Monday, October 31, 2005
The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter
Notice amongst other things that they now talk of a Covenant to bind Anglicans which has within it the Formularies of the ANGLICAN Way….Wow…
ACNS 4061 MIDDLE EAST 31 OCTOBER 2005
The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter
Red Sea (Egypt), 25-30 October 2005
The Third Anglican South-to-South Encounter has graphically demonstrated the coming of age of the Church of the Global South. We are poignantly aware that we must be faithful to God's vision of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We do not glory in our strengths but in God's strength. We do not shrink from our responsibility as God's people because of our weaknesses but we trust God to demonstrate His power through our weakness. We thank God for moving us forward to serve Him in such a time as this.
A. Preamble
1. A total of 103 delegates of 20 provinces in the Global South (comprising Africa, South and South East Asia, West Indies and South America), representing approximately two-thirds of the Anglican Communion, met for the 3rd Global South to South Encounter from 25-30 October 2005 at Ain El-Sukhna by the Red Sea in Egypt. The theme of the Encounter was "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Being A Faithful Church For Such A Time As This".
2. We deeply appreciated the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time he spent with us, his listening ear and encouraging words. We took to heart his insight that the four marks of the Church are not attributes we possess as our own right, nor goals to attain by human endeavour, but they are expressed in us as we deeply focus on Jesus Christ, who is the Source of them all (John 17:17-21).
3. We were really warmed by the welcome that we received here by the President, the government and the people of Egypt. We valued the great efforts made by the state security personnel who are making the land of Egypt a secure and safe place to all her visitors. We were touched by the warm hospitality of the Diocese of Egypt.
4. We have witnessed in Egypt a wonderful model for warm relations between Christians and Muslims. We admire the constructive dialogue that is happening between the two faiths. We appreciated the attendance of the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Dr Mohammed Said Tantawi, the representative of Pope Shenouda III and other religious leaders at the State Reception to launch our Encounter. We were encouraged by their wise contributions.
B. We Gathered
5. We gathered to seek the face of God, to hear His Word afresh and to be renewed by His Spirit for total obedience to Christ who is Lord of the Church. That is why the gathering was called an "Encounter" rather than a conference. The vital question we addressed was: What does it mean to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in the midst of all the challenges facing the world and the Church?
6. The world of the Global South is riddled with the pain of political conflict, tribal warfare and bloodshed. The moral and ethical foundations of several of our societies are being shaken. Many of our nations are beset by problems of poverty, ignorance and sickness, particularly the HIV and AIDS that threaten millions, especially in Africa. In addition to that, thousands of people have suffered from severe drought in Africa, earthquakes in South Asia, and hurricanes in the Americas - we offer our support and prayers to them.
7. Apart from the world condition, our own Anglican Communion sadly continues to be weakened by unchecked revisionist teaching and practices which undermine the divine authority of the Holy Scripture. The Anglican Communion is severely wounded by the witness of errant principles of faith and practice which in many parts of our Communion have adversely affected our efforts to take the Gospel to those in need of God's redeeming and saving love.
8. Notwithstanding these difficult circumstances, several parts of our Communion in the Global South are witnessing the transforming power of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. The urgency of reaching vast multitudes in our nations for Christ is pressing at our door and the
fields are ready for harvest.
9. Surrounded by these challenges and seeking to discover afresh our identity we decided to dig deeper into God's Word and into the tradition of the Church to learn how to be faithful to God's gift and call to be His one, holy, catholic and apostolic people. We deliberately chose to meet in Egypt for two reasons:
a. Biblically, Egypt features prominently in the formative period of the calling of God's people (Exodus 19). Moreover, Egypt was part of the cradle that bore the entry of the Savior into the world (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15).
b. Meeting by the Red Sea, we could not help but be inspired by the historic crossing of God's people into the realm where He purposed to make them a "light to the nations" (Isaiah 42:6). Part of that blessing was fulfilled when Alexandria became a center of early Christianity, where church fathers formulated and held on to the
Christian faith through the early centuries.
C. We Discovered Afresh
10. We discovered afresh the depth and richness of our roots in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Carefully researched papers were presented at the Encounter in the context of worship, prayer, Bible Study and mutual sharing. We recognize the dynamic way in which the four marks of the Church are inextricably interwoven. The salient truths we encountered inspired us and provided a basis for knowing what God requires of us.
The Church is One
11. The Church is called to be one. Our unity is willed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who prayed that we "all might be one." (John 17:20-21) A great deal of confusion has arisen out of misunderstanding that prayer and the concept of unity. For centuries, the Church has found unity in the Person and teaching of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Scripture. We are one in Him, and that binds us together. The foundation and expression of our unity is found in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
12. While our unity may be expressed in institutional life, our unity is grounded in our living relationship with the Christ of Scripture. Unity is ever so much more than sharing institutionally. When we are "in Christ," we find that we are in fellowship with others who are also in Him. The fruit of that unity is that we faithfully manifest the life and love of Christ to a hurting and groaning world (Romans 8:18-22).
13. Christian unity is premised on truth and expressed in love. Both truth and love compel us to guard the Gospel and stand on the supreme authority of the whole Word of God. The boundary of family identity ends within the boundary of the authentic Word of God.
The Church is Holy
14. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be holy. All Christians are to participate in the sanctification of their lives through submission, obedience and cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Through repentance the Church can regain her rightful position of being holy before God. We believe concurrently that holiness is imparted to us through the life, ministry, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 10:21-23). He shares His holiness with us and invites us to be conformed to His likeness.
15. A holy Church is prepared to be a "martyr" Church. Witness unto death is how the Early Church articulated holiness in its fullest sense (Acts 22:20; Rev 2:13, 12:11).
The Church is Catholic
16. The Catholic faith is the universal faith that was "once for all" entrusted to the apostles and handed down subsequently from generation to generation (Jude 3). Therefore every proposed innovation must be measured against the plumb line of Scripture and the historic teaching of the Church.
17. Catholicity carries with it the notion of completeness and wholeness. Thus in the church catholic "when one part suffers, every part suffers with it" (1 Cor 12:26). The local church expresses its catholicity by its devotion to apostolic teaching, its attention to prayer and the sacrament, its warm and caring fellowship and its growth through evangelism and mission (Acts 2:42-47).
The Church is Apostolic
18. The Church is apostolic in its doctrine and teaching. The apostolic interpretation of God's salvation plan effected in Christ Jesus is binding on the Church. God established the Church on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20).
19. The Church is apostolic in its mission and service. "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you." (John 20:21) In each generation He calls bishops in apostolic succession (Eph 4:11-12) to lead the Church out into mission, to teach the truth and to defend the faith. Accountability to God, to those God places over us and to the flock is an integral part of church leadership.
D. We Commit
20. As a result of our Encounter, we emerge with a clearer vision of what the Church is called to be and to do, with a renewed strength to pursue that vision. Specifically, we made commitments in the following areas.
The Authority of the Word of God
21. Scripture demands, and Christian history has traditionally held, that the standard of life, belief, doctrine, and conduct is the Holy Scripture. To depart from apostolic teaching is to tamper with the foundation and to undermine the basis of our unity in Christ. We express full confidence in the supremacy and clarity of Scripture, and pledge full obedience to the whole counsel of God's Word.
22. We in the Global South endorse the concept of an Anglican Covenant (rooted in the Windsor Report) and commit ourselves as full partners in the process of its formulation. We are seeking a Covenant that is rooted in historic faith and formularies, and that provides a biblical foundation for our life, ministry and mission as a Communion. It is envisaged that once the Covenant is approved by the Communion, provinces that enter into the Covenant shall be mutually accountable, thereby providing an authentic fellowship within the Communion.
