Monday, August 30, 2004
Contending – IN ANGLICANISM -- FOR THE Faith once for all delivered
“Beloved I found it necessary to write appealing to you TO CONTEND FOR THE FAITH THAT WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3)
I invite you to meditate with me upon the advice of St Jude given long ago.
When there is a falling away from the true worship, doctrine and discipline of Christianity because of false teaching and immoral behavior then the genuine Christian leader must act. So did Jude. He found it necessary as a slave of Jesus Christ to call upon fellow Christians to be true to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father, and not merely to guard but to contend for “the Faith”.
The Faith, not “a Faith”
He asserts:
- That there is to commend not “a Faith” but “The Faith”. There are certain facts and with these facts certain meanings that are the content of “the Faith”, which is a set of truths about God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. The central facts and meanings are (1) the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death as an Atonement for the sins of the world, and (2) the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and his Exaltation to heaven to the right hand of the Father, as the Lord of lords, and to make intercession for his disciples, so that they are reconciled to God as his adopted children. Surrounding these facts and their meanings are of course others such as those later put together in what we call the Apostles’ Creed.
- That “the Faith” was delivered “once and for all”. It was not given in bits and pieces or given once and modified later. No! It was delivered as a whole unit and that once only in the history of the world. “The Faith” is the basic message and teaching of the first Apostles, which arose directly from the facts of the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, the Messiah and his sending to them the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete.
- That the apostles proclaimed “the Faith”, and handed it over as “the living Faith” to the churches which they planted – that is, to the fellowships of consecrated believers, the saints, the baptized called to be holy and righteous as a people indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
- That the saints, the consecrated people of God under their elders, are to contend for “the Faith” that has been handed over to them. They are entrusted with the living Tradition, the dynamic Faith, and this they are not merely to propagate but also to defend it with all their powers. They are actively to look for opportunities presented by divine providence to engage in the struggle to defend and commend “the Faith”.
Of course, there is no separation in Jude’s mind between, on the one hand, the personal union of the believer and the whole body of Christ with the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, hope and love, and, on the other, the commitment to holding those truths that together make up “the Faith”. In calling the doctrinal truths “the Faith”, Jude is not in any way forgetting “faith” as the act of believing in and trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lord, the Christ and the Saviour.
The New Testament
Over time, as we see actually happening in this Letter of Jude, “the Faith” came to be written down by other Apostles and Evangelists, in a variety of forms and contexts in what we now call the “Books of the New Testament” (of course many more letters and exhortations and treatises were written than are in the N T and there was a sifting and discerning process in the churches before the final content [canon] of the N T was agreed and fixed). So, whereas the “saints” of the congregations to whom Jude wrote had only the living Tradition, passed on and handed over by the apostles to them, we today have the written Canon of the New Testament.
Contending today in Anglicanism for “the Faith” that was once delivered means defending, explaining and propagating the basic message and content of the books that make up the New Testament (against of course the background of the Old Testament). In general western Anglicans are ignorant of the content of the Scriptures and so this contending may require, in fact does require, first of all an encouragement to Anglicans really and truly to get to know what is inside the covers of the N T.
Further, the Early Church, which did the sifting of the variety of documents to come up with the final List, the Canon of the N T, had by this time produced its own summary of the central core of “the Faith” in what we call “Creeds”. Of these the two that have stood the test of time and are still much used are The Apostles’ Creed (once the baptismal Creed in the church of Rome) and The Nicene Creed (approved by the Council of Constantinople in 381).
Therefore, today, the Christian who reads the Bible to learn “the Faith” is greatly helped by knowing already “the Creed” and this knowledge serves as a kind of basic skeleton on which to hang the further details learned from the content of the N T. In fact to begin with the Creed in the mind helps the reader and student of the N T to keep to the facts and to avoid majoring on minors (e.g., getting caught up in speculation as to the details of the Second Coming or of the destiny of the nation of Israel).
Enter dogma
However, in using the Nicene Creed in approaching the reading and the study of the New Testament, the Christian becomes aware of a new reality in this Creed, which is not in the Apostles’ Creed and which is hardly there, if at all, in the N T. This is the use of the Greek [philosophical] technique of answering questions through the use of what is usually called “ontology”, the getting behind and below the common sense use of language and thought. In the description of Jesus Christ in the Nicene Creed there occurs a phrase, which is one of the most important theological statements ever made by the Church. It is in Greek - homoousion to patri, and in Latin - omousion patri. The traditional English translation is “of the same [identical] substance as the Father” or “consubstantial with the Father” [consubstantialem Patri]. That is, Jesus Christ in his divine nature possesses the very same, the identical, Being, Deity, Godhead or Divinity as does the Father himself. Therefore, he is really and truly “God” as is the Father; thus Jesus Christ is “very God of very God”.
Once the Church, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) and confirmed in later Councils, had introduced dogma (as we now call it) into its Creed, it had taken a step which could not be reversed. In order to contend for the Faith, and especially to contend for the truth concerning the real identity of Jesus as the Christ, the Church had to use – not Greek philosophy as such – but the well established and tried Greek technique of stating truth and answering questions using ontology. Thus what is called “the homoousion” became part of “the Faith” and the Church mastered the art of speaking and writing not only in the common sense mode but also, when required, in the specialist mode, and it required all God’s children to try appreciate this from the fourth century onwards, for it was in the Creed.
Contending today
Thus today in contending for the Faith in the secularist West and in a religious situation where “dumbing down” and attempts to be “relevant” are the order of the day, church leaders and committed members have to seek to know thoroughly not only the common sense kind of language and thought-forms of the N T but also the added reality of the nature of dogma (concerning especially [a] the Identity of Christ Jesus as the Incarnate Son and [b] the One God being The Trinity of Persons – for which for illuminating clarity see the Third Creed, the Western Quicunque Vult or Athanasian Creed).
Regrettably, and something not fully grasped by some of those who heartily desire to contend for “the Faith” once handed over, is that today the task is made the more difficult because of the abundance of versions of the Bible, versions based upon the post 1960s theory of “dynamic equivalency”. By this theory the supposed needs of the modern situation can so easily dictate to a large extent what the original text is held to state! To be safe, we need the Greek text and also we need to stay with the traditional versions which use the older way of translation, the essentially literal approach, so that we get at what was actually written for our instruction.
Further, for Anglicans in the West, the situation in which to content for “the Faith” is even worse because much of the material in their post 1960s Prayer Books is also taken from sources which have also employed the theory of dynamic equivalency as well as the theory of inclusive language, together with aspects of modern liberal theology. Thus everything in these Books and Booklets has to be tested before it can be used in defense of “the Faith” since to use it – as it is in its raw state – is to risk commending “a Faith”.
So, tragically, we have to record a situation all over the West where modern Anglicans, who call themselves “orthodox”, and who think that they are doing what St Jude called us to do; are, in fact, doing nearly the opposite. Why? Because in using inadequate versions of the Bible and of Liturgy they are sincerely defending “a Faith” rather than “the Faith” Let it be crystal clear, I do not say that they do not have a living belief and trust in God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. By grace they do so and often an exemplary one. I speak only of their relation to “the Faith” as a body of living truth that is handed on from generation to generation within the One Body of Christ.
Perhaps, in this context, the value of knowledge and use of the classic Anglican Formularies, and the writings of the standard Anglican divines (wherein “the Faith” is presented in traditional style and language) can be appreciated in the struggle for true worship, doctrine and discipline for today – and appreciated even by those who believe that the use of modern language is necessary in order rightly to content for “the Faith” once delivered to the saints.
August 30, 2004 The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
posted by John at 8:50 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Sunday, August 29, 2004
A Return to the Female Biblical Role
Mary Ellen Bork on God's Call to Modern Women
McLEAN, Virginia, AUG. 22, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A recent Vatican document criticized the "distortions" and "lethal effects" of feminism, calling for "active collaboration between the sexes" and the "authentic advancement of women."
Mary Ellen Bork couldn't agree more.
The writer, lecturer and wife of retired federal judge Robert Bork shared with ZENIT the need for modern women to reclaim their God-given role in society, and to reject the defective anthropology and misguided ideas of feminism.
Q: Why do you encourage women to embrace a more traditional, biblical role in the secular age?
Bork: Radical feminists and others have denigrated the traditional roles of women as partner, wife and mother in their effort to promote women as individuals whose fulfillment is to be found almost exclusively in the workplace.
Most women are trying to find a balance between responsibilities to family and children and using their gifts in the workplace. They will be happier if they have a conscious appreciation of their irreplaceable role as feminine persons with a special gift for affirming the life of other persons. Women need encouragement from other Christian women and the support of a Church that needs to be better versed in theology of the body.
As Pope John Paul II has taught, women have a key role in returning dignity to the sacrament of marriage and in preserving a culture that is worthy of the human person. These enormously important cultural tasks can be better served by women who are well formed in Christian values and well informed about the cultural battles in the policy arena.
It is as if women hold in their hands the threads that form the basic fabric of society and their efforts to weave these together in a unity will result in a stronger fabric that can resist the centrifugal pull of the culture.
The key to helping women of faith today is to help them to deepen their appreciation of their feminine gifts and their impact on society. Without their gifts the world will be a cold and uncivilized place. Without their specific gifts society will lose its balance because it will lack the cultural environment in which persons thrive best.
The Holy Father has often said the deepest cultural crisis today is the human person, understanding how to live and what life means. Many have settled for a superficial answer to the meaning of life through ignorance and confusion about their sexuality and the spiritual dimension of life.
Women of faith can find support in many new movements in the Church, especially the theology of the body. I want to encourage them to understand their unique dignity and to not be swayed by the cultural pressures that would rob them of a deeply feminine experience of life.
Q: How does the U.S. culture in particular challenge women who want to pursue holiness?
Bork: Our culture is super-affluent, highly technical, wired, secular, over-sexed and in a hurry. It is also generous, tolerant, religious and open.
We have to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves to find the path to holiness in this "slough of despond." One basic challenge is the fallacy that we can go it alone, either in our personal or spiritual lives.
Women need a sense of community with others. Spiritual discussion groups and Bible study groups help to overcome a sense of isolation and alienation from the culture. They can also learn how other women balance the pressures of work and family.
A few people gathered in his name to pray and discuss spiritual classics gives breathing space for reflection and prayer with like-minded people. This experience creates a cultural support for a serious pursuit of holiness.
Q: At a time when women have moved into the mainstream of public life, are there any special pressures on them to conform to the wider society?
Bork: There is a lot of cultural pressure to be politically correct and therefore to hold popular positions on moral and social issues, such as abortion as a woman's choice and gay marriage as a fundamental right.
Myrna Blythe, former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, has written a book explaining the pressure she experienced in the New York publishing world to conform to the liberal ideas of her "spin sisters." She, a successful businesswoman, was ostracized from social gatherings and made to feel an outcast for not agreeing with the accepted liberal creed.
Catholic women of faith will find the same social pressures as they advance in professional circles. They to be single-minded in their conviction that they are bringing their values into the workplace with a feminine presence that can make a real difference. In this environment it is possible to grow in virtue on a daily basis, virtues such as courage, prudence and patience as we face often well-nuanced social pressures. Getting together with a group of like-minded women with whom they can reflect on their cultural experience can be a balm to the soul.
Q: What do you think of the pro-abortion march in Washington, D.C., last spring? How do such publicized displays affect women's perceptions of their role?
Bork: Marches, conventions and dinners promoting and honoring the politically correct views are a way of life in Washington. These displays are intended to bolster the egos and the positions of secular feminists and the cultural left. The presence of Hollywood stars adds glamour and buzz to these events.
The national media cover these events widely to the point that many women could think that everyone accepts these ideas. The dominant culture is very liberal and puts in the shadows, so to speak, those who hold more biblical views.
Women of faith are in a defensive position. Using the sports analogy, we need to live offensively in the sense of understanding cultural pressures, and choosing to actively live our faith and seek ways to use our feminine gifts. We must be prepared, have a good strategy, and go forward fearlessly.
It is an art to speak the truth both to those who do not agree with us as well as to our sisters and friends who are in need of encouragement and support. We know there is no one path for all women and that women who affirm life in all forms present a very attractive face to those who are seeking the truth.
Q: It seems many women are encouraged to support abortion and are told that you can't be pro-life and "pro-woman." Do you see many resisting this mentality?
Bork: Yes. Polls show that many younger women are rejecting abortion and want to see more restrictions on this death-dealing practice. Science is on the side of pro-lifers in such things as the refinements of ultrasound and the detailed pictures of children in the womb. Many women are affirming their own instinctive love of children and are remaining true to this most basic feminine gift.
But science and facts will not stop those cultural leaders with an agenda to promote abortion and sexual license. They have accepted a lie and made it the center of their movement which is now protected by the mantle of the Constitution. But people with any degree of open-mindedness can be led by the visual argument of these pictures to see that life begins at conception. They can be persuaded by women confident of their own femininity.
They need to then make the connection that the woman is the first home of the child and that there is nothing more womanly than having children as the fruit of the marriage relationship.
Q: What steps can women take to reclaim and fortify their special role?
Bork: C.S. Lewis said in his book "Mere Christianity": "If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next." Women need to be spiritually alive and develop their capacity for friendship with a wide variety of people. This will enable them to be people who affirm others who may have a different life experience than theirs.
And they must be intellectually well grounded in their faith and able to "give reasons for the faith that is in them." The ability to affirm people in what is good and lead them to the truth is an essential culture-forming role that women can handle very well.
Q: What is the significance of the Vatican recently releasing "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World"? Why is the document necessary in order to correctly understand the authentic advancement of women?
Bork: This concise statement addressed to the bishops reaffirms with precision the vision of human life given in sacred Scripture that is under attack by secular liberalism in advanced Western societies. The letter is not responding to our cultural situation but is setting out a clear statement of the anthropology that must be vigorously affirmed and explained now that it is under attack.
The letter argues that the truth that man and woman are co-equal and that sex differences are part of God's original design for the human person. Cultural trends seeking to wipe out sexual difference in the name of radical equality and experiments in polymorphous sexuality deny God's revelation and can only lead to great personal unhappiness.
The very language of the story of salvation in both the Old and New Testament uses the language of a covenant between bride and bridegroom. Far from being a poetic touch, this language reflects god's plan for human beings and the ordering of society.
The letter envisions femininity, renewed by spiritual life, as a dynamic active gift essential to family, society and the Church. What the Pope calls "the feminine genius" is a gift of openness to another person, the opposite of a self-centered focus on "my rights."
The Church does not hold up "an outdated conception of femininity" but promotes a dynamic and active presence to human persons and encourages women to use these gifts to preserve the family and bring about a more humane society.
Some commentators think talking about feminine presence is not a serious discussion of women's gifts. They do not adequately understand the role of Mary, the epitome of feminine reality and presence in the church. She is a self-sacrificing person, capable of discerning the face of Christ, capable of living the spiritual inheritance of the Church. The Church in America, still suffering from the damage done by the sex scandals, especially diminishing trust, could use a strong feminine presence of some kind to restore trust and a sense of harmony in the community that has been deeply disturbed.
The advancement of women, a legitimate modern priority, is proceeding in some circles with a defective anthropology, one that sees human nature as malleable and sex differences as unimportant. Women and men are seeking the same power and the same functions and are less attuned to real sexual differences, denying the need for feminine gifts and redefining human sexuality by claiming that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. This path leads to destruction.
True advancement of women must be based on the truth about the human person and human sexuality. We need more expositions like this letter to clarify the nature of feminine gifts so that we never take them for granted.
posted by John at 6:27 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Saturday, August 28, 2004
ADOPTION – ecclesial, Anglican style
Fatherly Bonds between Africa and America
There is a growing trend amongst conservative evangelical and charismatic (and even anglo-catholic) ECUSA and ACC (Anglican Church of Canada) congregations. It is to declare themselves “fatherless” and looking for an adoptive father in Africa who has a black face – looking for an African bishop or archbishop as a “father in God” who is in a province that is part of the Anglican Communion.
Several African bishops seem happy to take on this role as father of mostly white children and in doing so they have caused distress in the House of Bishops of the ECUSA and of the ACC. Emphasizing the Anglican Primates' agreement that "bishops are to respect the boundaries of one another's dioceses and provinces," the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, Frank T Griswold, recently sent a letter of concern to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda, Henry L Orombi, after a third Southern California congregation recently aligned with the Ugandan Diocese of Luweero. Presiding Bishop Griswold also issued the following statement to the media:
"I am saddened by the action of clergy and members of three congregations in
the Diocese of Los Angeles and their desire to separate themselves from the
life of the Episcopal Church. I know how assiduously Bishop Bruno has sought
to be a minister of reconciliation and a pastor to those of all views within
the life of the Diocese of Los Angeles and its 147 diverse congregations."I have written to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda
expressing my concern that he claims jurisdiction within the boundaries of the
Episcopal Church. The bishops of the Anglican Communion and the Primates in
their statement of last October have made it clear that bishops are to respect
the boundaries of one another'sdioceses and provinces. Living in communion with
one another involves not only the sharing of a common faith in the Risen Lord
but how we treat and respect one another in the Body of Christ."
