mr. Anthony, is a form of reverse neo-colonialism.
Organizers at the event read letters of support from several conservative Anglican groups, including the Essentials Council -- Anglican Renewal Ministries (which donated $3,000 to the coalition's cause), Barnabas Anglican Ministries and the Prayer Book Society of Canada, the latter whose website up until recently had been the online home for the eight parishes' campaign. The Anglican Communion in New Westminster coalition only recently launched its own website for press releases and background on why it wants alternative episcopal oversight.
Even before synod met and voted on same-sex blessings, the coalition - which was then calling itself the Essentials coalition - was asking for another bishop to minister to them. Such an appointment is called alternative episcopal oversight. Synod, instead, voted 63 per cent in favour of a plan proposed by Bishop Michael Ingham, which provides for a conscience clause and an "episcopal visitor" for dissenting clergy and parishes; that bishop may provide pastoral support but does not function as a diocesan bishop.
Archbishop David Crawley, metropolitan (senior bishop) of British Columbia and Yukon, said in an interview that Bishop Ingham's proposal of an episcopal visitor is fair and that he would not allow a foreign bishop to minister in his ecclesiastical province without permission. The primates and bishops were "behaving inappropriately", said Archbishop Crawley.
The visiting primates and bishops, meanwhile, did meet with Bishop Ingham on Sept. 2. Bishop Ingham did not respond to an interview request and the visiting prelates would only say that the meeting was cordial.
Bishop Ingham had previously condemned any planned visit by foreign bishops and archbishops as inflammatory and unwelcome.
Anglican protocol dictates that bishops and primates do not enter each other's dioceses without an invitation or permission from the local bishop.
The evening's offerings, as announced during the service, raised about $14,000 for the coalition; the event reportedly cost $25,000.
- END -
posted by John at 7:25 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
Peter Toon Interview Archived at KFUO
Dr Toon's interview on the KFUO Issues, Etc radio program is now available as a Windows Media stream on their web site at http://www.kfuo.org/. Choose the link for 1st Hour on September 3rd programs.
posted by John at 8:08 PM CDT permalink
Tuesday, September 03, 2002
A Letter In Answer to Various Criticisms/Comments
My dear Dick Kim,
Greetings on this 3rd Day of September, 2002.
Thank you for circulating my various broadsheets and tracts on the Language of Prayer for Common Worship. The fact that such discussion creates deep emotional reaction underlines the fact that there has not YET been found a modern or contemporary idiom of public prayer (cf. the intense debate going on in the R C Church over how to translate Latin into English now, 40 years after Vatican II - also over what is suitable music for the Mass! Cf also the continuing versions of the Bible, new forms of liturgy, and so on).
I have been asking that there should be space made for the use of the classic and traditional English dialect or idiom of language of public prayer/liturgy. At the same time I hope that a suitable way of addressing the YOU-God will be found for right now we swop and change every second year in our public language that claims to be contemporary.
Thus for a long time into the future I envisage that the faithful Church will allow both the traditional language of public prayer and will seek by all good means to develop a reverent and acceptable and stable contemporary language of worship.
As you know such forms of writing as preparing tracts are not meant to earn doctoral degrees but rather to provoke thought by stating things in a direct and sometimes exaggerated way. So I have written. (Writing sermons and learned articles and books is a different technique. I use all of them!) Writing tracts opens one up to abuse and praise and I get some of each!
Please let your List know that I do other things than think about and write about language. I preached three times last Sunday on the appointed Lessons, I write devotional material, I visit the sick in homes and hospitals and all this is pastoral, based I hope upon the principles of the Gospel. I use the new Common Worship of the C of E for some services if that is the desire of the people concerned - e.g. weddings.
My hour interview today (3rd Sept, 3.p.m. Central Time on the Missouri Lutheran Station -- for access via computer go to listen to a live RealAudio stream of this station on the web by going to KFUO’s website: http://www.kfuo.org/... It looks like they also archive interviews for later listening…) is primarily on my book THE END OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY (Crossway Book, Illinois) which is about method in doing theology today. No doubt the origins of YOU-God language will be raised for it is one of the "gifts" of the revolutionary 1960s to the church in all her manifestations, Protestant and Catholic, but language is not the main thrust of the book. But we cannot escape language for it is one of those major gifts that distinguish us from the apes.
I shall not be sending any more tracts on the Language issue to you; but, I will ask your indulgence later in the Fall to advertise the forthcoming book that I am presently writing with Dr Tarsitano, "Neither archaic nor obsolete. The English Idiom of Public Prayer." I hope that your List will get this book in December 2002 and ponder the history we present and the suggestions that we offer for the glorifying of the Holy Trinity in words and deeds. We are not cranks or chaps left behind in the 1950s but rather those who are seeking to grapple with the situation before us of the need for a dignified, reverent and stable language of PUBLIC prayer for the millions on millions of English-speaking Christians around God's world. We find various devout, educated Roman Catholics most helpful and cooperative in this task!
A last word -- I have said nothing about individual private prayer. That is another topic!
thank you for your kindness and patience with me.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 10:09 AM CDT permalink
Sunday, September 01, 2002
Peter Toon Radio Interview September 3rd
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has invited Peter Toon, arch-conservative, devotee of the THOU-God, user of the ancient KJV, BCP and RSV, singer of the hymns of Wesley, Watts and Keble, listener to the music of Bach, reader of the works of Martin Luther, Minister of a small, English rural parish where the old BCP is used, and traditionalist Vice-President of the ultra-traditionalist Prayer Book Society of the USA, to be interviewed for 1 hour on its KFUO station at 3.p.m central time on Tuesday 3rd September on the program called ISSUES etc. For him it will 9.p.m. so do not be surprised if he is half-dosy! But listen in to learn more the THOU-God and why He is to be worshipped even in this era of the apparent triumph of the YOU-God.
KFUO can be heard via RealAudio on the internet at www.kfuo.org.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
posted by John at 1:07 PM CDT permalink