23. Anglicans of the Global South have discovered a vibrant spiritual life based on Scripture and empowered by the Spirit that is transforming cultures and communities in many of our provinces. It is to this life that we seek to be formed and found fully faithful. We reject the expectation that our lives in Christ should conform to the misguided theological, cultural and sociological norms associated with sections of the West.
Mission and Ministry
24. Churches in the Global South commit to pursue networking with one another to add strength to our mission and ministry. We will continue to explore appropriate structures to facilitate and support this.
25. Shared theological foundations are crucial to authentic fellowship and partnership in mission and ministry. In that light, we welcome the initiative to form the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and the Caribbean (CAPAC). It is envisaged that CAPAC will not only provide a foundation on the historic formularies of Anglican faith but also provide a structure with which member churches can carry out formal ministry partnerships with confidence.
26. Global South is committed to provide our recognition, energy, prayers and experience to the Networks in the USA and Canada, the Convocation of Nigerian Anglicans in the USA, those who make Common Cause and the Missionary District that is gathering congregations that circumstances have pressed out of ECUSA. We are heartened by the bold witness of their people. We are grateful that the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly recognized the Anglican Communion Network in the USA and the Anglican Network in Canada as faithful members of the Anglican Communion.
27. As for the other provinces and dioceses around the world who remain steadfastly committed to this faith, we look forward to further opportunities to partner with them in the propagation of the Gospel. We will also support those orthodox dioceses and congregations which are under difficult circumstances because of their faithfulness to the Word.
We appreciate the recent action of the Primate of the Southern Cone who acted to stabilize the volatile situation in Recife, Brazil.
In this regard, we take this opportunity to acknowledge the immense contribution of the Primate of South East Asia to the development of the Global South and to the preservation of orthodoxy across the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Theological Education
28. In order to provide teaching that preserves the faith and fits our context, it is crucial to update the curricula of our theological institutions in the Global South to reflect our theological perspective and mission priorities. We note from the All Africa Bishops Conference their concern that far too many Western theological education institutions have become compromised and are no longer suitable for training leaders for our provinces. We call for the re-alignment of our priorities in such a way as to hasten the full establishment of adequate theological education institutions across the Global South so that our leaders can be appropriately trained and equipped in our own context.
We aim to develop our leaders in biblical and theological training, and seek to nurture indigenous theologians. We will provide information on institutions in the Global South, and we will encourage these institutions to explore ways to provide bursaries and scholarships.
The Current Crisis provoked by North American Intransigence
29. The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the Cross to transform lives. These departures are a symptom of a deeper problem, which is the diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture. The leaders of these provinces disregard the plain teaching of Scripture and reject the traditional interpretation of tenets in the historical Creeds.
30. This Encounter endorses the perspectives on communion life found in sections A & B of the Windsor Report, and encourages all Provinces to comply with the request from the Primates' Communiqué in February 2005 which states:
"We therefore request all provinces to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in these sections of the report."31. The Windsor Report rightly points out that the path to restoring order requires that either the innovating provinces/dioceses conform to historic teaching, or the offending provinces will by their actions be choosing to walk apart. Paragraph 12 of the Primates Communiqué says:
"Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered."32. Regrettably, even at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in Nottingham in 2005, we see no evidence that both ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada are willing to accept the generally accepted teaching, nor is there evidence that they are willing to turn back from their innovations.
33. Further, the struggles of the Communion have only been exacerbated by the lack of concrete progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. The slow and inadequate response of the Panel of Reference has trivialized the solemn charge from the Primates and has allowed disorder to multiply unnecessarily. We recognize with regret the growing evidence that the Provinces which have taken action creating the current crisis in the Communion continue moving in a direction that will result in their "walking apart." We call for urgent and serious implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report.
Unscriptural and unilateral decisions, especially on moral issues, tear the fabric of our Communion and require appropriate discipline at every level to maintain our unity. While the Global South calls for the errant provinces to be disciplined, we will continue to pray for all who embrace these erroneous teachings that they will be led to repentance and restoration.
Spiritual Leadership
34. Our on-going participation in ministry and mission requires godly and able spiritual leadership at all times. We are encouraged that many inspirational leaders in our midst bear witness to the Scriptures and are effectively bringing the Gospel to surrounding cultures. We commit ourselves to identify the next generation of leaders and will seek to equip and deploy them wherever they are needed.
35. We need inspirational leaders and accountability structures. These mechanisms which we are looking into must ensure that leaders are accountable to God, to those over us in the Lord, to the flock and to one another in accordance to the Scriptures. This last aspect is in keeping with the principle of bishops and leaders acting in council. In this way, leaders become the role models that are so needed for the flock.
Youth
36. The Global South emphasizes the involvement and development of youth in the life of the Church. The youth delegates encouraged the whole gathering by the following collective statement during the Encounter:
"Many youths in the Global South are taking up the challenge of living in moral purity in the face of the rising influence of immoral values and practice, and the widening epidemic of HIV and AIDS. Young people will be ready to give their lives to the ministry of the Church if she gives them exemplary spiritual leadership and a purpose to live for. Please pray that we will continue to be faithful as the Church of 'today and tomorrow'. It is also our heart's cry that the communion will remain faithful to the Gospel."Poverty
37. As the church catholic we share a common concern for the universal problem of debt and poverty. The inequity that exists between the rich and the poor widens as vast sums borrowed by previous governments were not used for the intended purposes. Requiring succeeding generations of people who never benefited from the loans and resources to repay them will impose a crushing and likely insurmountable burden. We welcome and appreciate the international efforts of debt reduction and cancellation, for example, the steps recently carried out by G8 leaders.
38. A dimension of responsible stewardship and accountability is the clear call to be financially self-sustaining. We commend the new initiative for financial self-sufficiency and development being studied by the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA). This is not only necessary because of the demands of human dignity; it is the only way to have sustainable economic stability.
HIV and AIDS
39. A holy Church combines purity and compassion in its witness and service. The population of the world is under assault by the HIV and AIDS pandemic, but the people of much of the Global South are hit particularly hard because of poverty, lifestyle habits, lack of teaching and the paucity of appropriate medication. Inspired by the significant success of the Church in Uganda in tackling HIV and AIDS, all our provinces commit to learn and apply similar intentional programmes which emphasize abstinence and faithfulness in marriage. We call on governments to ensure that they are providing adequate medication and treatment for those infected.
Corruption
40. The holy Church will "show forth fruits that befit repentance" (Matt 3:8). Many of us live in regions that have been deeply wounded by corruption. Not only do we have a responsibility to live transparent lives of utmost honesty in the Church, we are called to challenge the culture in which we live (Micah 6:8). Corruption consumes the soul of society and must be challenged at all costs. Transparency and accountability are key elements that we must manifest in bearing witness to the cultures in which we live.
Violent Conflict
41. Many of us from across the Global South live juxtaposed with violent conflict, most egregiously manifest in violence against innocents. In spite of the fact that the conflicts which grip many of our provinces have resulted in many lives being lost, we are not defeated. We find hope in the midst of our pain and inspiration from the martyrs who have shed their blood. Their sacrifice calls us to faithfulness. Their witness provokes us to pursue holiness. We commit ourselves to grow to become faithful witnesses who "do not love their lives even unto death"
(Rev 12:11).