Technically, Griswold is right. The African bishops of Uganda and elsewhere are breaking the rules and this is especially poignant since the Archbishop’s Commission looking into the sexuality crisis has not yet reported (due October 04). Why could they not wait until November?, it is being asked.
The African bishops justify their action, apparently, on the basis that the ECUSA in general, and specific bishops in the USA and Canada in particular, are encouraging the blessing of gay partners and ordaining persons in gay commitments. And this itself is against the Bible and against agreements at the Lambeth Conference and in the Primates’ Meetings. The promotion of the Gay agenda locally in the USA or Canada leads to a conservative parish in Los Angeles or Vancouver breaking with its local bishop and becoming “fatherless”; and then it looks for “a father in God” from those who are the most outspoken against the LesBiGay agenda of the ECUSA and the ACC, the African bishops of Africa but north of South Africa.
Comments
1. This looking for an adoptive Father in God from Africa will probably continue and if the Archbishop’s Commission (as is expected) says little that is truly practically realistic and helpful, then it will cease to be a few and will become many parishes.
2. We are surely to believe that this Adoption is not permanent but is more like Fostering. Let us think of the African bishops as foster fathers to these congregations, and being so until they find a way in the not too far distant future to integrate into some genuine Anglican diocese in North America with its own local bishop.
3. We have to view this development with some concerns and I list several of them below.
First, the Anglican scene in the USA and Canada is being controlled more and
more by centrifugal forces as it is becomes more divided. There are few
genuinely centripetal forces at work to bring reconciliation, cooperation and
commonality. We can all agree that individual congregations with bishops far
away is not an ideal situation.
Secondly – and here I hope not to be misunderstood – the African bishops are terrific on such themes as biblical authority, evangelization, church extension, joyful service and opposition to active homosexuality. In fact, they tend to see homosexuality as so wrong that anyone who like them opposes it is a friend, whatever his actual views on the Trinity, the Incarnation, Grace and Salvation.
In general, the bishops so point to the Bible that they take for granted that the Prayer Book being used in any Anglican dioceses is fine (the reason for this is that their background is the use of the classic BCP 1662 in English or in a local African language). Thus they see the title “BCP” on the ECUSA Prayer Book and they assume it is doctrinally in accord with the classic BCP of 1662. How wrong they are! They do not realize that this American book has all kinds of deficiencies in terms of
what may be called historic Anglican standards of doctrine of God, Christ and
Salvation (see further Tarsitano & Toon, Neither Orthodoxy nor Formulary.
The 1979 Liturgy , from 1-800-727-1928 or http://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/ ). The African bishops do not seem to be aware just how much the ECUSA was infected with heresy and error before the homosexual agenda prevailed in 2003.
Thirdly – and here I hope once again not be misunderstood – the African
bishops do not realize (and I suspect do not really want to know) just how
deeply the divorce culture has affected even the “conservative congregations” in
North America and also that the clergy serving them are in the same boat. If
they did they would surely call for some obvious moves to turn this around and
to set the churches on a more wholesome view and practice of sexual relations.
Further, they do not seem to see the connection between the presence of the
divorce culture as a preparing of the way for the entrance of the LesBiGay
culture.
Fourthly, there is an over-use of the word “orthodox” used by
the conservatives of their own position in opposition to the local ECUSA or ACC
bishop. They would be better using the word “conservative” for, as I have sought
to demonstrate elsewhere, neither the ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book nor the Canadian
BAS of 1985 are by classical standards “orthodox” and in general the
conservative congregations use these books for their worship and as their
standards of doctrine. Opposing the LesBiGay agenda makes one a conservative not
necessarily an orthodox churchman!
Let us all pray that in God’s providence there will come out of the present huge mess of Anglicanism in North America a unified witness. Happily there are sanctified souls in all of the fragmented parts praying for the revelation of the glory of the Lord and unity in his Name and for his sake.
Let us pray specifically that the Archbishop’s Commission will at this late hour be given heavenly wisdom to offer practical solutions based upon sound principles and which honor the Lord our God.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 28 2004
posted by John at 10:03 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Irish Prayer Book and the Church Times Poll August 20th
www.churchtimes.co.uk
right reason prevailed! Let us hope the Irish take note.
Click on "Question of the Week", then "See previous weeks' Questions and Answers". The following is displayed:
On 20 August 2004 we asked you
"Were the Irish right to name their new prayer book the BCP?"
The results were:
Yes: 200(35%)
No: 366(65%)
Total: 566
thank you
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge
posted by John at 9:58 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Friday, August 27, 2004
On the Hierarchy of Truth
Majoring on Minors?
Are all Christian truths equal?
Are all the parts of the whole counsel of God relevant?
Because of the imperfection of man, and specifically because of the presence of inbred sin, one tendency of Christian man -- that is man in the divine process of being sanctified by the Holy Ghost in the church on earth -- is to major on minors, to get things out of perspective in terms of what is Christian truth.
Of this the most glaring examples at present in the North American Anglican scene, are, (a) those evangelicals and charismatics who identify the approval of homosexual partnerships as the major ecclesial sin and the ideal of one man and one woman in matrimony as the major Christian truth in terms of identifying “orthodoxy”; and (b) those anglo-catholics who identify the ordination of women as the major ecclesial sin and an all-male Ministry as the major Christian truth in identifying “orthodoxy”.
Now the truth of Holy Matrimony (see the excellent Preface to the service in the BCP 1662, Canada 1962, but regrettably missing from the BCP 1928 of PECUSA) and the truth of Holy Order (see the Ordinal in the BCP of 1662, 1962 & 1928) are important truths. However, in the hierarchy of truths they are surely not at the top, that is not first. They are subordinate truths (using subordinate in its classic meaning).
To know what is at the top we look at the Three Creeds, identified in The Thirty-Nine Articles (Article VIII), as the Apostles’, The Nicene & The Athanasian (regrettably the latter is not in the 1928 BCP). There we learn that the truth of God as The Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Three Persons one God, a Unity in Trinity and a Trinity in Unity, is primary. And with this primary doctrine goes the truth of the Incarnation, the only-begotten Son of the Father made known in two natures, divine and human. And from these flow the doctrines of Revelation, Creation, Redemption and Judgement, God in action towards his universe and his people.
Out of these truths concerning what is called the Economic Trinity (God-as-he-is-towards us in Revelation, Creation…etc.) come the further truths of Holy Matrimony and Holy Order. In fact, there cannot be the truth of Matrimony until the Truth of the Holy Trinity is known and received, and the same Trinity as the Creator of man in his own image and as male and female is known. And, there cannot be the truth of Order until the Incarnation is known and received, and further the relation of the Incarnate One, the Lord Jesus Christ, to his Bride, the Church, is understood and experienced.
To say that there is an hierarchy of Truth, that is truths in divine order, is not to say that some are less important than others for all truth is inter-related and is of God, who is absolute, eternal and infinite Truth. It is rather to say that there is a first and a second, that is, there is an order, and the second and the third in order cannot be understood without the knowledge of the first, and so on.
So, as the Creeds, and particularly The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult) make clear, what the Church must believe, teach and confess as of first priority is the glorious Reality of the One God who is Three Persons and the further glorious Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity. From these two Truths all other truths follow, and all are important and necessary for the mature Christian to receive, believe and obey.
Therefore, errors, especially deliberate ones, in stating the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation that are regrettably found in modern creeds, liturgies, hymns, choruses prayers and even statements of official Anglican commissions and bodies (as these are composed to be simple or politically correct or even out of ignorance) are a most serious matter, for they undermine the whole hierarchy of truth and affect what is seen as truth lower down the hierarchy. The whole spectrum of Christian truth is affected when there is error in the cardinal statement of the doctrines of the Trinity & The Incarnation (with the related truths of creation, revelation, salvation and judgement). This assertion can be verified by a study of the writings of the leading thinkers in the feminist and lesbigay movements for example for apparently none of them are classically orthodox in their doctrine of God and of Christ Jesus.
In one sentence, Jesus Christ is the TRUTH and he is so because he is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, made known in his divine and human natures, for us and for our salvation.
In order to confess God’s truths in the lower part of the hierarchy it is necessary to confess rightly the truths that come first in order!
I strongly recommend a prayerful study of The Athanasian Creed along with a biblical study of the word “truth” as it occurs in the Gospels and Epistles of John.
[for The Athanasian Creed see the articles in The Mandate for September 04 available on line at www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 and by phone from 1 800 727 1928.]
P.S. I have pointed out the errors concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the use made of it in recent, oft-quoted official Anglican documents in chapter 4 of my Reforming Forwards, recently published in London and available from www.latimertrust.org
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 26 2004
posted by John at 11:23 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
From Los Angeles to Uganda!
Slowly but surely congregations leave the Episcopal Church in search of overseas bishops whom they believe to be "sound" in doctrine and morality. The ECUSA is in a centrifugal disarray. --P.T.
-------------------------------------
A statement from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno,
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
August 24, 2004
This morning, the rector and senior warden of St. David’s Episcopal Church, North Hollywood, hand-delivered to me a letter similar to those issued to me on August 17 by St. James’ Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints’ Church, Long Beach. The text of that letter follows:
This is to inform you that the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. David’s
Parish in North Hollywood, California by vote of its vestry and members has
disassociated itself from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
and the Diocese of Los Angeles, and has aligned itself with the Diocese of
Luweero, Anglican Province of Uganda. The Rt. Rev. Evans M. Kisekka of the
Diocese of Luweero had also accepted The Rev. Jose A. Poch under his
ecclesiastical authority.
We have delivered this letter to you personally in order to honor you by
having you learn of these actions from us instead of from any other
source.
[Signed by] The Rev. Jose Poch, Rector, St. David’s Church
[Signed by] Primi Esparza, Senior Warden, St. David’s Church
As with the Long Beach and Newport Beach congregations, I have worked hard in the past for reconciliation with this parish. It was one of four to which I offered pastoral oversight by an Episcopal bishop with whom they are in agreement. The Rev. William Thompson, rector of All Saints’, Long Beach, declined that offer two weeks ago on behalf of all four parishes, and assured me of their continued loyalty to me and to this diocese.
The Rev. Jose Poch, rector of St. David’s, has been temporarily inhibited from exercising the ministry of a priest. I have offered him and the people of St. David’s Church the opportunity to rescind this decision and be reconciled to me, to the Diocese, and to the Episcopal Church.
J. Jon Bruno
Bishop of Los Angeles
posted by John at 11:18 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Centrifugal forces in America and the Archbishop of Uganda
Here is a significant Message from the Archbishop of Uganda. Please read and then move on to read my comments at the end.
ACNS 3873
UGANDA 23 AUGUST 2004
Statement from the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of UgandaThe Rt Revd Evans Kisekka, the Bishop of Luweero Diocese, has my full blessing and support in receiving the clergy from St James Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach, California, USA. These clergy are canonically resident in the Luweero Diocese and are priests and deacons in good standing of the Church of Uganda. On 20 November 2003, the House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Uganda (Anglican) made the following resolutions:
"The Church of the Province of Uganda (Anglican) cuts her relationship and Communion with the Episcopal Church of the United States of America(ECUSA) on their resolution and consequent action of consecrating and enthroning an openly confessed homosexual Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire Diocese in the Anglican Communion; and with any other Province that shall follow suit."
"Mindful of the fact that there are a number of dioceses, parishes and congregations in the ECUSA, which are opposed to the resolution and action taken by their convention and are determined to remain faithful to the teaching of scripture on human sexuality, to those dear brothers and sisters, we extend our solidarity with them and assure them of our continued prayers.
"We have recently concluded the 17th Provincial Assembly of the Province of the Church of Uganda. During that meeting, the assembly affirmed the House of Bishops' stance of broken communion with the ECUSA, and at the same time declared its commitment to, support for, and communion with clergy and parishes of the Anglican Communion Network who seek to uphold biblical orthodoxy and the faith once delivered to the saints. We condemn any attempt on the part of the ECUSA Bishop of Los Angeles to depose our clergy serving at St James Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach. He has no jurisdiction over them, and we will not recognise his actions. Furthermore, we appeal to other provinces within the Anglican Communion to recognise our clergy as priests
and deacons in good standing.We are grieved by the continued unbiblical actions of the leadership of ECUSA that has led to its separation from the majority of the Anglican Communion. We especially note that the Bishop of Los Angeles recently presided at the blessing of a same-sex union of one of his priests.
We pray for his repentance - and the repentance of all the ECUSA leadershipwho
voted for the consecration of a man in an active homosexual relationship as bishop of New Hampshire - and their return to the historic faith and communion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi
Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda
More information on the Church of the Province of Uganda click here:http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=U1___________________________________________________________________
COMMENT
The reception by a diocese in Uganda of clergy from two parishes of the Diocese of Los Angeles in the ECUSA is the continuation of a growing involvement over the recent past of Bishops from Africa, Asia and South America in the American & Canadian Anglican scene.
What we now see is both the Anglican Mission in America, sponsored by the Archbishops of S E Asia and Rwanda, and the adoption of clergy and parishes in various parts of the USA and British Columbia by overseas Bishops.
Some would say that the ECUSA is beginning to disintegrate, not through the work of The Network, but by the gradual intervention of more and more overseas Primates. Parishes formerly of ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada are now under the oversight of at least 6 Primates, Rwanda, S E Asia, Southern Cone, Nigeria, Uganda, Central Africa, and Kenya .
AND, if the forthcoming Report from the Archbishop’s Commission chaired by Archbishop Eames and due in October 04 has little or no effect and impact in terms of creating hope, it is probable that the number of American & Canadian parishes flying to overseas Primates for succour will increase rapidly. This will mark the real movement of change, rather than the formation and work of The Network, which is designed to preserve the ECUSA basically as is but without the homosexual agenda. Likewise in Canada, Essentials may also be left on the side-line if and when parishes also look for salvation from abroad.
If The Network and The Essentials are able to draw all genuine Anglicans together and provide pastoral support for those in distress then we could believe that centripetal spiritual forces are dominant in North American Anglicanism. However, it is apparent that right now the dominant movement is not to unite but to disperse, since centrifugal forces of various kinds are pulling Anglicanism apart. The radical liberals seem to be going in much the same way together; the indifferent seem to be wanting to stand still; but, those who see themselves as sound [orthodox] Anglicans are being pulled apart from each other and the center in many different ways – note the presence of AMiA, REC, the various Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions, the moves to foreign Primates and so on.
Perhaps too many well-intentioned people are thinking too much about their own little patch and of their own small jurisdiction or group and thinking (and praying) too little for the whole and for its being united in truth and love!
The Revd Dr Peter Toon August 24, 2004
posted by John at 7:48 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Queen Elizabeth II and the Church of Ireland in Ulster.
When is a Book of Common Prayer not the Book of Common Prayer?
Will the Synod of the Church of Ireland undo the wrong it has done?
From Friday August 20 to Thursday August 26 the Church Times of London conducted an opinion poll on its website – www.churchtimes.co.uk -- as to whether a Prayer Book called “The Book of Common Prayer” by the Synod of the Church of Ireland should actually be called by the ancient and hallowed title, The Book of Common Prayer. I urged people to vote “no”!
The reason for this poll, and more-so the story behind it, has been, I think, a series of articles I have written and which have come into the hands of senior Irish clergy as well as certain journalists. These articles appeared originally in the Journal of the English Prayer Book Society and in the Mandate of the Prayer Book Society of the USA in 2004, and one was circulated in Ireland in June/July by the Evangelical Fellowship of the Church of Ireland. Also the articles have been on web-sites and in e-mail circuits.
The point of the articles was to state clearly that the Church of Ireland had committed a serious error in calling its latest Prayer Book by the title, The Book of Common Prayer.
Following the example of The Episcopal Church of the United States in 1979, The Church in Wales in 1984, and The Church in the West Indies in 1995, The Church of Ireland decided to call its new Prayer Book, which is most certainly not in the style or structure of historic editions of The Book of Common Prayer, by this ancient, hallowed and historic title. In England in 2000 a bigger but similar book was entitled Common Worship in order clearly to distinguish it from The Book of Common Prayer. So the Irish Synod knew what it was doing and did what it did very deliberately – which of course increases the depth and scope of its error.
The claimed right in recent times of an Anglican Synod in its autonomy to do its own thing, without regard to any sense of respect for history, custom, truthfulness and relation to other Provinces, is an indication of the breaking-up of the Anglican Communion and its moral demise in the West. Let it not be forgotten that the assertion of the right to do what it will by a Synod has also occurred in other significant areas of church life in recent times -- from the ordaining of women as priests and bishops to the ordaining of active homosexual persons to the sacred Ministry and to the introduction of Lay Celebration at the Eucharist. In fact, though the Anglican Family of 38 Churches is called The Anglican Communion of Churches, individual provinces have been showing little respect for inter-dependency and mutual accountability in recent times.
And, to make matters worse for Ireland, it is their Primate who has been given TWICE the task of chairing a commission of the Archbishop of Canterbury to bring order and peace to the Communion – over women priests/bishops in the 1980s and in 2004/4 over “gay” ordinations. Surely Archbishop Eames knew that his Synod was in error in what it did with this Prayer Book for in the Reports name for him there are exhortations to synods to act in Christian truth and charity!