E. We Press On
42. We emerge from the Encounter strengthened to uphold the supreme authority of the Word of God and the doctrinal formularies that have undergirded the Anglican Communion for over four and a half centuries. Communion requires alignment with the will of God first and foremost, which establishes our commonality with one another. Such expressions of the will of God which Anglicans should hold in common are: one Lord, one faith, one baptism; Holy Scripture; apostolic teaching and practice; the historic Creeds of the Christian Church; the Articles of Religion and the doctrinal tenets as contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Holding truth and grace together by the power of the Holy Spirit, we go forward as those entrusted "with the faith once delivered" (Jude 3).
43. By the Red Sea, God led us to renew our covenant with Him. We have committed ourselves to obey Him fully, to love Him wholly, and to serve Him in the world as a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6). God has also helped us to renew our bonds of fellowship with one another, that we may "stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man in the faith of the Gospel" (Phil 1:27).
44. We offer to God this growing and deepening fellowship among the Global South churches that we might be a servant-body to the larger Church and to the world. We see ourselves as a unifying body, moving forward collectively as servants of Christ to do what He is calling us to do both locally in our provinces and globally as the "scattered people of God throughout the world" (1 Peter 1:1).
45. Jesus Christ, "that Great Shepherd of the sheep" (Heb 13:20, Micah 5:4), is caring for His flock worldwide, and He is gathering into His one fold lost sheep from every tribe and nation. We continue to depend on God's grace to enable us to participate with greater vigour in Christ's great enterprise of saving love (1 Peter 2:25, John 10:14-16).
We shall press on to glorify the Father in the power of the Spirit until Christ comes again. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter
Red Sea, Egypt, 25-30 October 2005
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London
posted by John at 11:09 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Christian FREEDOM in the USA context: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
A discussion starter.
The debate over the 1960s and its moral legacy (in the area of personal freedom) often confuses two different phenomena. One is the freedom to choose how to live. The other is the freedom to consider oneself unbound by moral rules. However, when pressed Americans usually make a distinction between them. The former, they usually insist, is something worth having and is part of the American ethos. The latter, most of them feel, is something worth avoiding, for it destroys social cohesion.
It may be suggested that the debate over the origins of the Republic and to what extent the freedom/liberty envisaged was based on Christian or Enlightenment principles has confused two further and different phenomena. One is the ideal of the individual, personal freedom and rights associated with life in the Republic that is available to people of any religion or none; and the other is the ideal or perfection of individual, human freedom as presented by Jesus and his apostles.
The words of some preachers, televangelists, Christian action groups and politicians sometimes give the impression that the “freedom/liberty” for which the USA stands in the world, and which is part of the American way of life at home, is basically what “Christian freedom” based on the New Testament is all about when embodied in a state and culture.. And they seem to mean more than that it is compatible with Christian principles.
The main point, I suggest, about the biblical presentation of personal freedom in Christ is that it is available from God anywhere in the world at all times and under any kind of government or social situation. That is, a fully committed Christian is as free before God and in Christ in North Korea or Iran as in the USA and Canada. For the Christian is as free when being persecuted as when being rescued from physical danger by the state.
In brief, the following may be said in explanation of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience.
1. Freedom/liberty has been purchased by Christ Jesus in his Cross for all who live under the Gospel.In short it is a freedom to be what God calls his children to be because one is set free from the power of the world, the flesh and the devil and given the desire to walk with the Lord. This freedom is given to and available to all believers in all countries, under all governments, in all social contexts, in sickness and in health, in poverty and riches, and from all tribal and racial identities.
2. The liberty consists of freedom from the wrath of God against sinners, from the curse of the Law of God, and from the guilt of sin.
3. It also consists in being delivered from this present evil age/world, from bondage to Satan, from the rule and dominion of sin, from the sting of death and from everlasting damnation.
4. Further, it includes, positively, access to the Father through the Son, with desire and power to obey the Lord not out of slavish fear but with a willing and loving mind.
5. Finally, it is free to be led by the Holy Spirit in the way of Christ Jesus and in boldness of access to the throne of grace in the name of Jesus.
Regrettably, some believers are not wholly aware of this gift of freedom in Christ and so do not avail themselves of it, and also other believers long only for the “freedom of the West” and cannot see that they are free already in everything that really and truly matters (from the perspective of eternity!).
To state all this is not to repudiate or to make to be of no importance the ideal of personal freedom with rights that is found in western countries like the USA. It is to remind ourselves that however highly we evaluate it, it nevertheless belongs to this world and this age, both of which are severely affected by sin and are under the just judgment of God.
To return to individual freedom in Christ. It must be emphasized that the Lord Jesus Christ frees a person, not by releasing him from his obligations and by allowing him to do whatever he may think is right or good, but by providing the inner strength and motivation to keep the commands of God the Father and the Lord Jesus in letter and spirit. Of course, the perfection of this freedom, where the believer desires and does the will God every moment and habitually, is not immediately realizable after his baptism/conversion and will only be fully experienced in the age to come. There is always the struggle for the believer in this world/age between what he is – a being saved, forgiven sinner – and what he is called to be – the person wholly conformed to Christ. Thus he is never completely and wholly free for there is always a part of him yet to be purified, renewed and sanctified. Yet in freedom he seeks to love the Lord his God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength and to do so in whatever social and political structure in which he lives.
The Christian who is free in Christ is in this world/age but not of this world/age (not even when it is in the form of a Republic or Democracy), even as he desires to be for (in terms of evangelization and loving care) this world/age.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions – is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides for ever. (John 2:15-17)
October 29, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 10:59 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Friday, October 28, 2005
THERAPISM
When I wrote and circulated a short essay on October 27, 2005 on Counseling and Concupiscence I was not aware of a recent book which some of my readers may find helpful – not with understanding the denial of concupiscence as such, but with the absorption with counseling in the USA and in churches in particular who tend to follow the dominant culture.
It is ONE NATION UNDER THERAPY: How the helping culture is eroding self-reliance (St Martin Press, 2005, 310 pages $23.95), Christian Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel define and explain THERAPISM and its influence on America.
If you want to know about the pursuit of self-esteem, of getting in touch with your feelings, of relying on counselors for all problems in life, then here is a place to start – and if you want more there are references to hundreds of books and articles.
Therapism valorizes openness, emotional absorption and the sharing of feelings and it presupposes an anguished and apprehensive public that requires a vast array of therapists, self-esteem educators, grief councelors, workshoppers, healers, traughmatologists and CLERGY to lead it through the trials and challenges of everyday life.
When clergy get involved they tend to forget the biblical doctrines of sin and of concupiscence in the soul!
October 28, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 9:12 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Dis-ordered Desires that are off target! Counseling and Concupiscence
Most forms of Christianity in America have absorbed to some degree or another aspects of the psycho-therapeutic revolution that occurred in the culture in the 1960s and 1970s.
This is seen in the great amount of time spent in seminaries in psychology and “counseling” courses, the number of counselors on the staff of large congregations, and the very use of the word “counseling” for classes in marriage preparation, comforting the bereaved and dealing with pastoral problems. It is rare these days to hear of a pastor giving spiritual direction or godly advice; rather, he is more often involved in counseling. In fact his/her two chief roles are often said to be “counselor” and “manager”.
It is also seen in the way that Christianity is presented in terms of church programs and the content of teaching in books, videos, sermons and the like. The human being, it is said, has needs to be met and the Gospel is adjusted to meet these perceived needs. Then it is assumed that the human being has need for self-worth, self-fulfillment, self- realization and self-knowledge and so church life is designed to make these personal goals attainable.