In the case of The Book of Common Prayer (first edition 1549) it has always had a special character, style and content, even though it has been through various editions in England, then in other countries in the British Isles and then in places like Canada and the U.S.A. In its English-language editions, it has always only been in traditional language, only had one service for each sacrament or occasion, always printed in full the Collect with the Eucharistic Lectionary for Sundays and Feasts, and always borne the character of its origins in 1549-1552. Certainly the Canadian edition is not exactly the same as the American or the first Irish edition in the 19th century, but it is obvious that the various editions all belong to one family and are in fact editions of One book.
If we were dealing with products for sale in the supermarket, then most certainly there would have been lawsuits on behalf of the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer claiming that what was being sold by the same name is a different even though related product, which is better called “A Book of Alternative Services” or the like. It would have been argued that the taking of the title was not merely co-opting but was an act of piracy!
In the case of Ireland, it may be suggested that, had the whole of the Church of Ireland been in Ulster (where most of its membership actually is), then the Synod would not even have contemplated using such an ancient and hallowed a title for its latest Prayer Book. Why? Because of Queen Elizabeth II, and because Ulster Protestants have always claimed to be her most loyal subjects. In the United Kingdom the Monarch has a unique relation to The Book of Common Prayer because of the Establishment of the Church of England, and this Book is part of the Establishment. Further, the Monarch and the heir to the throne love to use it in their Royal Chapels.
The Synod of the Church of Ireland ought to repent! It ought to begin the necessary and tedious business of undoing what it has done and of re-establishing an authentic edition of The Book of Common Prayer, as its true Formulary, and calling the present so-called BCP by another name. An example of the right use of autonomy by a provincial synod needs to be set for the whole Communion to see!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:47 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Canadian Anglicans do not need to insist they are orthodox!
In a Statement issued today (August 23rd) the Essentials Council of Canadian Anglicanism speaks clearly and wisely of the forthcoming Conference (August 30). Let us pray fervently and often to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for the Council in its leadership role.
In referring of those attending the Conference the Statement uses the word “orthodox” or “orthodoxy” many times. The impression is perhaps given that there is an obsession with “orthodoxy”.
I would suggest to the Council and participants that they cease forthwith to use the word “orthodox” and “orthodoxy” except on rare occasions. Leave the word for the “Orthodox Churches” of the East for the time being!
Certainly, I am fully aware, that objectively speaking the constitutional position of the Anglican Church of Canada is that of orthodox, of right doctrine. The commitment to the Scriptures, the Three Creeds, the classic Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, as well as to The Thirty-Nine Articles is -- in terms of objective statement -- a statement of orthodoxy, that is of right doctrine which is expressed both doxologically and also in a propositionally correct way. (It is great that the Council has stated its commitment to the Solemn Declaration, a most important landmark in Canadian history.)
The word “orthodoxy” is not used in the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way, and in modern times it has lost its original corporate meaning in terms of the commitment by a church to a true and right standard of worship and doctrine. Further, and regrettably, it has been used recently and extensively by members of The Network in the USA and by the Anglican Mainstream in Britain – as well as by folk in Essentials - in a way that suggests that anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda and is allied with the evangelical or charismatic cause is “orthodox”. In other words, “orthodoxy” has come to mean in popular usage, “against the gay agenda” and generally for the Gospel.
The best thing that the Essentials Way Forward Conference can do in showing it is committed to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, Creeds and Formularies of the Anglican Way is to conduct its worship in such a way as to show that it is really and truly committed to these standards. After all, this is an Anglican Meeting and not an Inter-denominational or a Charismatic or an Evangelical Meeting. And what unites Canadian Anglicans, who desire to be faithful to God, is The Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1962). The world needs to see faithful, committed Anglicans united in worship and then in mission.
Since there are grave doubts as to whether the doctrine within the services of The Book of Alternative Services is sound, and in line with the doctrine in the Formularies, any use of the BAS should be carefully vetted and controlled. In fact it will be best for truth’s sake to avoid using it. Let it not be forgotten that the primary advocate of the BAS when it appeared (See, Rites for a New Age, 1986 by Michael Ingham) is the very same Bishop who pioneered the blessing of gay partnerships in British Columbia. There is a clear connection from what Ingham wrote in 1986 to what he has done in 2003/4.
May Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, be truly worshipped, adored, praised and served by this Conference and its aftermath.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 23rd 2004
posted by John at 7:45 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
The Way Forward Conference, Ottawa, September 30th
[Friends, This provides a clear statement of the aims and objectives of the Way Forward Conference due in Canada on August 30th. Happily, it clearly states an intention to abide by the classic Anglican Formularies, something which The Network in ECUSA is yet to do! Perhaps the word "orthodox[y]" is over-used. Let us hope that the public worship of the Meeting is not below the level required by the Formularies but rather dynamically and reverently uses the services of the classic BCP! It will be a great loss to orthodox intentions if the "BAS" is the primary means of worship! Peter Toon ]
The Way Forward Conference, Ottawa, September 30th
STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE
Dear Friends
August 30 – September 1, 2004: Orthodox Canadian
Anglicans from across the country, bishops, clergy and laity, have gathered here
in Ottawa for an historic conference boldly called THE WAY FORWARD. At this
conference, we are hoping that all traditional Anglican constituencies from
across our country will unite to affirm, before the world, three things.
First, a renewed Canadian Anglican orthodoxy that aims to recover the
principles of our heritage.
Second, a mutual determination to support and
expand orthodox Anglican ministry in this country through faithful witness to
the truth of the Gospel.
Third, our unity with faithful, orthodox believers
within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
It is our hope that as we now come
together, we will be bound in common cause by our allegiance to the principles
that have traditionally bound all Anglicans together: The complete canon of Holy
Scriptures as the foundational principle of our faith, the Solemn Declaration of
1893, the Book of Common Prayer as the Standard of doctrine and worship, and the
39 Articles of Religion.
At this conference, speakers and forums will deal
with questions regarding the way in which Christians are required to remain
faithful within a church struggling with excessive diversity, fundamental error
and, in the opinion of most “conservatives”, an apostasy which has infiltrated
its very core. They will here and now consider how Anglicans may repudiate
institutional decisions that contradict the clear teaching of Scripture while
remaining faithful members of the Body of Christ, His Holy Church, against
which, as He assured us, the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matt 16:18).
We
are excited to announce that the Conference’s keynote speakers will include
Archbishop Greg Venables (Primate of the Southern Cone), Bishop Bob Duncan
(Moderator, Anglican Communion Network), Bishop Wallace Benn (Steering
Committee, Anglican Mainstream UK), Dr. Bill Atwood (General Secretary,
Ekklesia), Reverend George Sinclair (Chairman, Essentials Council), Reverend
Charlie Masters (National Director, Essentials Council) and others.
As the
official sponsors and organizers of THE WAY FORWARD, the Essentials Council has
as its goal, the objective of providing a forum for the establishment of a new
national federation of orthodox Anglican constituencies. Such a Federation will
be a partnership of all Canadian Anglicans committed to the recovery and renewal
of the orthodox heritage of our tradition, a partnership that will enable us to
plan, act, respond and speak in national unity through genuine
collaboration.
Proposals for formal structures of representation on “The
Federation” will be considered and acted upon at this Conference. As a critical
first step, we anticipate that this Conference will establish an interim
steering/executive committee comprising representatives of bishops, clergy, and
laity from across the country, assisted by the Essentials Council executive, to
enact whatever formal elective and/or representational structure the Conference
endorses for the new Federation.
Many delegates will be anxious to see the
commissioning of a second body, currently being referred to by our planning
group as “The Network”. This body would be charged specifically with the task of
formulating and creating new provisions of adequate oversight for traditional
Anglicans who find themselves, either now, or in the future, caught in
situations of impaired or broken communion.
In order to gather the widest
possible representation, we have invited every Canadian Anglican, who shares a
deep concern for the recovery of those principles that the founders of our
Canadian church so clearly expressed in their Solemn Declaration, to come to
this conference. We have especially urged the leaders of every traditional
Anglican organization, network, constituency or group to be present, here in
Ottawa, with us today. We want your views to be represented in this historic
discussion. We want your voices to be heard and honoured by all those attending
this conference.
While we recognize that the representative body formed
during this conference will be an interim solution pending an elective process,
we are committed to “putting a stake in the ground” by September 1st and thus
taking the first step toward a long-term orthodox solution in Canada. In the
next few days there will arise many vital questions surrounding the future of
traditional Anglicanism. We can all benefit from the shared thinking of
like-minded Anglicans and from the faithful teaching of our orthodox Bishops as
we gather here in Ottawa and begin the work of instituting a new orthodox
Anglican Federation in this country.
posted by John at 7:43 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Homosexuality is only the presenting problem!
The Essentials Conference in Ottawa & the Seven Churches of Asia Minor
Is there a word in season from Revelation 1 – 3 [from the exalted Christ] to the assembling brethren at Ottawa for 30 August? Yes…do read on.
The exalted Lord Jesus Christ, who had been crucified and raised from the dead, sent messages through his servant, John, to seven churches in Asia Minor – Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia & Laodicea.
While each message is unique for it is specifically related to the particular church and to its members within their own situation, there are certain common themes in the Letters. Of these perhaps the most important is that Jesus Christ is truly the Lord, that he shares the Father’s throne, that he loves his people with an everlasting love, and that he will do what it takes in mercy and judgment to cause and to assist them to love and serve His Father faithfully, whatever their circumstances.
Each Letter calls for a response from the church and each of its members and these responses again are specifically related to the spiritual and moral condition of the church. However, in what Christ commands and asks for, there are several common themes. And it is surely reasonable for us to reckon that these common themes, being of divine origin, have an application to churches everywhere, whatever be their situation, and especially when they are troubled or in difficulties.
Let us notice very briefly what is required of each church:
Ephesus (2:1-7): Remember, Repent & Do ( verse 5) and Hear the Spirit.
Smyrna (2:8-11): Do not fear & Be faithful ( verse 10) and Hear the Spirit.
Pergamum (2:12-17): Repent ( verse 16) and Hear the Spirit.
Thyatira (2:18-29: Repent (verse 21) & Hold fast (verse 25) and Hear the Spirit.
Sardis (3:1-6): Wake up & Strengthen (verse 2) & Remember, Keep & Repent (verse 3) and Hear the Spirit.
Philadelphia (3: 7-13): Hold fast (verse 11) and Hear the Spirit.
Laodicea (3: 14-22): Buy from Christ (verse 18) & Be zealous and Repent (verse 19) & Hear Christ’s voice and open the door (verse 20) and Hear the Spirit.
At the end of each Letter is the call to hear the Spirit – “He who has an ear, let him what the Spirit says to the churches” – and this command is surely intimately related to hearing what Christ says to each of the churches, for the Holy Spirit is the Paracletos (representative, advocate etc.) of the Exalted Lord Jesus Christ.
If we collate the commandments of the Lord of the Church to the churches, we notice the repetition of certain ones.
REMEMBER: this relates both to remembering the wonderful conversions from paganism and the amazing origins of these churches and to recalling the content of the Gospel and of the mighty works of God in salvation-history.
REPENT: This is a corporate turning as well as an individual turning away from that which is evil and contrary to Christ’ will to that which is pleasing to him and to his Father. It is a turning which is filled with godly sorrow for the wrong and a fervent desire to do the right.
HOLD FAST/KEEP/BE FAITHFUL: Having turned to Christ in order to be with him and follow him, there is then the daily commitment to him, the holding fast to him and to what he requires, the keeping of his commandments and the being faithful to him through thick and thin.
Ottawa - application: The assembled brethren can surely do not better than to remember the heritage of Christianity and of the Anglican Way and the Canadian experience of It (including the Solemn Declaration); to repent for the sins of this Anglican Church of Canada and their part in them; and to turn to the God of our fathers and to commit themselves to a new faithfulness to Christ and a new consecration to the Anglican Way, as received from him in his providence.
Finally, in the message to the seventh church, a message wherein there is no commendation of this church at all from the Lord of glory, there is heavenly counsel which surely applies to all churches that are under the active chastisement of the Lord – and surely the Canadian Anglican Church is in this position (unless the Lord has already “spit it out of his mouth” because it is indifferent to him, neither hot nor cold – 3:16).
“I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see” (3:18).
The city of Laodicea prided itself on its financial wealth as banking center and some of this pride had entered the church. But what the church needs is the gold refined by fire, that is genuine faith (see 1 Peter 1:7) through which is ready access to the riches of grace.
The city of Laodicea prided itself on its clothing trade but yet the church there basking in this reputation was spiritually naked. In the ancient world to be stripped naked was a terrible humiliation and shame. This naked church needs to be clothed in the pure white garments of righteousness, given by the Lord who has washed us clean by the shedding of his blood.
The city of Laodicea prided itself on its famous eye-salve which was exported all over the world. Yet the church there was blind and itself needed the anointing that only Christ can provide. Only he who is the light of the world can enable this church truly to see!
Conclusion
The homosexual agenda of the LesBiGay activists is merely and only the presenting problem in the Canadian Church. To see it as the problem is to major on minors.
Underneath it and giving this novel agenda credibility is an Anglican Church that is indifferent to the Gospel, that sets its aims and standards from the norms of Canadian society and which urgently, therefore, needs to remember its God and his salvation, to repent and then to consecrate itself afresh to its high calling and holy vocation of serving the Lord Jesus in Canada. In one word and through one picture --- Christ the Lord is knocking on the door of Canadian Anglicanism, but will he be invited in as the Lord of glory who desires to be in communion with his people? Or will his knocking not be heard for there is too much concern amongst the would-be orthodox with the evils of active homosexuality?
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 23, 2004
posted by John at 7:41 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, August 23, 2004
The REAL Anglican Christian – a Word to the Essentials Conference of August 30, 2004 in Ottawa
The Essentials Conference begins on August 30th. May the Holy Ghost visit this assembly and prepare its participants in advance!
The Gospel for the week before the Conference in the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary of The Book of Common Prayer is Luke 18:9-14, containing the well-known parable of Jesus concerning the Pharisee & the Public at prayer.
This Gospel has a sure word to all those participating, and all those watching on with prayerful concern.
Here we have a story of a man generally recognized locally as a saint failing in prayer; and another man generally recognized locally as a sinner succeeding in prayer. WHY? Because the former comes to God in the spirit of pride and self-satisfaction while the latter comes before God in self-humiliation.
Verse 9. Let us note that the story is addressed to those who trusted in
themselves that they were righteous. They believed that their life, worship and
service were acceptable to God and approved by him.
Let us engage in some application to ourselves. We may not be like the Pharisees, who opposed Jesus, but do we display “a moral superiority” even a “moral triumphalism” and an “evangelical/charismatic elevation” in the way we speak about and relate to the people of the LesBiGay lobby and their liberal supporters?Verses 11 & 12. Let us note that the Pharisee, the “righteous” man, went through the motions of prayer beginning by addressing God and then all that he did was to talk about himself. He cites his good works as instances of the ways he is superior to others and he claims to be superior not only in what he performs but also in what he
avoids!
Let us engage in some application to ourselves. Is it true of ourselves that
while we glance at God in worship and prayer, most of what we say and sing is
about ourselves? Is our worship and prayer as much about ourselves – our
feelings and emotions – as it is about God as the LORD? Have we lost the
Transcendence of God and thus our sense of sin in much “modern
worship”?
Verse 13. The tax-collector compares himself with no-one. For him the bright holiness of God makes him aware of his sin and all he can do is to acknowledge his true state before God, the Judge of all. As we know – or should know -- from Holy Scripture, the genuine confession of sin to God in humility is actually also the praise of God, of his holiness, his righteousness, his judgement and his mercy. Thus the
tax-collector praised the Lord!
Let us engage in some application to ourselves. Do we avoid self-humiliation,
penitence, repentance and confession of sins before God because we do not really
feel this way? Are we really conscious of the part we have played, as a
member of the body, in causing the growing sinfulness of the Anglican Churches
in the West? Does this knowledge of our sins of commission and omission cause us
to humble ourselves under the almighty (and yet merciful) hand of
God?
Verse 14. God counts as righteous in his sight the person who comes before him in humility, penitence and with confession of his sin. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled (by the God of judgement) and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted (by the God of mercy).
Let us engage in some application to ourselves. Have we been participating in
recent controversies within Anglicanism in the wrong spirit – the spirit of “we
are right and you are wrong” – and ought we to consider that the right spirit is
this: that God’s judgement is upon the Anglican Way in North America, that we
are part of it and share in that judgement which we deserve, and thus the right
way forward is the biblical way of deep humility and repentance.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 22nd 2004
posted by John at 1:55 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Saturday, August 21, 2004
An Anglican Innovation: Co-opting an ancient title for a modern creation
for distribution in order to create informed discussion and solid research
By the votes of its existing members a body [Board, Committee, Commission etc.] may co-opt another person to be in the body. When elected he is said to have been co-opted (Latin, optare, to choose + com, with).
In the Anglican Communion, its members are becoming familiar with the votes of synods, with their houses of bishops, clergy and laity, co-opting in a novel way. The practice of co-opting members for committees, commissions and boards is familiar; but, the new form of co-opting is of a title, rather than of a person. And it is the co-opting of one of the primary and basic titles from within the Anglican Way, as it has been known in its English form since the 1540s.
Titles such as The Church of England, The Archbishop of Canterbury and The Authorized Version of the Bible are known by all educated people. So also is The Book of Common Prayer, the title of the English prayer book created from the earlier Latin prayer books, which was first published in 1549 and then in a revised form in 1552. Its first title was The Book of the Common Prayer but this only lasted for one edition and from 1552 it was The Book of Common Prayer. This book with this specific title was reissued by Elizabeth I and James I and then reached its definitive edition in 1662.
It was translated into many languages as the British Empire expanded and as Anglican missionaries went into the whole world. Further, new editions of it were later produced by independent provinces (e.g., USA, Canada, South Africa, Scotland & Ireland) in order for this Prayer Book to fit into the system of government and public feasts and holidays of the countries and to allow for variations of churchmanship. But in all these translations the style, structure and character of The Book of Common Prayer remained the same - one service with no variations for each dominical Sacrament, one service with minor options for Morning and Evening Prayer, one service for confirmation, marriage and burial and one version of the Psalter, together with, in the attached Ordinal, one service for the consecration of a bishop, the ordination of a priest and the making of a deacon. And in the Order for Holy Communion there was one printed Eucharistic Lectionary of ancient vintage and together with collects, also of ancient lineage.
Common Prayer was understood by all everywhere as the use of one basic text by all in the public worship of God. Thus one could travel around the world and find basically the same service anywhere that an Anglican church was found, and this was true even with variety in ceremonial after the arrival of the advanced anglo-catholic movement. The Common Prayer was the glue that bound together Anglicans, wherever they lived and whatever language they spoke. And this state of affairs held good well into the 1960s when the beginnings of the “alternative service books” containing services of a different style and shape to those in The Book of Common Prayer began to appear (after encouragement from the Lambeth Conference of 1958 and 1968).
Then, gradually from the 1970s liturgists, as if to justify the new developments, began to use “Common Prayer” in a novel way – it was said to be the use of basic common elements within a common structure. Here there is a most definite move from basic common texts (which allow virtually no variation or options) and from simple uniformity to a loosely controlled variety and diversity. This is the first definite co-opting of the expression “Common Prayer” for a novelty which is in reality “forms of alternative, varied prayer.” Thus. in the last few decades, modern liturgy has been a loosely controlled variety in that certain basics have been required (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer and the Sursum Corda) while creators of liturgy have been asked to keep to a basic structure or shape for services into which to introduce and place their modern options and variety.
The second phase of the co-opting of the title of “Common Prayer” belongs to the provincial Synods to which the liturgical commissions report. When the liturgical commissions had produced their collections of new services, with new shape and a variety of content, these collections obviously needed titles. One possibility was “A Book of Alternative Services” or “An Alternative Service Book” as used in Canada and England. Another was “A Prayer Book for Australia” while yet another was “An Anglican Prayer Book [for South Africa]”. However, certain national synods, using their autonomy to the full and disregarding Anglican tradition and definition of over four centuries, decide to co-opt the ancient title of “The Book of Common Prayer” for their new books which by any reasonable account are decidedly not such in terms of their structure, content, style and doctrine.
So the two phases of co-opting have not surprisingly led to the appearance of four books (with more to come). The leader in this co-opting was the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. which in 1976 and 1979 called its new prayer book, wherein are services of different kinds and in both traditional and contemporary English, by the title, “The Book of Common Prayer.” At the same time it set aside the received, traditional American edition [1928] of The Book of Common Prayer.
The Church in Wales followed the example of the ECUSA with its own new “Book of Common Prayer” in 1984. Here traditional language is retained but the content and style belongs to the new rather than the traditional.
The Church in Wales was followed by the Church in the West Indies (led by Archbishop Drexel Gomez who is now known as a conservative!) which had learned much from ECUSA and which took what ECUSA had done one further step! It removed all traditional language variations and options and made use only of contemporary texts in its own “Book of Common Prayer” in 1985.
Finally, the province of Archbishop Eames, the Church of Ireland, celebrated the publication and authorization of its own new “Book of Common Prayer” in early 2004. This has traditional and contemporary language options and is, as modern liturgy goes, generally conservative in doctrine and style ( as we would expect of a province that includes Northern Ireland).
Happily, thanks to the Queen and the Establishment, in England the Synod was unable to call its library of new prayer books by the ancient title of “The Book of Common Prayer”. However, it went as near as it dared to do – “Common Worship”.
In this essay I have used the verb “to co-opt” of the action of liturgists and synods but elsewhere I have a noun. The Prayer Book Society of the USA recently published my long essay as a booklet, An Act of Piracy. The Truth behind the Episcopal Liturgy of 1979, 2004 (available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1 800 PBS[727] 1928). You may care to read this booklet to learn more of the difference between The BCP and Books of Alternative Services and the new type of “Book of Common Prayer”.
One great and disastrous effect of this co-opting by Synods and of this Piracy by legislators is that the provinces are losing not only the greatest ever liturgy in the English language as their primary liturgy, but also that which is basic formulary or doxological standard of doctrine of the Anglican Way. Regrettably, whether they intend it to be so or not they are introducing relativism, diversity and variety as the norms of the Anglican Way.
August 21, 2004 the Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
posted by John at 4:28 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Claiming Rights & losing the Way? Anglicans in North America, 1950-2004.
Some suggestions for thought.
In western society everyone, it seems, is aware of their rights and is glad to hear of more rights to which they are entitled. It is not exaggerating to claim that human rights is the context in which morality now in the modern West is usually and often established. And there is a growing part of the administration of justice in the courts, which is also based on declarations and statements of human rights.
In society, activist groups keep on advancing new claims and claimants for such rights and even extend them to non-human animals. It seems there is no end in sight for this kind of advancement.
Likewise, in the churches, activist societies and organizations keep on advancing new claims and claimants for such rights and they usually do so in “God-language” or in “the language of Zion”, often suggesting some biblical verse or custom as a kind of basis of, or justification for, the innovation. It seems also that there is no end in sight for this kind of development and for the innovations it brings.
In fact since the 1950s, after the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, “rights talk” in society and churches has multiplied exceedingly. If we are to be precise we have to distinguish natural rights (see the American Constitution), from civil rights (remember Dr Martin Luther King) and human rights (with which we in 2004 are most concerned). Human rights relate to what belongs to the human being as possessing a definite and clear dignity (given to the same by God or by nature or by both). And it all depends how you view that dignity as to what you believe are legitimate human rights.
The present Pope is a leading example of a Christian leader who has taken over the language of human rights but, importantly, married it to a view of human dignity, based upon the Scriptures and the Catholic tradition (and to a view of personhood based on philosophy). It is his Christian view of dignity which causes him both to defend the poor & homeless, the persecuted and the despised and, at the same time, oppose abortion, gay sex and partnerships, women’s ordination, euthanasia, artificial birth control and other things. (Of course many people strong disagree with the Pope when he does not grant the rights of women to control their own bodies, of homosexual persons to “gay sex” and of individual persons to choose the time of their death. Their view of human dignity is obviously very different from his.)
The traditional Christian, who is prepared to make use of the language and basic philosophy of human rights in his vocation to serve the Lord and love his neighbor in 2004, has to be ever watchful that he has (a) a biblically-based and orthodox view of the human person and human dignity; (b) a sure understanding of human duty and responsibility to the righteous, holy Lord, in terms of his commandments and laws – that is, a knowledge of the will of God for human beings as individuals and in relation to each other; and (c) a knowledge of God’s will for his Church, the Household of God & the Body of Christ. To hold to such principles he will probably need to be a member of a conservative, orthodox, church!
In his thinking, present talk of human rights will usually serve the possibility of opening his eyes to possibilities of the extension of human dignity and worth that have been neglected, hidden, and even refused by the church in the past. Human rights talk will serve to help him on occasion to see either that which is there already within the treasure of biblical wisdom to be developed, or is actually required by the principles within that treasure. However, in this exercise, which may seem like walking on a tight-rope, the danger that he faces is of being pulled into extreme conservativism or into losing hold of basic biblical principles and thereby compromising the law of the Lord. The application of rights based on human dignity and in accord with the will of God has to be done in the context of watchfulness, prayer and fasting.
LOOKING BACK
Although there were other important factors [psychological, social, economic etc.] involved (as there must be within the complexity of modern western society) we can see clearly the power of the human rights movement in changing the doctrine and practice of the churches since World War II. It is, however, one thing to see the power of human rights talk and another to evaluate whether, from a conservative Christian standpoint, concessions were made to it by the churches in some of their decisions and this has meant, in practice, a negation of the will of God by the same churches.
Here are a few examples to consider:
1. Virtually all Christians, liberal and conservative, agree that the application of civil and human rights to ethnic minorities in American society was the right way to go, and was according to the will of God, who has created all people in his image and after his likeness, in order to live to his glory. (Of course, not all the applications of these rights commend universal approval, but the principle does.)
2. But when we get to the right to divorce and especially to no-fault divorce, followed by the right to re-marry and even to engage in serial monogamy, there is not the same basic consensus as there is for racial equality. Most churches, including the Roman Church (through the massive use of “annulments” in the USA) have come to terms with the divorce culture and made it possible for second marriages to take place in church and be blessed by the church. And this right has been extended to clergy, even bishops, in the Episcopal and Lutheran and Methodist Churches, where in 2004 a large percentage of clergy are divorced and remarried. However, it has not been so extended in the Orthodox Churches and in (virtually all of) the Southern Baptist Church, where biblical teaching and/or ancient canon law take precedence over human rights, so that divorced and remarried clergy are extremely rare. Further, the Roman Church and some Anglicans still hold to the indissolubility of a marriage properly contracted and blessed.
3. Moving on to the ordination of women, we find that the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church insist that a right to equality with a man does not apply for the dignity of women does not require that they have the right to be priests; and, further, the will of God clearly states that they cannot and must not be priests. At the same time, the claimed human rights of women to be equal with men and to do what they do (where that is humanly possible) was a major factor (when tied to several biblical themes and to new ways of interpreting the Bible) in the liberal churches (Episcopal, Lutheran & Methodist) in causing majority votes to go in favor of this innovation. And once recognized as clergy, the rights of women not to use language, supposedly created by men for use by men, led to changes in ways of addressing, and speaking of, God in the churches (= inclusive language). This led on to new types of liturgies, versions of the Bible, rules for debate in synods and so on.
4. Turning to the blessing of those in “gay commitments” [partnerships, relationships] we find that human rights talk (skillfully employed by advocates of the LesBiGay lobby] has had a major influence in changing basic mindsets and thus bring majority approval in the liberal Churches. The sexual “orientation” of human being has been made an essential aspect of their dignity of human persons and thus the rights of “homosexual” persons have been placed on the same level as the rights of “heterosexual” persons. Thus calls for the blessing of “gay couples” and the right to ordination by a “gay” person in a “committed relationship” has been approved by church synods. [It needs to be added that the full pressure for rights for “gay” persons had to follow chronologically, for it to have succeeded, the gaining of rights by ethnic minorities to civil rights, of heterosexual persons to the rights of divorce and remarriage and by women of rights to equal access to all church offices.]
* * *
Where a Church such as the Episcopal, Lutheran or Methodist, has been clearly influenced over the last fifty years by the civil and human rights movement and where it has made innovations in worship, doctrine, ministry and discipline on the basis of the view of human dignity within that rights movement, it is perhaps impossible for it to go into reverse gear and to undo what it has done in any particular.
The human rights movement had to be kept in check from the very beginning (as it appears to have been by the Vatican [if not American Roman Catholicism] and to a lesser degree by the Orthodox Churches) in order for there to be any possibility of it being controlled in 2004 and on into the 21st century.
As things stand in 2004, both the liberals and the conservatives in the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada appear to be so tied into the human rights agenda that to be set free from it, or for them to control it rather than it them, seems impossible.
For the evangelicals & charismatics in Anglicanism, for example, though few of them realize it, the human rights talk has actually entered into some of the content of the new versions of the Bible that they support and it has invaded their language of prayer and sacred song that they use. It is the air we breathe and it has become part of their way of thinking and their piety even as they seek to deny its applicability to the claims of “gay” persons.
Thus, merely denying the rights of “gay” persons without thoroughly recognizing the major part that rights talk has had and continues to have on molding “evangelical culture” in North America is not to be taking the present crisis in Anglicanism very seriously. Of course, it is human rights that comes in a package that also has other contents – aspects of psychotherapy, of management theory, of commitment to simplicity, accessibility and relevance in worship, teaching and evangelization, and so on.
Leaving the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada to become a new entity will not change who concerned Anglicans are for they will take into their new organization that which they actually have become. They need to change their mindset and dress before moving anywhere!
Kyrie eleison.
The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon August 21, 2004
posted by John at 1:17 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Friday, August 20, 2004
Vote for honesty in Anglicanism
Friends,
Please support the cause of honesty and truthfulness in Anglicanism.
Visit www.churchtimes.co.uk and make your vote count for the Anglican Way.
Click on the story on the right hand side of the main page "IRISH BCP"
at bottom of this story click on "FORUM"
vote NO.
---
Why vote no?
The question you are asked is: Was the Church of Ireland right to call its 2004 Prayer Book by the name of "The Book of Common Prayer"?
The answer is truly NO because in shape and in content it is A BOOK OF ALTERNATIVE SERVICES with traditional and modern language services and much variety.
The BCP has always been since 1549 a Prayer Book containing only traditional language as well as providing only one rite for each public service. No choice of services, one only for each sacrament and morning and evening prayer, marriage and burial.
Thank you,
See my letter below
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
posted by John at 10:09 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Letter to the Church Times
From the Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Sir,
I refer to the short piece on the Irish Church and its new Prayer Book on page 3 of the issue of 20 August.
The Church of Ireland has authorized from Trinity Sunday of 2004 a new Prayer Book which it calls "The Book of Common Prayer" of 2004. Its title is causing debate in Ireland.
While there is no doubt whatsoever that this Church has called its new Book by the ancient Anglican name of the BCP, there is extreme doubt as to whether this is the right title for it. Its content, though less in total, is very much like that of Common Worship or of other Books of Alternative Services in use in the Anglican Communion.
Until the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA decided to call its new "Book of Alternative Services" by the title, The BCP, in 1979, the title of the BCP was reserved by Anglican leaders for Prayer Books directly related to the English editions of the BCP (1549-1662), in which there is one and one only form of all the services and no alternatives. Common Prayer had the meaning in English for centuries of the use of one form of public prayer by all in the place of public prayer. And further it had reference to the use for this end of one particular book, the BCP, which went through several editions abroad and was translated into many languages.
Since the ECUSA pirated the ancient title in 1979, other provinces have followed. The Church in Wales in part in 1984, the West Indies in whole in 1995 and now the Church of Ireland in 2004. Perhaps the Church of England Synod would have done the same in 2000 had it not been for the Establishment - God save the Queen.
I submit that this pirating of the hallowed title is a mis-use of the autonomy of individual provinces of the Anglican Communion and such mis-use of autonomy is a major cause of the problems facing the Anglican Way internationally now. The clear Anglican duty of a local Synod is to keep the classic BCP as its formulary and as available for use by those who desire to use it, and then, to make available forms of alternative services which are composed to the highest standards of English, liturgical shape and doctrinal content.
It is not too late for the Irish Church to change the title of its new Prayer Book, which as "A Book of Alternative Services" is a good example.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
The Rectory,
Christ Church,
Hot Lane,Biddulph Moor, ST8 7HP
posted by John at 10:08 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
REPENTANCE: Who needs to repent in North American Episcopalianism/ Anglicanism?
A discussion and prayer starter
Not a few Episcopalians/Anglicans have said to me recently, in speech or in writing:
ECUSA will never repent whatever the Archbishop’s Commission states when it
reports in October 2004.
Apparently they mean that the majority in the General Convention will not be detracted by anyone or anything from its onward (or downward!) move into exploring more and more of the “treasures of worldliness & secularism” through calling wickedness and immorality and heresy “innovations”. Further, they distance themselves from this current journey of the ECUSA and see themselves as against it and not in any way responsible for it.
But are they (are we) right to distance themselves/ourselves from the increasing apostasy of the ECUSA and other provinces of the Anglican Communion – e.g. the Anglican Church of Canada? Are we right to stand over against the apostasy and see ourselves without any blame for it or any share in it?
What I think is singularly missing from the tremendous amount of things said and done by a minority within ECUSA in protest against the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, “the “gay” canon, as a bishop in ECUSA, is a deep sense of not only shame but also sorrow and guilt before God for this [and related events].
Consider:
Anglicans/Episcopalians are one group or branch or jurisdiction or part of the world-wide Church of God. In North America they are not a major group but a mid-sized national group and however much they differ amongst themselves they are one basic family. Especially is this so within the ECUSA where each and every diocese and each and every parish therein, however much it protests against General Convention policy, is a part of the whole. In a family the joy of one affects all and likewise the sin and pain of one affects all. In fact, the family is responsible for each member and thus all are affected for good or ill by what any one member does. And any one member is both affected and influenced by others and also affects and influences others.