I am not offering a critique of this situation which makes church life very different in 2004 than it was in 1954 or even 1964. Rather, what I want to suggest is that in this situation where the psycho-therapeutic evaluation of man is usually more obvious and powerful in the churches than is a biblical evaluation ( or more commonly the biblical is interpreted through the “insights” of psychology and therapy), certain basic truths about human nature are in danger of being forgotten or denied. In fact, they have in some cases been wholly overlooked and are not on the agenda! This appears to be so in both liberal Catholicism and generic, popular, evangelical Protestantism.
That is, absent from many contemporary Christian estimates of man is the presence and influence of what St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas knew as concupiscentia and what in English has been called concupiscence, with the basic meaning of “inordinate desire.” When used in theology with reference to human nature, concupiscence points to the strong tendency of our nature to desire, long and search for that which is contrary to God’s known will and thus is evil.
Key biblical texts are found throughout the New Testament (see e.g., Matthew 15:19; Romans 7 & Galatians) but none is clearer than the statement of the apostle John who wrote:
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions – is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides for ever. (John 2:15-17)
The “world” is not the cosmos as such for God made this and it was/is good. “World” refers to human society as it is organized on wrong principles, and characterized by base desires, false standards and egoism with selfishness, In this context appears concupiscence and lust (forbidden by the Tenth Commandment). Concupiscence is expressed in three ways by the apostle.
First, “the desires of the flesh”. This obviously points to the appetites of human nature, the desire for food, warmth, lodging, clothing, work, pleasure, recognition by others and much more. But, in this context of a sinful world, it is inordinate and excessive desire of an impure heart and mind.
Secondly, “the desires of the eyes” which is the tendency or bias to be captivated by outward show and thinks that happiness is always in material things. It is the spirit that sees nothing without wishing to acquire it and when acquired flaunts it before others. Its value-system is materialistic.
Thirdly, there is “pride in possessions”. The Greek word in use here points to a person who lays claim to possessions and to achievements which do not truly belong to him/her and does so as to impress others and to boast of them.
So John speaks of the person here who is in the world, of the world and for the world in that he judges everything by his appetites, is a slave of lavish ostentation and a boastful braggart. Of course not all of us are like this all the time but most of us are like this part of this all the time for we suffer from disordered desire, that is, desire which is ordered not by reason to God’s will but by strong feelings to what God forbids and what the world constantly advertises and justifies.
Some theologians have said that the strong desire itself is sinful because it is the product of a sinful human nature; others have said that sin only truly occurs at the point where the desire becomes a practical reality in experience. But all major orthodox theologians of both the Catholic and Protestant traditions have insisted that it is present in us from birth and remains there till death.
The effect of genuine conversion to Jesus Christ (spiritual regeneration & Baptism) is to introduce into the soul a new nature, a new creation, a new principle of life, which by God’s grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit enables the baptized believer not to follow the “desires of the flesh” but to do the will of God. Yet concupiscence remains in all of us as the many stories of over-eating, over-drinking, committing of fornication, adultery, pedastry and sodomy, and unlawful financial gain by Christian pastors and leaders regrettably reveal [How much has this cost the R C Church in the USA in the last decade]. Further, each and every one of us knows experientially, if we are honest, that temptations associated with inordinate desire do not always arise from external sources (the world and the devil) but from within ourselves, from our own natures.
The reason why the word concupiscence, and associated words such as mortification and sanctification (not to mention “original sin”, lust and chastity) are not common in modern preaching and teaching, retreat addresses, devotional and spirituality books, is that most of our pastors and congregations (ourselves) either do not believe in the presence of concupiscence, or we choose to think and live as though it is not what the apostles and saints have said it is. That is, being enlightened through modern scientific discovery and study, we see fulfillment of desire as more often than not the true development of our natures rather than the way into sinfulness – thus the emphasis on self- realization and associated themes.
The refusal to accept chastity as a virtue, together with indulgence in sexual excess, have often been used to illustrate the presence of concupiscence in the soul. In parts of the contemporary Church in America and Europe, one does not have to look far to find such and to find it as boldly proclaiming itself as good and holy! However, in the abundant evidence in our midst of over indulgence in food, in alcohol, in drugs, in pleasure and in a variety of pursuits to satisfy the self , concupiscence cries out for recognition. Those who do not see it and recognize it for what it is are fools, for, as John puts it, “the world is passing away, and so is its desire; but he who does God’s will abides for ever.”
Concupiscence is recognized as real in many of the old hymns found in the traditional hymn books. It is put into careful words in prayers of penitence and contrition in the traditional Prayer Books & Liturgies – e.g. the classic Book of Common Prayer. It is given precise formulation in the old Confessions of Faith and Catechisms, as well in the R C “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (2000). But it is absent from or passed by quickly in modern hymnody, liturgy and statements of Faith (difficult to find in Rite Two material of the ECUSA prayer Book).
Its absence affects everything that makes up the individual Christian life and the corporate life of congregations, not to mention the evaluation of man in society and in the public square. No concupiscence in the soul means no need for mortification of sin and sanctification by the Spirit: in fact it takes away the reason for the atoning death of Jesus on the Cross and his exaltation to heaven as our Prophet, Priest and King. The Gospel is addressed to sinners and part of their sinfulness is concupiscence, whatever the wisdom of psychology and therapy and counseling and like things may say and do!
Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
October 27, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
posted by John at 1:26 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Which comes first - Christian or Evangelical or Episcopalian [Anglican]?
Are Episcopalians who are evangelical primarily one sub-type of the broad type, Evangelical? Is their Anglicanism merely their brand name?
I face these questions after I received several letters today from evangelical clergy in response to my short essay on Anglican identity of this morning [Oct 26].
One wrote:
Peter, I think that you have hit on the essential issue. Is the Anglican way necessary or relevant? I have many North American evangelical friends from a variety of denominational expressions. Some use liturgy, others don't. Most have vibrant ministries, and many of them are far more successful in bringing people to faith and raising up disciples for Jesus than any Anglican that I have ever known. There certainly won't be a denominational test for access to the kingdom. When I tell people that I am an Anglican today, they roll their eyes, and I am forced to fight an uphill battle for authenticity before I can even begin to minister to the Gospel. What is the point?Let me respond by recalling meetings in England in the 1970s.
Thirty years ago in England when conservative evangelicals in the Church of England were cooperating with other evangelicals from the Dissenting or Nonconformist Churches as well as from the National [Presbyterian] Church of Scotland, I recall discussions by Anglicans on the question of the status of Anglican identity. It came in answering this question: What relation does being a Churchman [Anglican] have to being a Christian and an Evangelical?
I further recall that in the British situation the answer of the evangelical leadership was that we are Christians first, Evangelicals second and Churchmen [members of the State Church] third but that the third was nearly equal second. This left us free to co-operate happily with Evangelicals outside and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans inside the Church of England.
But what theological principles guided this approach for, let us be clear, those who said these things were well educated in both the liberal arts and in theology.
First of all, they were committed to the priority in the churches of the Gospel of the Father concerning his only-begotten Son, who for us and for our salvation became Man and in our place, lived, died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to reconcile God to man and man to God.
Second of all, they were committed to the need for individual conversion to God the Father through the Incarnate Son and by the Holy Ghost. That is, the response by the sinner of repentance from sin and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. So to be a Christian, a person who is united in faith to the Son of God and through HIM to the Father, must come first. But church membership follows on immediately.