In an ecclesial unit, which uses the metaphor of household, family and body, to describe itself, there is likewise mutual responsibility and guilt. And this is so whether we like it or not. Each diocese within the ECUSA and each parish within each diocese is part of a unit where the general rules that govern a family also govern it. Thus each parish and each member therein bears some responsibility for the decisions and actions of the General Convention in 2003. To have voted against Gene Robinson’s elevation does not absolve one from the fact of its having happened. For, by common consent, the ECUSA family has been moving for several decades along the path towards this decision by loosening the ties of the Episcopal Church to the content of God’s Word written, to sacred Tradition and to the classic Anglican Formularies, and at the same time absorbing the secular and liberal spirit of American society. The so-called “orthodox” dioceses and parishes of today were in favor of, and often did not protest against, earlier decisions of the family to innovate in questionable areas. They did little or nothing to discourage the habit of rebellion against or neglect of God’s holy law. Thus instead of calling upon the ECUSA to repent, they need first to repent before God for their contribution to and participation in the present state of the ECUSA.
“Woe is me for I am a man of unclean lips and I live in the midst of a people of unclean lips!”
The prophets of Israel proclaimed God’s word against the apostasy of their times but they did not see themselves as apart from and not involved in the guilt and the judgment of the covenant people of God. Though they did not go a whoring after other gods themselves they suffered with their people the judgment of God. Likewise the Psalmists often feel the pain of the whole and confess it.
Take an example or two.
The so-called “orthodox” of today have encouraged the rejection of the Ten Commandments by telling one big lie every time they pick up the official ECUSA Prayer Book. The General Convention decided – against all the evidence of history and literature, Anglican tradition and canon law – to call a book of alternative services, THE Book of Common Prayer. It did so as an act of autonomy and defiance, seeing itself as freed from the constraints of Anglican history from 1549 - 1976. This assertion & title was a lie and it has been told a million times since. “Thou shalt not bear false witness…” Dishonesty is part of the ECUSA spirit shared by all.
The so-called “orthodox” of today have encouraged the entrance into and the overwhelming of the ECUSA by the divorce culture of America. They have allowed divorced and remarried persons to have pastoral positions, lay and ordained, as though this is a good thing and according to God’s holy law. They have encouraged talk of marriage as “a relationship” and have not generally been guided by the clear purposes of marriage as set forth in the Preface to the marriage service in the BCP of 1662 and in the Canadian edition of 1962. In general they have encouraged the idea that one major purpose of sex is for enjoyment, self-enhancement and for mutual experience, satisfaction and friendship. From here it is not far to “gay commitment”.
And so one could go on and talk about the acceptance of the human rights talk and agenda, the acceptance of women’s ordination and the making of it a compulsory doctrine, inclusive language for God, the adoption of “dynamic equivalency” principles of translation for Bible and for liturgical materials, and other things. All these innovations have served to loosen the ties of the Church to the holy and righteous Lord and to his moral law, and to the Word of God written, read and meditated thereon.
So, all the members of the ECUSA share in the guilt before God for the acceptance in 2003 of the radical sex agenda promoted by the LesBiGay lobby. To make the acceptance of Gene Robinson as a bishop to be a unique sin and to be unconnected with the previous innovations from World War II, and particularly from the 1960s, onwards is to avoid family membership and responsibility and it is to run away from the shared guilt and judgment. It is to adopt a very developed view of individualism and to destroy all notions of inter-dependency and inter-relatedness. It is also to adopt a kind of dangerous triumphalism.
What surely needs to be more evident in the mindset, attitude and behavior of the protestors within and without the ECUSA about the present state of ECUSA is Repentance. Tears need to be apparent than laughter. They need to study the way the Prophets of Israel and Judah saw themselves in relation to the covenant people of God and also how the apostle Paul saw himself in relation to the same people, the Jews (Romans 9-11 etc).
And those who have officially departed from ECUSA membership must also bear the pain of guilt as well. They have left this family and they have also left behind their participation in its life and its failings. Further, if they look carefully at their new form of Anglicanism they will probably see – if their eyes are open – that it too is marred by sin and unfaithfulness and so repentance is most appropriate as a way of being before the holy God.
Writing from England, I do not stand above or apart from this situation wherein God’s judgment and chastisement is upon the Anglican Way in the West.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon August 20 2004
posted by John at 10:04 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, August 19, 2004
A Norm for the Anglican Communion – a proposal.
[A word especially to my friends and colleagues in the Prayer Book Societies of the Western part of the Anglican Communion]
The Anglican Communion of Churches possesses what it has chosen to call in recent times “instruments of unity”. These are: the See of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference of all Anglican Bishops, the Anglican Consultative Council (clergy & laity) and the Primates’ Meeting. The two latter are of recent vintage.
Yet it needs more than “instruments of unity” if it is to stay together as a viable family and fellowship of local, autonomous provinces! It needs also a common basic canon law, a set of canons which are in the corpus of canon law of each of the thirty-eight provinces. These canons would establish the relation of each province to the other provinces and to the See of Canterbury and would require inter-dependency with other provinces as a required way of being and working. If such were in place it would obviously limit the autonomy of each province, slow down or eliminate local innovation in any one province and lead to cooperation in any moves to introduce or to reject anything new or controversial.
But the Communion of Churches needs even more than the instruments of unity and a basic shared canon law!
It also needs a basic formulary or doctrinal standard in order to have the basis of a doctrinal unity. Unity based only on the college of bishops is not sufficient and, further, the basis of unity needs to be more than the doctrine of the ecumenical Creeds. What is needed by a liturgical church, as is the Anglican, is doctrine that is doxological – a prayer book that is also a standard of doctrine, The Book of Common Prayer.
Without doubt, the edition of The Book of Common Prayer that has been the most widely printed, distributed, translated into other languages and used worldwide is that of 1662. Of course, in being used in different cultures and countries, some of its English parts have had to be changed in order to make it applicable to different contexts – e.g. in terms of prayers for leaders, local holidays and special days.
People may think that these new editions of this Prayer Book produced especially for use in places like the U.S.A. (1928) or Canada (1962) or South Africa (1954) are superior in liturgical terms to the classic edition of 1662, that the children are better than the parent. Let them so think – no problem. Others may think that the first edition of the English Prayer Book, that of 1549 is superior to all that followed. Again, no problem: there is no need for them to change their judgment.
The proposal being made here is not to displace the use of local editions of the Book of Common Prayer that are cherished, but to place the BCP of 1662 in the canon law common to all the member provinces of the Communion – in the canon law which establishes the relation of the provinces to each other and to a received heritage of worship, doctrine, discipline and polity. And to let the BCP of 1662 be, what it was in practice if not in law until the 1960s, the formulary or the doctrinal norm of the Anglican Communion. Within the same canons being proposed, the Lambeth Quadrilateral can then be, as it was intended to be, not a confession of faith for Anglicans but rather the basis upon which the Anglican Communion enters into eucharistic communion with other churches.
Why this move to establish the BCP 1662 as the doxological, doctrinal norm and to place it at the center of the wheel as the hub?
Because, as stated above, the Anglican Communion really and truly needs a genuinely godly glue to fasten it together in the trials and tribulations it is facing and will face in the decades to come. And also because, not only are there genuine translations, and regional or national editions of, the BCP 1662 (e.g. in Canada, 1962) , but also, and ominously, since 1979 there have been prayer books produced by provinces using the ancient title of the BCP but being in fact by their very nature and content “Books of Alternative Services” (e.g., in the USA in 1979, in Wales in 1984, in the West Indies in 1995 and in Ireland in 2004). Therefore, Anglicans are genuinely confused as to what actually is the BCP or a BCP and which prayer book is really and truly The Book of Common Prayer? There is needed a clear, definitive Book that can be called by all in the Communion, The BCP. That is, a book which is really and truly a doxological proclamation of Anglican faith and practice.
By the BCP 1662 is meant the actual Prayer Book as such along with the Ordinal, the services of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops. (The Thirty-Nine Articles is not included in this proposal for practical reasons since this confession of faith is not doxological doctrine as such.)
Peter Toon, August 19th 2004. peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk
posted by John at 9:24 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Inter-dependency and accountability urgently needed!
The Anglican Communion has thirty-eight provinces. Each one is both autonomous and independent in terms of its synodical authority. By a majority vote it can virtually change or introduce anything. It is within the Anglican Communion by custom/ invitation and local choice.
When secularism, worldliness and heresy have little sway upon the leaders of each province and when there is a general commitment to basic Christianity, then there is a high degree of co-operation with other provinces and there is a general readiness to face problems together. Thus when the Anglican Communion seems to be faring well, there is a significant movement of help, advice and personnel between provinces. It seems a wonderful kind of thing to be a part of.
The arrival of the movement for the ordination of women was not faced initially as something to be agreed by all in principle, positively or negatively, but each province came to believe and assumed that it had the right and authority to decide for itself concerning this innovation. The result of the use of independency and autonomy in this matter led to serious disruption in the relations of dioceses within provinces and between provinces themselves. What has become known as the Eames Commission (chaired by Archbishop Eames) faced the result of this disruption and virtual chaos and proposed the Anglican doctrine of “The Process of Reception” (I have studied this doctrine in the large booklet published by the Latimer Trust of London – www.latimertrust.org -- and entitled, Reforming Forwards? The Process of Reception…, 2004, Latimer Studies 56/57.)
The exercise of autonomy and independence over the ordination of women (as well as in the introduction of new liturgy) seems to have given a kind of kind of thrill and an exaggerated sense of importance to certain provinces and dioceses, with the result that they proceeded to go ahead and approve yet another major innovation – against the mind and will of the last Lambeth Conference. This was the approval of “gay partnerships” and of clergy in the same relationships. Once again, the shock waves of this innovation caused the Archbishop of Canterbury to set up a commission (chaired yet again by Archbishop Eames) in 2003 in order to seek to find ways of holding the Communion together, and this Commission will report in October 2004. (I hope to edit a series of responses to this Report.)
It seems obvious to seasoned observers that there is no way that the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Family can stay together as a Communion in the long term, unless there is a commitment by each and all not only to the full use and respect of the “instruments of unity” (Arch of Cant, Lambeth Conf., Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting) but also to (a) the limitation of autonomy by a full commitment to inter-dependency and (b) norms and controls accepted by all establishing and maintaining this inter-dependency. The latter will probably need to include both an identical common set of canons which are in all the constitutions and which clearly establish inter-dependency and also a doctrinal norm (here the only candidate would seem to be the classic edition of The Book of Common Prayer & Ordinal of 1662 which is in 152 languages) declaring what is the Anglican Way.
It seems most clear that the model of the British Commonwealth of nations will not suffice for the Anglican Communion. Another model which ensures not only autonomy but also inter-dependency has to be adopted and agreed by all in order for this Family to stay together and to claim as a Unity to be a genuine jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!
If the present Communion breaks apart then there is the great danger of individual provinces reveling in their autonomy and independence to major on minors and to bring in innovations from Lay Celebration by Evangelicals to the Roman Mass by Anglo-Catholics and to the marriage of beasts and man by the ultra-liberals.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:22 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Out of the ECUSA but not out of the Anglican Communion?
A discussion starter or clarifier or both
Several people have told me via e-mail in the last week that “I/we have left the ECUSA [or the ECUSA has left me/us] but I/we remain, and intend to remain, in the Anglican Communion" – and we call ourselves “Anglicans” and not “Episcopalians.”
Let me say that I understand where they are coming from and also the deep feeling and conviction that lie beneath and around this testimony of their ecclesial relation. The ECUSA as they experience it and judge it is apostate and they have had to leave its congregations because informed conscience so required.
However, belonging to the Anglican Communion is not achieved by an act of will or a decision, as if it were like joining the triple A (AAA) or the over 50s activist group (AARP). The Anglican Communion is made up of 38 provinces and the general rule has been (though not always kept to strictly) that there is one province in one country. Now after the reporting of the Archbishop’s Commission (due October 04) and top level meetings here and there afterwards, it may be the case that proposals will be made to change this received rule. (Or the Communion may fragment!) If the Communion does stay together, the Archbishop of Canterbury, supported by a majority of Primates, may decide, for example, to put ECUSA under discipline and state that during this disciplinary period certain ecclesial bodies in North America will to be treated as if they are provinces. But all this is speculation and even so such a situation would be temporary.
What is occurring now in the USA and Canada appears to be that certain missions and congregations are being sponsored or temporarily cared for pastorally by bishops from other provinces of the Anglican Communion. However, this is a temporary and irregular activity during a period of great disorder and apostasy in the ECUSA. We need to be clear that to be under the pastoral care of one of these bishops does not place the congregation in the Anglican Communion of Churches, except in a very indirect way. Further, in the case of the Anglican Mission in America, it is quite clear that as of now its bishops, though ordained by Anglican bishops from overseas, are not regarded as part of the College of Bishops of the Anglican Communion and are not on the List for attendance at the next Lambeth Conference. Again this fact in no way is a judgment on their apostolic vocation.
I say all this not to minimize the Christian and Anglican commitment of folks in the AMiA or in the parishes adopted by overseas bishops or in The Network, but to suggest that the rule still stands that to be in the Anglican Communion one has to be in a church in one of the 38 provinces, and the only province in the USA is the ECUSA right now.
The Anglican Communion is a communion and family of actual national provinces or geographical provinces and only provinces can be members of it, strictly speaking. Therefore those who wish to remain in the Anglican Communion should also stay within the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:21 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
ECUSA – how to stay within it and with a good conscience
Very much a discussion starter for written in order to solicit the wisdom of others
In what frame of mind should mature persons, who seek to be faithful to Jesus Christ as his disciples, and, at the same time do so by seeking to living within the inheritance of the Anglican Way, remain within the Episcopal Church of the USA?
This is not a question concerning whether or not to join the ECUSA as a catechumen, a transferred member or a transferred clergyperson from elsewhere. It is a question facing people of good intentions already within this denomination and intending as God wills to stay there, and who desire therein to be faithful to their vocation as servants, ambassadors, disciples and imitators of Jesus Christ, the Lord.
I suggest that an informed Christian of the kind just described should be well informed about:
1. the Anglican heritage as not merely liturgical Protestantism but as Reformed Catholicism. This means being well acquainted with Three Creeds & the contents of the historic Anglican Formularies – the classic BCP & Ordinal together with the Articles of Religion.(In practice this means knowing well the BCP of 1662 (now in 150 or so languages!) and the American edition of 1928.)
2. how the Episcopal Church has been and is governed – its Polity – and the reasons why its General Convention is as it is.
3. the Anglican Communion of Churches, its origins, its membership, its “instruments of unity”, the nature of its “communion” and the important reality and practical results of the autonomy of each of the 38 provinces.
4. the great harm done by the innovations introduced into the Episcopal Church from the 1960s onwards, in such areas of doctrine, marriage & divorce, liturgy, religious language, the ministry, and the power and descriptions of bishops, culminating most recently in the approval of same-sex partnerships and of clergy in the same. (and the reasons why various groups of people have left the ECUSA since the 1970s).
Further
I suggest that also he should have the following aspects to his piety/spirituality:
5. Be a diligent student of Holy Scripture in the context of reading and meditating upon the Lessons of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer.Also,
6. Be sensitive to where the Holy Spirit is being grieved in the life and work of the Episcopal Church and his own parish/diocese.
7. Recognize that the sickness of the Episcopal Church does not only exist apart from him only in others and in institutions, but it also exists in him, as a member of the same (sick) body, and as one who has failed in the past to do all that is necessary for the well being of the visible church on earth.
8. Be fully aware that all sin against God has to be confessed and confessed with a truly repentant heart and mind. Therefore to confess the sickness of the ECUSA and the sickness in himself is a daily, painful duty.
9. Pray for strength and wisdom to bear witness at all times to the Lord Jesus Christ -- to holiness of life, beauty of worship and soundness of doctrine. And be prepared to suffer for the truth’s sake in love.
10. Be as generous of mind and heart as possible in relating to all members and especially to those with whom one has the greatest disagreement, recognizing in oneself the same original sin and weakness that is in all others.
11. Pray fervently for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon this church to do what is necessary from the divine standpoint (see John 16: 8-10) according to the will of God.
I suggest that he does not engage in false evaluations such as:
12. If only the recent same-sex stuff could be reversed and removed then all would be really fine. The only thing really wrong with the ECUSA is its adoption of the LesBiGay agenda.
13. If only we could get all churches engaged in “the great commission” to evangelize then all would work out OK. It’s the lack of evangelization that is the real problem.
14. If we look to overseas bishops and primates and take their advice then things will work out fine. They can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
15. If we trim our theology and doctrine to make it attractive without being heretical, and thus make it easier to call people to discipleship, then that will be good. Is not this what the successful growing churches in the US are doing?
16. If we can persuade our bishops to be genuine leaders rather than chief liturgical officers and chief executives then the ECUSA will be turned around.
17. If we can get everyone involved in evangelically based charismatic-type services which are attractive, celebratory and simple then we shall leave behind the wrong stuff.
Finally,
I suggest that he be prepared in grief and humility to be ready to walk out of this denomination if and only if he finds that his informed conscience so instructs him, and godly and wise friends so advice.
Kyrie Eleison
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 6:43 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, August 16, 2004
The political use of Adjectives -- “faithful” & “orthodox”
A discussion starter
In contemporary Anglican-talk we sometimes use an adjective before a noun to create an unexpected moral judgment. At other times we use an adjective out of context in order to score a moral victory.
Take the word “faithful”. One device widely used by the LesBiGay lobby to make its agenda acceptable has been to use the word “faithful” repeatedly with respect to “partnerships” or “relationships” between persons of the same sex. In that two persons stay with each other during one time-period, they are deemed to be faithful to each other. The emphasis is removed from the noun “partnership” to the adjective and since the adjective is normally used in a context where there is approval (“a faithful congregation, a faithful Christian) so the idea of a “faithful partnership” is given the flavor of approval. The same applies to co-habiting by a heterosexual couple. Therefore the question as to whether the actual partnership or co-habitation is morally right or good is pushed into the background and not faced, indeed, it is quietly accepted. (We know from experience that many groups are faithful to each other for limited periods in order to achieve their ends – e.g., a band of robbers or a cell of terrorists.)
Take the word “orthodox”. One device used by modern (generally evangelical or charismatic) opponents of the LesbiGay agenda is frequently to use the word “orthodox” to describe themselves specifically in their actual opposition to this agenda. In this case, the frequent use of the word of themselves as a group and as individuals (and their claim to oppose the heterodox leadership of the ECUSA & the Canadian Church) has the [most important] effect of hiding from view or negating a whole series of (to put it mildly) questionable innovations within the Episcopal Church since the 1960s that they heartily approve, or do not oppose, or live happily in the context of. Instead of “orthodox” relating primarily to a corporate confession of true dogma/doctrine and to engagement in right worship, it is effectively narrowed to mean only “the holding of the belief that sexual relations should be between married persons only” and any supporting doctrines. Thus the modern orthodox can be semi-heretical or even heretical with respect to the Confession of the Unity and Trinity of God, the Incarnation -- Lord Jesus Christ as One Person made known in two natures (divine and human) --, the vocation of Chastity, and so on. He can happily use the 1979 Prayer Book of the ECUSA or the 1985 Prayer Book of the Anglican Church of Canada as though these were genuinely orthodox in aim and content; he can approve the practice of ordaining and deploying in pastoral ministry divorced & remarried persons of either sex; he can welcome the ordained ministry of women and the use of inclusive language to make them feel happy; he can use dynamic equivalency versions of the Bible in order to allow a modern agenda into the “Bible”; and so on. And, in all this, he can have no sense whatever that he is part of the problem, that the innovations which he embraces are the background to the arrival of the LesBiGay agenda, and that he is part of the sickness.
No member of any Church/denomination can be genuinely orthodox, in doctrine and worship, unless and until that whole jurisdiction is wholly committed to orthodoxy in spirit and in truth. The holiest and best-taught can only be “desirous of orthodoxy” if they live in the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:10 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto
Those who say the Daily Offices praise the Holy Trinity as they recite after Canticles and before and after the praying of the Psalms, “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.” In the Early Church there were other forms of the Doxology. Let us go back to the great Cappadocian theologian, Basil, to notice one.
On September 7, 374 St Basil “the Great”, Bishop of Caesarea, was praying with his people and glorifying the Holy Trinity in two related but distinct ways:
(1) “Glory to the Father together with the Son and together with the Holy Ghost; (compare “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.”)
(2) “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.”
Some people there accused him of being illogical and contradictory in his speech by using the two doxologies.
After pondering what they said and their reasons Basil decided to write a treatise to explain that both doxologies are scriptural, orthodox and necessary. Thus we have his book, “Treatise on the Holy Spirit.”
We may say that (1) is a coordinating doxology and is intimately connected to the Great Commission of Jesus [Matthew 28] where he commands that we are to be baptized in “the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The use of the conjunction “with” or “and” places the Three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity together on the same divine plane as Three Equals, related in a distinct order, with the Father first in order. And each of the Three receives the same glory as the other Two, for each of the Three possesses the one and the same identical Godhead/divine nature as the other Two. The Doxology using “and” has been used everywhere in the Western Church and thus occurs many times in The Book of Common Prayer, for example.
We may say that (2) is a statement of the logic of Christian worship, prayer, service and consecration, which we find stated in many ways in the New Testament and expressed in the great Liturgies of the Church. All is offered to the Father through the one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Father, and in the Holy Spirit [in his presence and by his power]. All is so offered because all [creation & redemption] has previously come from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. There is a descent from the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit in creation, redemption and revelation and there is an ascent to the Father through the Son and with the Holy Spirit in worship, prayer and service.
Further we may say that (1) points to God as God is in Himself and unto Himself as a Trinity of Persons in His own infinity and eternity (what theologians have called “the Immanent Trinity’) while (2) points to God as He has made Himself known in the work of creation, salvation, reconciliation and redemption (what theologians have called “the Economic Trinity”). The first is the language suitable to the Confession of Faith and for opposing heresy (see e.g., the Quicunque Vult), while the second is suitable to the teaching and proclamation of the Gospel and for use in worship.
However, both forms of the doxology are needed in the one Church to be used by all in order to preserve orthodox Christian understanding of God as The Holy Trinity. If (1) stands alone then the Trinity can seem to be a doctrine that has no practical application to Christian life on earth for God in his Trinitarian bliss is remote. In contrast, if (2) stands alone then it may be interpreted (as did the ancient Arians and Semi-Arians) as meaning that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is an inferior kind to that of the Son, and the divinity of the Son is of an inferior kind to that of the Father.
In terms of the history of salvation, as we find it set forth in the Canon of the Old and New Testaments, we may say with Bishop Gregory of Nazianzus, a friend of Bishop Basil, that the divinity of the Father is revealed and recognized by the Old Testament, that the divinity of the Son is revealed and recognized by the New Testament, and the divinity of the Holy Ghost, while revealed in the New Testament is only fully recognized when the same Spirit is present and active in the Church of God. Thus the full confession of the Holy Trinity and the conscious and systematic giving of glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost as Three Persons, equal and distinct, occurs after the period of the New Testament and in the period of the ancient Fathers.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:42 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?: Are “The Network/AAC [USA]” and “The Essentials Movement [Canada]” and their members “orthodox”?
A discussion starter
It is the assumption of those (mostly evangelical & charismatic Anglicans) who are protesting against the entry of the LesBiGay agenda into the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. and the Anglican Church of Canada that they are “the orthodox”. But are they?
Let us begin at the beginning. To be orthodox is an attribute, character or quality of the ancient Churches of the East and West. And it is a name which the patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria specifically used, being known as jurisdictions of The Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic church. Though the ancient Church in the West, centered on the See of Rome, did not ostensibly use the word orthodox in its self-description it nevertheless claimed to be so.
According to the Early Church and the teaching of the Fathers, orthodoxy belongs necessarily in the first place to the Church as Church, as God’s Household and People. Orthodoxy is an ecclesial, corporate and community concept. Therefore a believer in the Lord Jesus can only be orthodox by participation in the life, worship, confession and witness of the local expression of the one Body of Christ, the Household of God. Orthodoxy is bestowed upon him by his fellowship and participation in mind and heart in the local church that is orthodox as a microcosm of the catholic, orthodox Church of God.
As the local jurisdiction of the one Church confesses the true Faith and worships the Almighty Father through Jesus Christ the Mediator in spirit and in truth, so it is orthodox, holding right doctrines and worshipping aright within the One Catholic Church. Converts to Jesus Christ baptized and received into the local church are taught the Faith and in embracing Christ and His Faith become orthodox Christians.
To be orthodox , to confess the true Faith and to engage in right worship also has required the Church over the centuries to identify heresy and heterodoxy and to anathematize the heretical teachers and their false teaching. The Church was called to be pure in both doctrine and life for Christ’s sake. By its nature, heterodoxy is the doctrine of a faction or of a particular person and his devotees. In contrast to orthodoxy as God-revealed truth and right worship, heresy is an opinion!
Naturally, while the word orthodox pointed first and foremost in the first 1,000 years of Christianity to that right doctrine and worship which are the possession of the Church as one Church , it came to be used in a derivative sense as a description of individual persons or societies who, being in the Church, sought to make a clear stand from there for orthodox teaching and against heretical and heterodox teaching.
After the Reformation of religion in the sixteenth century and the break-up on the Western Church into national Protestant Churches in northern Europe, the latter claimed to be orthodox in their teaching and they produced confessions of faith claiming to set forth that orthodoxy. Here we note that the primary ecclesial reference and meaning of orthodoxy is retained even though it now points in a limited sense within a national church or a specific province to the right confession of the Faith by a specific national Church.
In modern times, the West has witnessed both the development of individualism and since the 18th century of a tremendous variety of competitive Protestant denominations and groups. Thus the original meaning of orthodoxy as a corporate concept, the right faith and worship of the one Church, has been pushed into the background and almost forgotten; and its secondary meaning as relating to a bishop, clergyman or layman as an individual has become the primary one for Protestants, perhaps also for many Roman Catholics.
Apparently now in 2004, orthodoxy is seen in evangelical circles as a minimal confession of faith which believing Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others Protestant Christians can all embrace and sign. It is usually seen as being a list of doctrines (as in the charters and statements of Evangelical Colleges and Movements) supposedly based upon Scripture. If one accepts them all or most of them then one can say, “I am orthodox.” Thus orthodoxy is said to belong to a movement, a specific local denomination or congregation, a college faculty, or an individual Christian. Therefore, as a concept, it is freed from most of its historical ties and is seen as somehow existing out there -- belonging to the Church Invisible and based on a free-standing Scripture? In fact it is a kind of a product which each person freely chooses in whole or in part out of a set of options on sale in the religious supermarket of the churches of North America.
Thus when you look at one of the American or Canadian liberal old-line/main-line denominations and ask about its orthodoxy, you run the risk of confusion unless you define your terms carefully. You can look back to the 16th or 17th century origins and see its original Confession of Faith (e.g., Augsburg or Westminster) & Constitution and say that is has the foundation of orthodoxy, thus in some ways it is orthodoxy still. You can then look at its pronouncements and resolutions and decisions since the 1950’s and you can say that officially and empirically it is heretical and heterodox in that it has embraced novel doctrines of God, Christ, salvation and morality. Further, as a member of this apostate denomination, you can then use the modern evangelical definition of orthodoxy and claim to be orthodox yourself as an individual, for you can claim to hold in a general way the content of the original Confession of faith of this denomination or as a group you can produce a new one which you judge to be “evangelical & biblical”.
However, if you apply to a modern liberal denomination the original meaning of orthodoxy as a corporate character belonging necessarily first of all to a jurisdiction or diocese or province of the one Church of God, then you have problems indeed. As a member of a modern jurisdiction (e.g. the ECUSA), which officially has set aside its standards of right doctrine and worship and morality, and has deliberately adopted modern liberal standards and which, further, has also changed the nature of its Ministry, you cannot genuinely be orthodox (whatever be your own opinions) for you participate at various levels in what which is obviously not an orthodox church. As a member of this sick body, you have to confess – strictly speaking -- that you share in the sickness and unless and until the jurisdiction itself restores orthodoxy to its life and worship and teaching, you cannot be orthodox yourself --- you can desire to be so, you can work to be so, you can work to be so but you cannot be so truly.
The most anyone can claim for himself as a Minister or member of the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada, within the context of the American supermarket of religions, is that “I am would-be orthodox” desiring to be truly orthodox by belonging to a genuinely new [or wholly renewed], orthodox province or jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God.
The initial way to true orthodoxy of doctrine and worship is through penance and confession of sin and a readiness to recognize that even reformers within a diseased province share in that disease. Professions of superiority and of being free from the stain of the disease of heresy and immorality are a sure recipe for staying within the power of the disease. Lord have mercy upon us!
[See further, L.R.Tarsitano & P.Toon, NEITHER ORTHODOXY NOR A FORMULARY. The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or from 1-800-727-1928.]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:39 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Let us adore the DIVINE INTERPENETRATION.
Mutual Indwelling, Circuminsession [Circumincession] & Perichoresis in THE TRINITY
In the history of the Christian Church, there has been a constant temptation for baptized believers to err in two opposite directions in terms of their understanding of God as The Trinity, who is the LORD, the Father & the Son & the Holy Ghost, three Persons, One Godhead. So it is not surprising that one of the three great Creeds of the Western Church, the Athanasian Creed [= Quicunque Vult] actually proclaims with splendid, humble clarity the orthodox [western] doctrine of The Trinity and also distinguishes it from the errors of two opposite directions.
The errors are (a) Tritheism, where The Trinity is seen as three intimately related “Gods” who work together and who may be equal or not in their divinity; and (b) Modalism, where the Trinity is seen as three expressions or modes of existence of the One God, a form of Unitarianism where God has three Faces and Names.
The amazing truth of The Trinity is that there is one God and one God only, but that this one God is also simultaneously and eternally Three intimately related but yet distinct Persons, so that he is both Three in One and One in Three. Each of the Persons possesses in totality the one and the one only divine nature, but yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Ghost is neither the Son nor the Father. As the Greeks put in – Three Persons and one Godhead (Substance).
Within the One God and Deity, which is The Holy Trinity, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (as many texts from John’s Gospel proclaim – see e.g. 10:38 & 17:21) and the Holy Ghost is in the Father and in the Son. That is, there is a mutual indwelling of the Three Persons in each other and this indwelling is one of agape, the divine love.
“Because of the unity of nature, the Father is completely in the Son and completely in the Holy Ghost; the Son completely in the Father, completely in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost completely in the Father, completely in the Son” – the Council of Florence.
The word used by St John of Damascus for this mutual indwelling of each other by the Persons of The Holy Trinity was PERICHORESIS and this was translated by St Bonaventure as CIRCUMINCESSIO but by St Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Florence as CIRCUMINSESSIO. In all these writers the use of these particular words points to what we may call the mystery of divine interpenetration, reciprocal immanence and intra-divine subjectivity within the One God, who is truly and really a Triad.
As human beings we can have some experience of an earthly and created form of mutual indwelling in two ways, and each by grace. (a) That form and depth of fellowship with God wherein he dwells in us and we in him; and (b) that form and depth of fellowship one with another in Jesus Christ through the presence of the Holy Ghost within the Body of Christ, the Household of God, the Church. (The First Epistle of John as well as Romans 8 and John 14-17 point to this indwelling on the human plane.) However, that which belongs to God internally and immanently as The Holy Trinity we can only imagine, worship and adore, even as we have fellowship one with another and with the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost.
If we rightly understand the nature of mutual indwelling of persons in koinonia [communion, fellowship] in the Body of Christ on earth in anticipation of the life of the age to come, then we can by divine illumination and help, contemplate the PERICHORESIS AND CIRCUMINSESSIO of the Three Divine Persons who are One God.
And, as we so contemplate and adore, we shall not only “know God” unto salvation, but we shall also by grace be saved from the two great errors in doctrine that persistently arise in the Church of God, tritheism and modalism. [A careful examination of many modern liturgies, hymns, choruses and sermons will reveal, regrettably, that they tend often to drift – because of the ignorance of classic orthodoxy by their composers & editors – into one or other of these two errors.]
Let us all read again with care and devotion The Athanasian Creed (which is found in the BCP 1662 of England and 1962 of Canada; but, regrettably, not in the American BCP 1928. It is however found in very small print in the Appendix of the American ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book.
[Note that the September/October issue 2004 – due September 1st – of The MANDATE has for one its major themes, The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult), which though one of the three Creeds of the Church is also a Christian Psalm to be sung thirteen times a year in the Church of England and at Prime on Sundays in the R C Church. Call 1-800-727-1928 for a copy or read it at the Prayer Book Society website, www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 ]
Appendix.
1. Our normal existence in this world according to the Bible is that we are mutually indwelt by Satan and the world and it is only by grace that we are saved into the state of fellowship with The Holy Trinity and with one another in the Body of Christ.
2. Various Anglican and Ecumenical Commission have used the theme of Circuminsessio as a kind of model for unity of churches on earth but in doing so they have usually politicized a very profound and holy concept that belongs to the realm of doxology rather than political ecumenism. See further chapter 4 “Koinonia and the Anglican Family” in Peter Toon, Reforming Forwards? The process of reception and the consecration of women as bishops, Latimer Trust, London, ISBN 0 946307 50 4 http://www.latimertrust.org/
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 2004
posted by John at 8:30 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
On the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper – R. Hooker & ourselves
A discussion starter
One thing I think is certain. It is impossible in 2004 to work out a satisfactory church doctrine of the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist], simply by reference to the Sacred Scripture. It was ALSO impossible in the 1590’s when Richard Hooker penned his “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” (in debate with the Puritans who wanted to bring revolutionary change into the Church of England) to work out such a doctrine simply by recourse to the Bible.
Why?