Thirdly, they were wholly committed to the Church of God but they made a clear distinction between the Church as Visible and the Church as Invisible. That is, they saw the One Church of God present in all the congregations where the Word of God was preached and the Sacraments faithfully administered. Yet they accepted that not all members of the visible churches are true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, for they are nominal Christians or not Christians at all. Further, they saw the One Church expressed in a variety of forms – the National Churches of England and Scotland, the Baptist churches, the Congregational churches and so on.
At the same time, they also saw the Church as being invisible in the sense that God is invisible and grace is invisible. The total number of people from all ages and places who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and were united to the Father through him by the Holy Ghost (= the elect of God) they understood to be the true Church, known to God, but invisible to man. So they could happily work with and cooperate with Christians from outside the National Established Church for the invisible Church of God reached everywhere.
Fourthly, being Christians they had to make prudential judgments of what kind of Christianity (from amongst the options known through history) they wanted to be a part of and to manifest. They decided that to proclaim the Gospel and to make disciples was a clear priority in the Church because of the Lord Jesus’ Commission in Matthew 28. Thus they identified themselves as Evangelical Churchmen or as Evangelicals for they believed that there was no way into the kingdom of God and the Church invisible but by being embraced by the Gospel of the Father concerning his Son. Thus, being Evangelicals they could cooperate with fellow Evangelicals from Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational churches and being Churchmen they could work with devout anglo-catholics with whom they had much in common even though their emphases were different.
So they had no doubt but that first and foremost they were Christians by the grace of God; and they also had no doubt but that as Christians they must be Evangelical with a Gospel to treasure and proclaim. However, they did not want to lose the important idea of being “Churchmen” or Anglican, that is members of the ancient (going back to the 3rd century) Church of England. This is one reason why when the great preacher, Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel, London, made the call for Anglicans to leave the State Church virtually none did. They had this sense of the continuity of the visible Church through space and time and did not want to give up this aspect of commitment to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. Further, some commented, was not the C of E the best ship to fish from?
During all this period there was, as far as I remember, no imitation of Free Church worship or borrowing of non-Anglican ceremonial within Evangelical Parishes of the Church of England. No-one thought that this was necessary. The usual way of public evangelism was to have Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer with Hymns and then to preach a hearty evangelical sermon.
Now to the year 2005.
Today – and especially in American Anglicanism but also in the UK – things are viewed differently by Evangelicals. In the USA Evangelicals cannot belong to an ancient National Church and they compete for members within a powerful supermarket of religion. Thus in the spirit of capitalism and a free market, they look around to see what works to create a successful, growing congregation and they borrow techniques and principles from fellow Evangelicals in a wide variety of churches. Evangelicals in ECUSA and AMiA have seemingly lost confidence (without really having tried it!) in the use of Morning Prayer with hymns followed by a hearty sermon and then opportunity for fellowship. Their Anglican identity has been very much subordinated to their admiration of generic Protestant Evangelicalism. In fact their Anglican identity seems only important now because of ties it supplies to other parts of the world to vibrant Anglican evangelical provinces there (and, at home, apparently in some cases, because of its heritage of respectability in society and its first class retirement and health benefits).
So they are Christians first, then Evangelical in terms of a necessary adjective to go with Christians, and way back third they are Anglicans. This is so because they believe it is impossible to be successful in church life by being genuine, full-blooded Anglicans who follow the discipline of the Daily Office, seven days a week, and who celebrate the Sacrament after Morning Prayer on the Lord’s Day in genuine Anglican style -- preaching the Gospel both within the forms of Anglican worship and wherever possible outside as well.
What Anglican identity can supply - as experience in Africa and Asia reveals -- is a solid, reliable and stable way of being the Visible Church of God on earth wherein the pure Word of God is preached and the dominical Sacraments administered, so that persons can be converted to Jesus Christ and all disciples of Christ therein edified and sanctified by Word, Sacrament, Discipline and Fellowship. It is not the only identity for the Visible Church but it is one that seems to work well in Africa. Why can’t it work for Evangelicals in the USA? Have they really tried in the present century?
October 26, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
posted by John at 5:54 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Have we as Anglicans in the West lost confidence in The Anglican Way?
For reflection and discussion, petertoon@msn.com
One way of assessing the way that Anglicans in the West, and in America in particular, present themselves to a bird’s eye view is to say that they have lost confidence in “things Anglican” and put their faith in “things non-Anglican”.
Whatever do I mean?
I mean that over the last forty or so years Anglicans/Episcopalians have looked around for things to adopt and to make their own; and many have done so in order to feel confident that they have a product that they can “sell” in the competitive supermarket of American religions, and in the secular markets of the West in general. Others want a product that they feel will meet their own internal longings and aspirations.
What do we see?
On the evangelical side, there is a sense that to be related to generic evangelicalism, and to imitate the “successful” forms of “church” and “church planting” and “church growth” and “music” and “books of how to do this and that” is the way to go. At the forthcoming meeting in Pittsburgh (Nov 10) of this group, The Network, the major speaker is a Baptist whose books are much studied and views adopted by evangelical Episcopalians. He is as far away from classic Anglicanism as the East is from the West. And the language used by the rectors and leaders in this constituency is much the same as in generic evangelicalism and many in their congregations have little or no knowledge of the historic Anglican Way or its vocabulary and ethos.
On the progressive liberal side, there is an admiration of some of the enlightened ideas and programs of secular society, a desire to interpret them as the revelation of God to this generation, and an intention to give them “God-names” and make them part of the program of the Episcopal Church. And to do so while preserving, as a kind of external garment, much of the musical and literary heritage of the historic Anglican Way (visit the Cathedrals of ECUSA on East and West Coasts).
On the Catholic – that is anglo-catholic side – there is a sense that the only way to go, as the Anglican Communion becomes more “liberal” in the West and ordains more “priestesses”, is towards Rome, to be accepted there in some special capacity as separated brethren. Led by Archbishop Hepworth, this is the way that the Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion [of continuing Anglican churches around the world] have decided to go (and they all are meeting in a synod in Rome in Feb 06 to move on with this agenda). In the UK the Forward in Faith is looking for either the establishment of a new Province in the Church of England or for acceptance by Rome as a group – or both.
In all three examples, there is evidence of a major or total loss of confidence in the Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism with its own distinctive worship, doctrine and discipline, and with its tradition of religious culture around these of music, of poetry, of literature, of devotion and piety and of theology and ethics. That is, there is the intention to replace Anglican content with other content while retaining the name of Anglican, at least for the time being.
Both the evangelicals and the progressive liberals retain Common Prayer but on their own modern definitions. That is, it is not longer an inherited Common Text that all use and adapt to local circumstances and needs, adding hymns, music and ceremonial; but it is rather a shape or a structure of a service into which can be inserted varied material of local choice, be it from generic evangelicalism, generic charismaticism or liberal Protestantism, as local choice determines.
The anglo-catholics on their way to cross the Tiber either use the modern Roman Rite, as if they were already Roman Catholics; or they use the Text of Common Prayer and add to it at crucial points texts from the old Roman Texts in order to remove its Reformed Catholic character and make it Roman Catholic in character and doctrine.