Because the Bible cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. It has to be interpreted now & it had been interpreted in the past. From the past we receive Tradition and traditions which affect the way we read the Bible and receive its contents. This is so in all situations but is particularly so with reference to the establishing of the reality of Sacraments and then of their meaning and purpose. Further, we know that insulated, privatized judgment in the reading and interpretation of the Bible is a common path to the origin of heresies!
The central Anglican [reformed catholic] method of approaching the doctrine of the Sacraments was identified and then given solidity by Hooker in Book V of The Laws. He taught that the Sacraments are related to the Incarnation of the Son of God, who gave them, and that only in the light of the Incarnation can they be understood, appreciated and received and become effectual.
Thus before he addresses the nature and purpose of the two Sacraments, Hooker engages in a most careful and engaging statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God as that doctrine was formulated (after much discussion and debate) by the early Fathers and in the dogma of ecumenical councils. Anyone who wishes to read a succinct & brilliant statement of the Church dogma of the Incarnation will find such in Bk V, 51-57.
Of course, in going to the Early Church (which after all was the Church that collected the books of, and decided the content of, the Canon of the New Testament) Hooker was following the Anglican method, often summarized since then by the use of the 1,2,3,4,5. Anglicans base doctrine, worship and church order on One Canon of Scripture with Two Testaments, doctrine summarized in Three Creeds, the dogma of Four General Councils and the developments of Five centuries of growth & experience (1-500). They seek to teach nothing contrary to the central doctrines of this formative period.
In the light of the Patristic Evidence, Hooker was able to dismiss the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation & the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation as not faithful to Scripture as received in the Early Church, and to propose a doctrine to which, he believed, the early Fathers testified. He proposed that “this is my body” meant Christ saying to the faithful receivers:
“This hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and in truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them my body.”
This became the central Anglican doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was the basis for the teaching on the Sacraments in the extension of the Catechism of the Prayer Book (done in 1604 and added to the BCP in 1662).
In historical terms, it is similar to that taught by John Calvin and the high Presbyterian divines and known as “Virtualism” – from virtus = strength/force/power (i.e., while the bread and wine continue to exist unchanged after consecration, the faithful communicant receives with the sacramental bread and wine the virtue/power/grace of the real Body and Blood of the crucified and exalted Saviour).
Another related approach to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and developed by 17th century writers such as Jeremy Taylor is often termed “Receptionism” – that along with the actual bread and wine the faithful communicant receives the true Body of Blood of the crucified and now exalted Saviour.
These reformed Catholic or Anglican doctrines of the real presence of the Exalted, once crucified Christ, were meant to avoid the literal identification of the bread and wine with the actual body and blood of Jesus, the doctrine of transubstantiation (the doctrine of Rome that had reigned supreme in the medieval Church) and also to insist on the need for worthy, faithful reception.
Later in English Church history, the Tractarians and then the Anglo-Catholics adopted doctrines of the real presence that were derived not from the standard divines of the Reformed Catholic Church of England but from Roman and Lutheran divines and these – transubstantiation and consubstantiation - are common place now amongst extreme Anglo-Catholics in the ECUSA and in the Continuing Churches.
Hooker & the BCP Catechism do not deal with modern questions such as what kind of a sacrifice is offered at the Eucharist, but rather with what is received from Christ therein. Here the primary question is Godward, a right relation with God, and concerns salvation and union with, and participation in, Christ.
The Early Church did certainly think of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, absolutely NOT in terms of a repeat of the unique Sacrifice at Calvary, but rather of the Church being united to Christ, the heavenly Lamb of God, as he presents himself as the Sacrifice to the Father. Then of course, the Fathers saw the Eucharist as an offering to the Father through the Son and by the Spirit of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving from the Church and also of the lives of all the members in consecration.
The point I am making is that there are TODAY no short cuts to the establishing of a sound doctrine of the Eucharist upon which we can create new liturgies and also officiate at and plan eucharistic liturgies today. To read one good book on the Doctrine of the Eucharist is not enough! It is a beginning.
In fact it is possible that today, with the extreme emphasis on celebration (as a kind of communal happy experience) and the sharing of the peace, the churches have become too Man-ward in their doctrine and experience of the Eucharist.
I would suggest that unless we are very familiar with the classic, patristic doctrine of the Incarnation and with the development of the structure & content of the Eucharist n the first five and more centuries, and thus in a position to judge the worth of the new shapes, contents and doctrines of the Anglican liturgies developed since the 1960s by appeal to the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is perhaps best for us to stay with the traditional service in The Book of Common Prayer in its 1662 C of E, or its 1928 ECUSA, form. And further, in so doing, to stay with tried and tested Anglican doctrines of “Virtualism” or “Receptionism” and to adjust our piety and communal sense of “Celebration” to fit these ends. Of course, if we move into the Anglican Missal or the Roman Missal then we are leaving behind the reformed catholic mindset of the BCP and the standard divines of the Anglican Way and we are probably adopting the Roman Catholic doctrine and approach to the “Sacrament of the Altar” (for which in modern terms see The Catechism of the R C Church).
What is clear is that the Anglican Formularies, while allowing for very high doctrines of the presence and action of Christ by the Holy Spirit in the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, do not in relation to the latter allow the old Roman doctrines of transubstantiation and the identification of the God-ward sacrifice of the Mass with the one Sacrifice of Calvary. At the same time, they also do not allow the “low” doctrines of some forms of Protestantism where Baptism is merely a human way of testifying to conversion and the Lord’s Supper is a mere remembering of the value of the Atonement of Christ at the Cross. In between the two extremes there is plenty of holy ground on which to stand in adoration of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, One God.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:27 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Your Majesty & Your Grace: Addressing the King and the LORD God
Since late medieval times, the monarch has been addressed as “Your Majesty” and the Archbishop, Duke & Duchess as “Your Grace”.
In fact, had a courtier addressed Henry VIII as “Thy Majesty” he would have been in danger of losing his head and certainly would have been under immediate arrest.
Why?
“Ye” & “You” and “Your” were not only used as second person plural but also, in a limited way, as a polite forms of address, second person singular, in the sixteenth century and before. Certainly “Thou, Thee, Thy & Thine” were the forms of the second person singular always used for translating into English from other languages (see the English Bibles of the 16th & 17th centuries). And in everyday speech, “Thou, Thee, Thy & Thine” were used between equals and to juniors and inferiors. Further, “Thou, Thee, Thy & Thine” was the normal language of intimacy between family members and between lovers.
So “Ye, You, & Your” was mostly used for the second person plural but also was used when addressing superiors and when seeking to be polite, where good manners counted (and there are several examples of this in The Book of Common Prayer, 1549, 1552, 1662). However, “Thou, Thee, Thy & Thine” always and only has been used as the second person singular, never as plural.
GOD & language
One of the more interesting facts about the language of prayer in English as it developed as a separate form from Latin public prayer is that God was always and only addressed as “Thou, thee, thy & thine” when, on the analogy of the way the Sovereign was addressed, perhaps we would have expected “Ye, you & your.”
“Thou, thee, thy & thine” were chosen for the language of public and common prayer for three reasons:
- In the Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible & in traditional church texts, God is addressed through the second person singular, always and only.
- The basic confession of faith is that “The Lord thy God is One God” and thus a clear second person singular is required to maintain this doctrine.
- God adopts believers in Christ Jesus by grace as his children and thus they are intimate with him: thus they address him as “Thou/Thee”.
The addressing of the Lord our God in this way was virtually universal amongst English speakers from its beginnings in the medieval world until the middle of the twentieth century. Now it is used by only a minority of English speakers; but they use it with conviction believing that it is the right way – in fact for them – the only way to address God both reverently and as his children and in maintaining the reality of his Unity. He is One God in Trinity and a Trinity in Unity for there is one and only one Godhead. To use “You” fails to uphold the best practice and understanding of what a great privilege it is to speak to YHWH, the LORD, the Trinity in UNITY.
[See further Peter Toon & Louis Tarsitano, NEITHER ARCHAIC NOR OBSOLETE. The Language of Common Prayer and Public Worship, ISBN 0 0907839 75 4, http://www.edgewaysbooks.com/, and http://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/ or call in the USA 1 800 727 1928]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:24 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Using The Book of Common Prayer – underlying principles
A discussion Starter
What are the principles to which a faithful congregation, which uses only The Book of Common Prayer (1662) together with the King James Version of the Bible in 2004, is actually committed by its regular worship in the Common Prayer Tradition – with special reference to England? [Most of what is said below also applies to Anglican Churches where the classic BCP is used and there is a separation from the State.]
Principles underlying the use of the BCP and KJV (=AV)
- That the whole national Church/province is to display unity with uniformity in public worship and common prayer, and that all things are to be done decently and in order, including prayer for the Sovereign.
- That the Ministry of the Church is threefold & male, that of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
- That there is a specific English Style and Language of Public Prayer and that this requires the distinction between the second person singular and plural and also, and most especially, the addressing of God in the second person singular.
- That where original documents (Hebrew, Greek & Latin) contain a distinction between the second person singular and plural, this distinction is maintained in translation – e.g., “Hallowed be thy name” and in worship.
- That the type of translation used for Scripture, ancient Canticles and Creeds is that of the essentially literal (rather than the modern dynamic equivalency) and the word for word (rather than thought for thought) method.
- That the Apocrypha is to be read as part of the Daily Lectionary along with the canonical books of the Bible. And the Old Testament is to be read as being fulfilled in the life, ministry, teaching, death, resurrection, exaltation and second Coming of Jesus the Christ. Likewise the Psalter is to be prayed in with and through the same Christ Jesus. By reading the whole Bible each year the soul is formed in the knowledge of God in his revelation.
- That preaching and announcements are to be in the vernacular and in a contemporary, dignified form thereof.
- That the essential dogma/doctrines of the Early Church, especially those of the Trinity and of the Incarnation/Person of Christ, are the foundation of the confession of Faith in worship.
- That the Reformation emphasis/doctrine of justification by grace/faith underlies the approach to God in worship and for salvation.
- That only the baptized and confirmed are to be the normal recipients of Holy Communion.
- That the habit of using the same structure & content of daily and weekly services, along with a changing Collect and Scriptural Lessons, provides a solid foundation for disciplined godliness.
- That the confession of sin is part of worship for it is a celebration of the holiness, judgement and mercy of God in relation to sinners. Thus the fear and the love of God belong together.
- That the doctrinal heart of the Common Prayer is the Eucharistic Lectionary for Sundays and major Feasts; for here the soul is formed through the Scriptures in both Trinitarianism as a godly mindset and as the basis of a consecrated life.
- That the Christian Year is to be kept liturgically and devotionally as a means of grace and of education in the knowledge of the Lord.
- That the Church of the first five centuries and of the first four ecumenical councils provides an unique model and special examples to follow.
- That in this world Christians are pilgrims and sojourners for their true home is in the heavenly Jerusalem; nevertheless while on earth they are to seek to work for the common good and obey those set above them in God’s providential rule.
- That the whole parish as a geographical unit is to be treated as potentially Christian and to be appropriately evangelised.
Now it may be asked: Are these principles different from those of a congregation which uses Common Worship (2000) or other modern service books?
The answer is that in a few cases they are the same but in general they are different, as is indicated below.
Differences in the modern liturgical approach briefly stated:
- Variety rather than uniformity is the aim.
- Threefold Ministry, but including women.
- Rejection of the traditional English Language of Prayer.
- No distinction between second person singular and plural, even for addressing God Almighty.
- Use of the modern dynamic equivalency method of translation.
- Psalter is rendered into inclusive language and thus it is difficult to use it Christologically.
- Preaching is to be in the same type of language as the Liturgy.
- Classical dogma assumed but not clearly confessed & articulated.
- Justification by grace/faith not obviously & clearly central.
- Baptism without Confirmation is seen as complete “initiation”.
- Cultivation of disciplined habit of prayer is optional.
- Confession of sin is seen as preparatory to worship.
- Use of modern Ecumenical Common Lectionary.
- Christian Year in amended form – e.g. Easter is a season not a festival and lasts 50 days.
- The model for liturgy and doctrine is specifically the Church of the first three centuries rather than that of the first five or six.
- More emphasis upon God’s kingdom in this world and less on the hope of the World to come.
The only way in which the modern forms of varied liturgy are “common” public prayer is that they tend to have the same general “shape” or “structure” or “list of contents” even though their actual content is in principle greatly variable.
---------------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
posted by John at 8:15 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
College of the Resurrection, Mirfield & women clergy
Whether it is good for women to be ordained or not, there is great value in a College that keeps to a specific tradition over a long period of time. Mixing men and women as ordination candidates MUST change the ethos and remove something that cannot be restored once gone. READ ON
Mirfield: women
By Pat Ashworth
THE College of the Resurrection, Mirfield, is to admit women candidates for ordination training. Women have been admitted as theology students for many years, and the Bishop of Wakefield, the Rt Revd Stephen Platten, who chairs the new governing body, has described the move as “a natural development” in the college’s life.
Mirfield is responding to the Hind report on theological training. The Superior of the Community of the Resurrection, Fr George Guiver CR, said:
“The new governing body has greater freedom for action . . .: after 100 years of service to the Church, we are clear that it should go forward for another 100 years on the best possible footing.
“There is nothing quite like what we offer at Mirfield, and it is being sought after by an extraordinary variety of people in the churches today: a development we need to take seriously and maximise.”
The College Council, in a statement, spoke of its firm belief in “the need to prepare people of all persuasions for the Church as it is. Mirfield provides an excellent setting for its students to discern what it is to be Catholic at this juncture in the [Church’s] history.”
Staff were committed to “fostering a learning and praying community in which those of differing theological convictions are respected and given space to grow together in dialogue and also to disagree”, the statement said.
New Warden: Canon Anne Dyer, aged 46, Ministry Development Officer in Rochester, is to be the new Warden of Cranmer Hall, St John’s College, Durham. Canon Dyer studied chemistry in Oxford, and and trained at Wycliffe Hall and King’s College, London
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:10 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, August 09, 2004
What names & descriptions should we – as “Anglicans” – use of ourselves?
Obviously the word “Anglican” is related to “England” and to the Church of England (Latin = ecclesia anglicana). Thus “an Anglican” Christian could be described simply as a member of either the Church of England or one of the 38 Churches/Provinces closely tied to the Church of England that make up “The Anglican Communion of Churches.”
However, some of the Churches in this Communion have it their title the word “Episcopal” and thus locally their members are called “Episcopalians.” Nevertheless, these members usually also accept the name of “Anglican” as the dynamic equivalent to Episcopal/ian.
So the first choice is between “Episcopal/ian” and “Anglican,” and the latter wins because of its universal usage.
Now, were it the case that all who are of Anglican/Episcopal faith and practice had remained within the Provinces that make up the Anglican Communion, then the problem of names would be simple. But the fact of the matter is that there are churches and jurisdictions practicing a form of polity, worship, faith and practice which are very similar to that found within the mainstream of the Anglican Communion of Churches.
The question then becomes, what do these people call themselves and what should others call them?
What do people within the Reformed Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. and in the Church of England in South Africa call themselves? How do the Anglican Communion Office in London and Lambeth Palace describe & name them? In origin both these denominations belong to the evangelical, low churchmanship side of the historic Anglican tradition. Now the Reformed Episcopal Church is fast moving towards a high churchmanship while the Church of England in South Africa remains determinedly low church and “Calvinistic” in emphasis.
Then what about those Episcopalians who signed the St Louis Statement of 1977 and left the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. to form what they called “The Continuing [Episcopal/Anglican] Church.” But what were they continuing? It was not in reality the comprehensive churchmanship of the historic Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. but rather & primarily the anglo-catholic end of that varied churchmanship. It is an agreed fact that the St Louis Statement is not compatible with The Thirty-Nine Articles or with other parts of the other historic Formularies for it takes the anglo-catholic side where there have always been accepted differences in historic Anglican faith and witness.
So if we call these folk “Continuing Anglicans” then we need a footnote to state: “that is, primarily anglo-catholic Anglicans”.
Since 1977 there have been other secessions from the Episcopal Church, with what is now called “The Anglican Mission in America” (sponsored by two Primates of the Anglican Communion of Churches) getting the major publicity and showing the greatest energy. Obviously this group, as well as other smaller ones which have overseas support from bishops, believe that the name of “Anglican” is appropriate for them. Many of them would also identify as “charismatic” ; their services show continuity of style with the recent manifestations of charismatic-style Anglican worship within dioceses of the official Provinces of the Anglican Communion of Churches. Thus if we are to call these folk “Anglicans” we need a footnote to state: “that is, primarily evangelical & charismatic in style.”
Returning to those who call themselves “Continuing Anglicans” in the USA we may note that they have more “brethren” overseas in membership of churches in fellowship with them than they do at home. One international grouping is called “the Traditional Anglican Communion” of which the Archbishop is an Australian and most members are in Asia, Australasia and Africa. Here again in this title there is an obvious determination to keep the name of “Anglican” but it is basically “anglo-catholic” in nature, for its formularies require this approach.
Some years ago my learned friend, Bishop Robert Mercer C.R. began to use the name of “Extra-Mural Anglicans” (outside the wall Anglicans) of those who sought to practice received Anglican polity, worship and faith outside the walls of the official Anglican Communion of Churches. Bishop Mercer himself moved from within the walls to outside the walls when he became the Bishop of the “Anglican Catholic Church of Canada.”