The major liturgical developments and innovations of the 1960s and 1970s revealed a general lack of confidence in Anglican worship, style, devotion and ethos. It was not merely the change to addressing God as “You” , it was the desire to borrow from other sources (chiefly liberal R C and liberal ecumenical) shapes, structures, translations of ancient canticles & Creeds etc.) to create new texts for liturgies which had little in common with the classic, received Texts within Common Prayer. There was a sense that to be relevant and to keep and win youth everything had to be new from Bible translations to texts for services to ways of presenting doctrine and ethics. Strangely, there was no serious attempt made to put the classic BCP & Ordinal as a whole into a dignified contemporary English; and the primary reason why this was not done was that its doctrine was judged to be unattractive to the post World War II generations.
Confidence in the Anglican Way with its own distinctive forms of worship, doctrine and discipline went into major decline from the late 1960s and it has continued to go down in the West. So, if anyone suggests that Anglicans should consider returning to their own distinctives, style and commitments in a way appropriate for the 21st century, that person is often laughed out of court or treated as a non-person.
Regrettably and sadly, those evangelicals who look to African Archbishops for help do not seem as yet to realize that these men would be more than glad to see the evangelicals recapture their full Anglican identity, even as they retain a commitment to evangelization and church planting. Those who look to Rome for acceptance do not realize that many in Rome cannot understand why they are not seeking to be better Anglicans now and more proud of their inheritance as “separated brethren”. And those who look for enlightenment from the secular world do not realize that the world mocks them as fools because they are in the world, for the world and of the world (and their deity is the world).
A final comment. Those in the West, who claim to have kept faithful to Anglican identity in worship and doctrine, have a tremendous duty and opportunity to witness attractively to their Lord and this tradition of serving him. Let them not be distracted by majoring on minors, by tendencies to schism, by living in the past, by excessive churchmanship of one type, and by caring more for the form than the reality. Let them arise in unity of comprehensiveness and be faithful, joyful and gracious ambassadors of the historic, classic and more importantly biblical Anglican Way.
October 26, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
posted by John at 11:12 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
SERMONS AS STANDARDS OF FAITH
The Two Books of Homilies & the Protestant Episcopal Church
“Let us dig again the wells of Abraham.”
It may seem odd to some people that a part of the doctrinal foundation of the Reformed Catholicism of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion of Churches are two Books of Homilies. Few people read them in the twenty-first century, but some of us are hoping to increase the number of those who do so in 2006, howbeit slowly and surely. This will be possible in part because of a new edition of the two Books as one book, to be released by Edgeways Books of the U.K. in 2006 (www.edgewaysbooks.com).
Where does it state that the two Books of Homilies are Formularies of the Church of England?
The answer is in Article XXXV of The Thirty-Nine Articles (which with the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal) is a major Formulary of the Church. The first Book was published in the reign of Edward VI in 1547, and the second in the reign of Elizabeth I in 1563 and both are stated “to contain a godly and wholesome doctrine” and most suitable “to be read in churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly that they may be understanded of the people.” Further, the titles of the 21 sermons of the second Book are listed in the Article. Book One is shorter with only twelve sermons, not a few of which are by Archbishop Cranmer.
Wherever the Anglican Way has gone and The Articles have been received as a Formulary in the new Province then the two Book of Homilies have naturally been included. Thus, for example, they are now part of the Standards of Faith of Churches in West and East Africa, from Nigeria to Uganda.
There was even a Prayer Book and Homily Society in the early nineteenth century, founded May 20, 1812 to make available copies of each for the people of the expanding British Empire. It stayed in business until the 1870s.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA received the Articles and, after a little editing, made them a Formulary of the Church in 1801. Included in the editing was the addition of this paragraph into Article XXXV:
This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine and instructive to piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church; which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.As far as I know, a specifically American edition of the two Books of Homilies was not prepared and any copies used in the PECUSA were imported from Britain. In fact, apart from scholars and a few earnest Evangelicals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries few American Episcopalians appear to know of, let alone, to have read, the Homilies. This may be said to be regrettable for within them there is provided in great detail a portrayal of Reformed Catholicism, which may be called the Catholic Protestantism of the Church of England, and of Churches founded from her.
Article XI, named “Of the Justification of Man,” was received by the PECUSA intact from the C of E, and this points specifically to one Homily in the first Book of Homilies for more exposition of what it means to say that we are justified by faith only, and that this is a most wholesome doctrine. How many people who are faithful Episcopalians inside or outside the ECUSA of today have read this powerful Homily and taken its message to heart? It has been reprinted from time to time but is not in print right now as far as I know.
Regrettably and disastrously, in 1979 the Episcopal Church set aside its Formularies and created new ones, all within the 1979 Prayer Book; and by this act it made not only the Articles but also the Books of Homilies into merely historical documents of this Church. Today the ECUSA is much advanced in progressive liberalism with a religion markedly different from Reformed Catholicism!
If the remnant of this Church is to be renewed evangelically by the Scriptures and the Gospel therein, then the Books of Homilies will provide a tremendous resource of exposition of the Gospel and of Reformed Catholic Faith for those with the seriousness of mind and patience to study them for their souls’ health.
Perhaps there ought to be a Conference in 2006 [repeated in various centers] to introduce the two Book of Homilies to the doctrinally awakened Anglican and Episcopal constituency of North America! Personally I would be most happy to see such a thing happen, to join the Conference on the Articles already planned for NYC on April 21-22, 2006 and arranged by the REC there in Manhattan.
Be sure to look out for the Edgeways edition of the Homilies, edited by Ian Robinson, a meticulously careful scholar and an expert in the origins of the English language and of its religious use in the Reformation era.
Second-hand copies are rare but you may find one by a search on the web.
October 25, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 2:26 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Did the PECUSA get off to a bad start - doctrinally?
And is this legacy a root cause of the present distress of the ECUSA?
Many of us in America, who are committed to the Common Prayer Tradition of the Anglican Way and to the doctrine and ethos of Reformed Catholicism, naturally commend, defend and use sincerely and reverently the last American edition of Common Prayer, the BCP of 1928. However, this does not mean that we necessarily think it is the best edition of the BCP ever produced, or, importantly, that it is the best edition to use as the basis for a future, united, and renewed Anglican Reformed Catholicism in North America in the next decade. We use it as an edition of THE Book of Common Prayer and therefore interpret it within the continuity of editions of this One Book, whose first edition was in 1549.
And some of us face the possibility that, if the future of Reformed Catholicism in North America is to be linked with the Anglican Provinces of East and West Africa, then it will make more sense to return to the English edition of 1662 (or the 1962 Canadian editing of this). Why? Because the BCP 1662 is the most widely used edition in Africa and it has also been translated into 150 or more languages worldwide. In returning to this edition, it is understood, of course, that there will be need for use in the USA to change the references to the government and holidays and so on, and that there will be a few more options here and there to accommodate developments since 1662 in churchmanship.
So one reason to go back to the BCP 1662 (which was used in the Colonies for a long time) is fraternal relations with the brethren in Africa. Another reason will emerge as we proceed with this reflection.
When the Protestant Episcopal Church was formed in the 1780s, a dominant theology amongst its intellectual leadership was what we call “latitudinarianism” or “broad church”. And this made a strong impression on the editing of the Book of Common Prayer (1662) to create, after a bungled attempt, what we know now as the first American edition of the BCP in 1789. This edition is obviously like 1662 but it has the changes one would expect for use in a Republic. Further, and importantly for the future, it reveals its mild latitudinarian flavor in such things as the omission of the “third Creed” known as the Quincunque Vult or the Athanasian Creed, the changes to the Venite in Morning Prayer, the new Preface for Trinity Sunday, the reducing of the Preface in the Marriage Service concerning the purpose of holy matrimony, and the removal of “to obey” from the promise made by the woman, and so on. Further, it adopted the Scottish form of the Prayer of Consecration in the Order for Holy Communion.
It has been said that “the American Prayer Book as ratified by the first General Convention of the whole American Church in 1789 preserved the Church’s continuity with its inheritance without destroying its freedom of growth and development.” If we accept that some of the impetus for growth and development came from Scotland and some from eighteenth century latitudinarianism (within the context of Enlightenment thinking then powerful in the new Republic), then we can move on to suggest that the latter source, in its twentieth century manifestations, actually was a major contributor to major structural and doctrinal changes both in the American Prayer Book – that is, if we see the 1979 “Book of Common Prayer” as a late 20th century edition of the American Prayer Book – and also in the Church itself (now known as ECUSA not PECUSA). In other words, the 1979 Prayer Book has been a major means by which (or instrument through which) the Episcopal Church has moved away from the center of the Anglican Way to the sidelines, there to immerse itself in a denial of much of the received biblical and traditional Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church of God, as it continually embraced a series of innovations in worship, doctrine, morality and discipline.
It may be claimed that the impoverished Marriage Service of the American Prayer Book (1928 & 1979) did nothing to prevent and actually aided the growth of the divorce culture, of serial monogamy and same-sex unions in the ECUSA. It may also be claimed that the absence of the Athanasian Creed [and thus the absence of both a strong Trinitarian dogma and clear teaching on the Person of Christ from the American Prayer Book] opened the door for the entry of such doctrines as Panentheism, Modalism and Unitarianism on the one side, and Adoptianism and, Nestorianism on the other (all in suitably modern forms). Then it may be claimed that the general latitudinarian influence of this Prayer Book tradition allowed the weakening of the doctrine of sin and contributed to the denial of concupiscence and a bias towards evil in the human soul (needed for there to be a change in sexual morality and the loss of the doctrine of chastity).
As there is no obvious latitudinarian & Enlightenment influence within the BCP edition of 1662, and as the African Provinces are committed to this edition, then the proposal that it become the Formulary and the Standard of worship of any renewed, reformed Anglican Province is not without merit!
Of course, until the BCP 1662 is adopted by a renewed North American Anglicanism, those of us who use the BCP 1928 will do so fervently and reverently, but setting it doctrinally within the context of its being AN edition of the classic BCP and expression of Reformed Catholicism!
October 24, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 8:50 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, October 24, 2005
ONE ONLY: One Eucharist at the One Altar on the Lord’s Day for the One People of God
A Proposal for Sunday morning Worship in a Parish where there are currently two services of Holy Communion, one in traditional and one in contemporary language.
What is proposed below will only be possible after there has been careful educational preparation and where there is charity, and, further, where it is agreed, in principle, that the one people of God should meet together on the Lord’s Day under the One Word of God and at the One Table of the Lord in the one sanctuary. (See below No 6 for the happy circumstance where there are too many people for one Service.)
Right now the problem (rarely perceived as a problem because usually accepted as a given) faced in both the USA and Canada can be put in these terms – as one capable priest clearly stated it to me recently:
“Agreed! There should be no need for two Eucharists in our churches [on Sunday morning]. There is, however, the small matter of the traditionalists who absolutely refuse to worship with anything other than an organ, ancient hymnody and the formal language of the BCP. Anything thing else just isn't proper! And on the opposite side of the fence, those who place no value whatsoever in ancient things and wish to worship only with contemporary forms and music. Neither has a lot of charity for the other, and both are the bane of pastors and priests who are called to lead them.”
- To move these two sets of people, who both belong to the One Body of Christ and pray to the One Father in the Name of the same Christ, towards seeing their unity in Christ by the Holy Spirit as fundamental and the Rite they use as important but secondary, is a task that must be faced courageously and wisely and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Regrettably I know of no literature available to help pastors perform this sacred task.)
- I suggest that the aim of the education will be to lead them to agree to a new Format for Sunday mornings which at the same time will provide them on every Second Sunday, and every alternate Feast Day, with their preference; or alternatively will provide them with one part of their preference each Lord’s Day.
- The new Format would be to recover the ancient and beneficial Format of having on Sunday Morning – Morning Prayer, the Litany and then the Order for Holy Communion. Right now Morning Prayer and the Litany are too rare but they are part of the offering to the LORD of Anglican Christians on the Lord Jesus’ Day. There could be a short break after Morning Prayer for visits to toilets and for people to come and go. So each group, the traditionalists and the progressives would enter into something new that would be enriching for all.
- One week the three Services as One could be in traditional language and the next week in contemporary language; or, Morning Prayer could be in traditional and then the Eucharist in contemporary one week and then the reverse the following week. Either way, it would be a fair division and the one people of God would be together as Anglicans (not abandoning either the Daily Office or the Litany) who are also Reformed Catholics (with the weekly Eucharist). Of course, there would be many matters to sort out and much charity needed, but it is something that can be done. Where there is a will there is a way.
- It is important that the integrity of each form of prayer language, the traditional and the contemporary, be kept separate for each has its own logic and style. Yet it is even more important that the local congregation of Christ’s flock be seen as one and actually be one in practice. Anglicans and Episcopalians have gotten too used to the idea of multiple services to suit specific tastes, and they have lost the ideal of the One Service in the One Place on the One Day for the One LORD.
- Where there are too many people to fit into the One Sanctuary, and where there are presently multiple services (say at 7.30 ; 9.00 and 10.30) there is a real problem. One solution is to start a new congregation and build a new church so that there are not too many for the one Sanctuary (this was the medieval method) and another is to do what is recommended in 4 above, but to do it twice on the Lord’s Day – once in the morning with Morning Prayer and again in the evening with Evening Prayer instead of Morning Prayer as the starter, making the effort to get people to be present sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening. No priest should normally celebrate more than once on any given day.
Happily, those churches which use only one form of prayer language do not have to bridge the gap of different languages; however, they too must surely face the call to have One Eucharist, prefaced by Morning Prayer and Litany! Being finished in the hour may suit nominal Christians; but for the Lord’s Day morning more than one hour is surely required to worship HIM in spirit and in truth. And to leave His courts with praise and rejoicing.
October 24, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 2:14 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Is Rite One in the 1979 prayer Book a Rite with integrity?
In the ECUSA Prayer Book there is a Rite One (traditional language) for both the Daily Office and for the Holy Eucharist. Also there is a Rite One form of the Burial Office.
Does this Rite possess internal consistency? Should it be used by the faithful?
Let us first recall that this type of Rite is based upon, but is not exactly the same as, the services in The Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928), which Book belongs to the family of editions of the one basic Prayer Book of the Anglican Way. Generally speaking the texts taken over from the BCP1928 for Rite One were edited and restructured so as to fit into the basic philosophy of worship adopted by the ECUSA Liturgical Commission in the late 1960s. The latter may be termed both ecumenical and liberal Catholic, for it received much from the interest in liturgy in the ecumenical movement of the 1960s/1970s and also from post Vatican II Roman Catholic progressive scholars and sources.
In Morning Prayer the changes from the 1928 text include at the beginning, the addition of opening sentences, a new exhortation to confession of sin and worship, an edited form of the General Confession, and a new Absolution. Then there are not a few other changes in the rest of the service, which would take too much space to detail here. Further, the Psalter that is provided addresses God as “You” and is inclusive in style, and so it does not at all fit with the traditional wording and texts of this service. In the matter of the reading of the Bible, it is possible to use the KJV, RV. ASV and RSV, but churches often only have the NRSV, which is an inclusivist translation and addresses God as “You”.