“Extra-Mural Anglican” is a cumbersome title but it is a way of describing in neutral terms those who believe themselves to be Anglicans and who, either on grounds of conscience or circumstance beyond their immediate control, find themselves outside the 38 provinces that make up the Anglican Communion of Churches.
This title however will not cover all who are on “the Canterbury trail” and within a vague Anglican ethos. There are former Pentecostalists who, attracted by episcopal polity, the Church year, historic liturgy of an Anglican kind, and vestments, have formed denominations which have in their title “Episcopal” rather than Anglican – e.g., “the Charismatic Episcopal Church.”
So, in summary, I prefer to stay with the expression “Extra-Mural Anglican” for it can cover a variety folks committed to a variety of churchmanships and traditions, which historically fitted within the comprehensiveness of the Anglican Way.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 10:12 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Extra-Mural Anglicans & ICONS
A discussion starter
When Episcopalians left the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. in 1977 over the ordination of women and the imposition of a new prayer book, they committed themselves to the St Louis Statement as a formulary and formed the Continuing Anglican Church (which has sadly known schism since then – ACA, ACC, PCK etc.).
They put into their formulary, a doctrine which had never been present as an official doctrine in Anglican Formularies before -- the veneration of icons, as set out by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II) of AD 787. Of course, there had been in anglo-catholic parishes the veneration of icons since the late 19th century, but this was a practice that was extra to, and not an essential part of, the Anglican Way.
None of the Formularies of the Anglican Way (Articles, BCP & Ordinal), the Canons or the Constitutions of the member churches of the Anglican Communion of Churches go beyond stating their full acceptance of the dogma of the first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon) and their general acceptance of the teaching of the fifth and sixth Councils (Constantinople II & III, 553 & 681) which only deals more fully with the Christology of the earlier Councils (that Jesus is One Person made know in two natures).
Certainly little was truly known in the 16th century about the seventh ecumenical Council and accurate details of it only began to be made available in the mid 17th century. However, had its decree been accurately known to the Protestant Reformers, we can safely say that it would not have been accepted by them, or by such theologians as Richard Hooker, in terms of a required doctrine. In fact, there is no difference in doctrine between the decree on the veneration of icons from the seventh Council and the decree on the same subject from the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, and they rejected the decree of Trent.
Reformed Catholics (Anglicans), Lutherans and others have always found the distinction in the Decree of 787 between the worship, and the veneration, of images/icons difficult to accept. This is usually because, while the theory in terms of the conceptual distinction is sound, the practical application so easily goes wrong in the devotions of ordinary folk, and veneration seems to become actual worship. For this reason, with the general biblical theme of the abomination of idol worship as background, Anglicans in general have not been drawn into the veneration of icons, even though they have a great affection for religious art.
Returning to the Episcopalians who became extra-mural Anglicans, it may be claimed that what they did in 1977 in their St Louis Statement was to take the doctrine & practice of many anglo-catholics (which doctrine and practice were not required by them of other faithful Anglican churchmen) and (without thinking it all through?) to require them by all in the new jurisdiction and denomination – the Continuing Anglican Church. Thereby they effectively cut themselves off from not only the Anglican Communion but also future union with evangelical Anglican, and middle of the way, Anglican jurisdictions; further, they created what may be called a new brand of Anglicanism, which cannot any longer be called “reformed Catholic” in the sense this term has been understood and used within the Anglican Way since the Elizabethan era.
If the Continuing Anglicans, the successors of those who met at St Louis in 1977, do not intend to work towards union with other extra-mural Anglicans (e.g., the Reformed Episcopal Church) but intend only to pursue some kind of acceptance by Rome or by an Orthodox jurisdiction then they will do well to keep the commitment to the seventh council in their formulary. However, if they see themselves genuinely as Anglicans and envisage in God’s good providence some kind of cooperation with other extra-mural Anglicans and eventually parts of the present Anglican Communion of Churches, then they need to declare that the St Louis Statement is NOT a formulary and is not binding but is merely recommendatory or advisory. Such a position would allow them to continue to venerate (not worship) icons and yet at the same time not expect others to do so! For there is no reason why anglo-catholics and evangelicals and those in the middle cannot be together in a truly comprehensive, biblically-based Anglican jurisdiction which takes the dogma of the Councils seriously!
[I have discovered a few copies in pristine condition of my book YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER. JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 1996. In it, I describe the doctrines and canon law of the 7 councils. If anyone wishes a copy please send message to peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk ]
=====
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 10:10 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Transfiguration of our Lord (August 6th)
The Book of Common Prayer (1662) notes in the Calendar of the Church Year that August 6th is the Festival of the Transfiguration of our Lord, but it does not supply a collect, epistle and gospel for the same. However, the Canadian edition of the same Prayer Book (1962) and the American edition (1928) supply collect, epistle and gospel, but they are not identical.
In the BCP of the Episcopal Church the festival is called, “The Transfiguration of Christ” and the epistle is 2 Peter 1:13ff. and the gospel Luke 9:28ff. Here is the collect:
O God, who on the mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses thine only-begotten Son
wonderfully transfigured, in raiment white and glistening: Mercifully grant that
we, being delivered from the disquietude of this world, may be permitted to
behold the King in his beauty, who with thee, O Father, and thee, O Holy Ghost,
liveth and reigneth one God, world without end. Amen.
This was written by the American, Dr Huntington, when he was on top of Mt Sargent on Mt Desert Island in Maine. It was inspired by the Lukan account of the Transfiguration.
In the BCP of the Anglican Church of Canada the collect is as follows:
O God, who on the holy mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses thy well-beloved
Son wonderfully transfigured: Mercifully grant unto us such a vision of his
divine majesty, that we, being purified and strengthened by thy grace, may be
transformed into his likeness from glory to glory: through the same thy Son,
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The epistle is 2 Peter 1:16ff. and the gospel is Matthew 17:1ff.
In the English Common Worship (2000) the collect is:
Father in heaven, whose Son Jesus Christ was wonderfully transfigured before
chosen witnesses upon the holy mountain, and spoke of the exodus he would
accomplish at Jerusalem: grant us strength so to hear his voice and bear our
cross that in the world to come we may behold him as he is; who liveth and
reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
The epistle is 2 Peter 1:16-19 and the gospel is Luke 9:28-36.
To be sure, we can meditate upon all these readings and we can pray all three collects to remember and draw grace from this great event, wherein the divinity of our Lord radiated through his humanity, as he looked to heaven and steadfastly towards Jerusalem, where his great exodus work of redemption was to be undertaken.
============
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 10:04 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Does it matter which version of the Bible we read?
A discussion starter!
There are probably around a hundred versions of the whole Bible or of parts thereof in print in English and available in big American Bible Stores in 2004.
One could say that this commercial situation is much the same situation as that which occurs when a class of say one hundred seminarians is asked to produce a translation of the Greek text of the Letter to Jude. No two would be alike (unless several present had memorized a given published translation and reproduced it verbatim) and thus one could pick and chose from amongst and within them, for some would be better than others.
Looking at the variety of translations in print, one can divide them generally speaking into two types. Then having the two types one can see degrees of difference within the types. The older type follows the essentially literal translation method, that is "word for word" and preserving as far as possible the original style -- examples are the major versions of the Bible up to the RSV of the 1960s, together with the recent English Standard Version.
Since the late 1960s, the overwhelming number of versions have been produced by translators who hold to the theory of dynamic equivalency and who attempt to give what may be described as a "thought for thought" and "concept for concept" rendering of the original. The clearest example of this across the board is seen by looking at Psalm 1:1, where in these versions one finds as the opening words, "Happy [Blessed] are they", or "Happy [Blessed] is the one".
Now, no-one, with any basic education, seriously challenges the fact that the original Hebrew Text (followed by the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate) has a word that a Hebrew Dictionary informs us means always and only "man/husband". In other words it is a word that is not only in the masculine gender but refers to a male person.
However, the literal meaning is not followed in the new theory of translation because the mind of the translator goes through a series of evaluations which cause "the man" to disappear and a neutral word such as "one" or a third person plural "they" to appear. The translator is persuading himself (or following the trend) that the original was written in a male-dominated society and thus it was natural to speak of "the man"; but, today, we live in a society where women have the same dignity as men and thus the dynamic equivalent of "the man" must communicate this reality, if modern people are ever to understand what really the Psalmist was trying to say.
And, in like manner, other Psalms are so rendered and in the New Testament the Greek word that a Greek Dictionary tells us means "brothers/brethren" is translated "brothers and sisters" or "sisters and brothers".
However, these two examples are merely the tip of the iceberg for once this principle of dynamic equivalency is accepted, then how one evaluates the present cultural, religious and moral scene has a major impact upon how one reads, interprets and renders the original. Thus if one begins -- as many translators now do -- from the position that the Bible in its original languages presents a the people of God as living in and expressing sexist, male-dominated, patriarchal series of societies then the theory of dynamic equivalency allows one to make the Bible read in the present in a way which is completely different from a translation produced by the "word for word" and essentially literal method. This explains why many today claim the Bible in support of doctrines, ways of living, forms of worshipping, and descriptions of godliness which seem erroneous and horrible to those who treated the KJV, the RV, the ASV and the RSV as the Word of God in English and who used such prayer books as The Book of Common Prayer (1662).
And in 2004, Evangelicals especially have to face up to the implications of this availability of many versions of the one Bible. It may be said that they gave their massive support to versions (e.g., The Living Bible, Todays English Version, and The New International Version) which were based partly or wholly on the theory on dynamic equivalency and thus they helped to popularize this method and approach, not realizing then (1960s into the 1970) where this would all go and how horrific would be the results for doctrine and morality. In 2004 it has got out of their and everyone's control for the situation is to wholly out of hand. It is driven wholly by market forces in the secularized supermarket of American religions. No longer can anyone say "this is the translation of the Word of God." All he can say is, "This is one attempt to state for our culture and time what (some reckon to be) the Word of God said centuries ago."
It would seem that radical surgery is required -- To go back to essentially literal, word for word, translations produced by respected teams of scholars, and then to look for help to understand what is found on the printed page of the Bible. After all there is a very long tradition of interpreting the Bible in the Church and further there is no shortage of Bible dictionaries and commentaries on books of the Bible.
Perhaps sales of the KJV will pick up again! Perhaps sales of the recent ESV (Crossways in USA) will increase (but if so then a new edition should be made available where the principle of word for word rendering includes the second person singular pronoun so that "thou/thee/thy/thine" sees a return so that we know when the Lord is speaking to the individual and when to "you-all"!).
One final thought -- what if "the Man" in Psalm 1:1 is prophetically the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Incarnate Son of God, and that his appearance here is the key to the Christian praying of and interpreting of the whole Psalter -- to pray it with Him and in His Body, the Church?
Dynamic equivalency renderings tend to take Jesus Christ out of the very Scriptures he came to fulfill!
(for further reading I suggest Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English. Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation, Crossway, 2002)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:19 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Tower Collapse at Christ RE Church in Philadelphia
(I preached and lectured here many times. This is sad news)
Last night the tower of Christ Reformed Episcopal Church at 43rd & Chestnut Sts. in west Philadelphia (just off the campus of the U. of Penn.) completely collapsed in the wake of recent heavy rainstorms. This church was the flagship parish of the REC upon its formation in breaking away from the ECUSA in 1873, and for decades housed that denomination's chief seminary. More recently, it has run a very fine Christian school, and its onetime rector, The Rev. Geoffrey Huebler (sp?), served on the school board for the onetime parish school of St. James the Less that was forced to close after the adverse verdicts in its ongoing litigation with the ECUSA diocese made its future uncertain. Christ Church has also offered to provide SJL's congregation a place to worship for an indefinite period in the event that they should finally lose their parish property to the diocese.
Please pray for that parish and all its people.
===========================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:04 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
The ESSENTIALS for the Canadian Anglican Essentials Movement
Reflections and Suggestions offered to participants in the Ottawa Conference
One of the persistent dangers facing any group, that has its back to the wall and is fighting what it sees as a great danger in church or society, is getting things out of perspective and of majoring on minors. In this mood, it may do or state things that seem in the heat of the moment to be necessary and right, but afterwards, in the clear light of day, are seen to be not on target, thus out of balance and perspective.
Facing the possibility that the same-sex agenda will spread through the Canadian Anglican Church, become generally acceptable and then an item of belief, there are those in the Essentials Movement, who, I fear, are in danger of allowing opposition to the same-sex agenda to form, indeed to dominate, their perspective on Christianity and on the Anglican Church in 2004 and for the immediate future.
In the modern church situation in North America, any “prophet” or “prophetic” group that believes it is called to oppose the same-sex agenda has to take a very deep breath, engage in self-examination, in order to be sure that this opposition is flowing from a right perspective – that it is, for Christians, based upon the full biblical, doctrinal, liturgical and moral basis and tradition of the Anglican Way and not really on a guts reaction to what is not liked. Otherwise this opposition in a culture (such as Canadian) which exalts diversity and choice will simply be seen as one, and only one religious, cultural alternative in the variety of sexual expressions. The chances of a reforming group getting it wrong, that is of over-heated reaction, are high, very high, simply because an opposition movement under pressure tends to feed on itself, persuade itself and motivate itself and in the rush and the heat does not take time, does not have the time, to meditate, ponder and think clearly and deeply in the presence of the righteous, holy Lord.
Opposition to the same-sex agenda in North America is surely for Christians part of the opposition to all sexual immorality and at the same time must include as its major component a gracious, firm stand for purity in sexual relations. And this approach is closely integrated with the Christian doctrine of man, male and female made in the image of God, and thus man in relation to and in communion with God, Creator, Redeemer & Judge, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true image of the invisible God, and the one Mediator between God and Man.
Looked at this way, the opposition, which is also most definitely proclamation and pastoral care, carries with it a great sense of penitence and sorrow before God. The opposing and the preaching are done with tear-filled eyes and with repentant hearts because there has been and remains within “orthodox” circles in North American Anglicanism grave and serious failures in terms of sexual relations and sexual purity before God. Fornication is common; divorce and divorce followed by remarriage is also common – and amazingly common amongst the clergy; and there are very few Christian couples who marry in church who are not living together as partners before the marriage. And let us be honest, some of those most vocal in opposition to the same-sex agenda speak as divorced or divorced and remarried persons (and see no problem with this).
The introduction of the same-sex agenda in the Canadian Church was not a surprise to seasoned observers of the religious scene. Further, it should not be a surprise that the Bishop in Vancouver, Michael Ingham, who has pioneered the new sexual agenda was also chosen back in 1985 to commend the new prayer Book, the BAS of 1985, to the Church in the book, Rites for a New Age (1985). There is in this book everything in embryo that is now embraced by the new liberals of the Diocese of New Westminster and elsewhere. But many who call themselves “orthodox” use it and believe it is an orthodox prayer book!
Essentialists, as the rest of us, need to consider the possibility that there is a reasonably straight line to the same-sex agenda from such things as: –
- the innovations in sexual relations (i.e. relaxation of marriage discipline and the adoption of the divorce culture & the birth control culture) begun in the 1960s;
- the introduction of new liturgies wherein quality of language and doctrine was lacking and variety and choice at the local level exalted, leading to a major dumbing down and the exaltation of CHOICE as a virtue;
- the use of forms & types of music in church that have the effect of raising the emotions and passions and leaving them raw;
- the use of versions of the Bible based on the theory of dynamic equivalency which allow moderns to make the Bible say what they want it to say – and, simultaneously, the rejection of the classic and old theory of the literal translation, the word for word, rather than the thought for thought approach;
- the introduction of not only women deacons but also women as presbyters & bishops and the making of their introduction a near "article of faith";
- the adoption of politically correct language in worship which encourages the acceptance of a secular agenda;
- the change in how people dress in church, with the casual clothing pointing to a general lack of the sense of the Transcendent God and the encouraging of the sense of the friendly parental Deity who accepts me “Just as I am!”
- the converting biblical and theological talk into the categories and terms of modern human rights language;
and so on.
Therefore, merely to oppose the same-sex agenda, and to do so while holding to all or some or all of the innovations that have led to the arrival of this agenda, is foolishness and a waste of precious resources and time.
I suggest that the Essentialists need to find a way to embrace the whole of the Anglican Way and then place the contemporary fight against the same-sex agenda, in that perspective. Happily the Canadian Church has, in its Solemn Declaration of 1893, a very firm foundation in terms of Anglican polity, doctrine, worship and discipline (it is printed on page viii of The Book of Common Prayer, 1962, Canada). But I hear very little about it and its relevance to the current turmoil. Let it be recovered with zeal and wisdom and applied to the present situation.
What is needed in biblical terms is a digging again of the wells of Abraham in order to discover fresh, living water (see Genesis 26:17f.). The Anglican Way in Canada needs to recover her full living tradition of worship, doctrine, discipline and evangelism in a way that is appropriate and vital for the new millennium in a very secular Canada. Let the aim be to glorify God the Father through Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit by our worship, confession of faith, holiness of life, pastoral care and evangelization.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:52 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