In the Eucharist, the text of the 1928 BCP has been adapted to fit into the “shape of the liturgy” of the Rite II texts, which means the addition of the so-called passing of the Peace, the Breaking of the Bread with added words after the Prayer of Consecration and Lord’s Prayer, and the transfer of the Gloria from the conclusion to the beginning of the Service. Further, the traditional Collect, Epistle and Gospel (liturgically the most ancient part of the Service in the classic BCP] no longer are provided for the Christian Year, since the Lectionary used is the same as that for Rite Two. And also an alternative prayer of Consecration is provided that is more in conformity with the doctrine within the Rite Two alternatives. The version of the Bible used is often that printed on the inserts for each Sunday used by Episcopal Churches and this is usually the NRSV. Finally, various prayers from the 1928 BCP are edited in order to remove from them unacceptable words/doctrine.
The Rite One Service for the Burial of the Dead is a much expanded form of the 1928BCP Service and shares the same basic structure as Rite Two (for details see M.J. Hatchett, Commentary on the American Prayer Book, NYC, 1980, pp.477ff.)
Returning to Morning Prayer, we may observe that it is possible, and indeed was planned, that the whole of this service, including Psalm and Bible Readings, in its Rite Two form, can be offered to the Father through the Son and with the Spirit in so-called contemporary English, addressing God and man as “you.” So one can say that there is logic here, as there is in the doctrine that confession of sins, if it is to be done, is to be done at the beginning to get it over with (as it were) before the celebration of praise and thanksgiving begins. [In contrast, for the historic texts of the BCP the confession of sin is the praise of God and so is an essential part of worship wherein God is praised as the Judge and Holy One, as well as the Merciful One!]
In the Rite One form of Morning Prayer, it is difficult to see any logic of language because it is impossible within the provisions of the 1979 Book to do this Office in whole in traditional English and with consistent doctrine. The Psalter is not provided in traditional form and to find the traditional form one has also to have the 1928 BCP available. Further, if there is the desire to fit a Baptism into a Service of Morning Prayer, then there is no way of doing this in traditional language for the Baptismal Service (by the design of the Liturgical Commission) is only in Rite Two form and with a distinctively modern doctrine built into it.
Turning now to the Eucharist, we may also observe that it is possible and was indeed planned that the Rite Two form of this service, including Psalter and Bible Readings, would be all in contemporary language. Further, in the 1982 Hymnal there are plenty of hymns addressing God as “You” to be chosen – although some traditional language ones, often edited a little, are also available (and if chosen disturb the logic of language of the service).
Rite One can never be satisfactory as a whole for to do the service in full means moving from the logic of language involved in the use of “Thou” to that involved in “You” (see further for details of this logic, Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete by Toon and Tarsitano from www.anglicanmarketplace.com). Further, the Psalter of the 1979 Prayer Book hardly lends itself to a Christological use of the Psalter (because of its inclusivism) and the use of the NRSV or similar modern versions make traditional worship difficult, if not impossible.
What to do!
The present major crisis within the ECUSA and Anglicanism in general surely allows Episcopalians in the ECUSA and AMiA who want integrity and wholesomeness in their worship of God to abandon Rite One altogether (after all the Liturgical Commission did not want this provision but made it under pressure from the Presiding Bishop and to satisfy traditionalists, who were often generous donors). Then they can go in the direction of Rite Two and be contemporary in language and doctrine; or, better, they can return to the major source of Rite One, the historic and classic Book of Common Prayer, using this with its Psalter and along with the KJV, ASV or RSV so as to have a consistency of style and doctrine in the facing of Almighty God in worship. When they do this may they be so purified in heart that they will worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness!
Another alternative, that I have suggested, is to make available the text of the classic Services in the historic Book of Common Prayer in a carefully presented contemporary form of English, so as to preserve the doctrine and style of the authentic Anglican Way or those who believe that the right way today is to address the Lord as “You.”
Peter Toon October 23, 2005
posted by John at 2:12 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Have we screwed up Sunday worship?
One Lord’s Supper [Eucharist] in the Lord’s House on the Lord’s Day for the Lord’s People – prefaced by the Daily Office!
If you look at the schedule of services for the Lord’s Day in most Episcopal or Anglican parishes, they follow no spiritual logic but rather appear to be for arranged for convenience or comfort – of clergy or people or both!
The built-in logic of the provision for the Lord’s Day of the classic Book of Common Prayer (1662 England; 1962 Canada & 1928 USA) is that the Day begins with Morning Prayer, is followed by the Litany and then by the Order for Holy Communion. The provision of only the Epistle and Gospel in the BCP Communion Service presupposes that the Old Testament has been read in Morning Prayer. The Daily Office is a daily offering to God and thus not only is there Morning Prayer but also Evening Prayer (Evensong as well) on the Lord’s Day; and the Litany is to be prayed at least on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. [Of course the offering of this series of Services by the local parish does not automatically presuppose that everyone will be present at all four related Services.]
Very few parishes keep to this original order and spiritual logic, but at least in some anglo-catholic parishes the clergy and some laity meet for Morning Prayer before they celebrate the Eucharist, and they do not have the Litany and the Eucharist before Morning Prayer.
More often, even in small parishes, both where the classic BCP or the new ECUSA Prayer Book of 1979 are used, there is provided a couple of Services, both the Order for Holy Communion. The first “said only” or with “minimal music” is around 8.a.m., and the second is with hymns and may be partially sung and is usually around 10.00.a.m. Unless those attending the Eucharist read Morning Prayer at home before setting off, or arrive early and read it in their pews, the Daily Office (required daily) is not offered to the Lord – and further, Evening Prayer is, in this scheme, rarely offered also. [Sometimes there is the oddity of an early Service of Communion and a later sung Service of Morning Prayer with sermon!]
Why are there two Services of Holy Communion at the One Altar when the Lord’s Day is all about being together as the Lord’s people in the Lord’s house to hear the Lord’s word and to offer worship unto him at his Table and from his Word? Truly, should not the only for two be if everyone cannot fit into one and two are genuinely required for reasons of space?
However, there are two Services in many parishes for various reasons – whether any of them are acceptable to the court of heaven I do not know. Here are several of the reasons provided:
- Two Rites are used – Rite One (traditional language) at the early service [for the oldies] and Rite Two (contemporary language) for people of all ages.
- Some people prefer a quiet service and others a more celebratory service.
- Some people prefer to attend early so that their duty to God is completed and they can plan to use the day for other good purposes [not golfing or sailing or gardening or home improvements!]. Further, families with children prefer a later time in the morning to give them time to get everyone ready.
- Sunday School can be fitted between two Services and so can be available to people who attend the early or the late service.
If we analyze the reasons offered for two services (or in cathedrals more than two) they are essentially to take into account human preferences, conveniences and expressed needs. Very rarely, it appears, does a church begin (in planning services) from the basic foundation that in each congregation of the faithful there is to be One Eucharist for the one people of God on the Lord’s Day in the Lord’s House in order to please Him, and that this is to be prefaced – in church or at home – by the Daily Office.
Perhaps it will be said that modern life is so complicated, that the church is so divided (e.g. into Rite One and Rite Two mindsets), that people today require choice and convenience, and that churches should appear to be accommodating and relevant, that Services must be provided when it seems most people – for whatever reasons – are most likely to come. But are these sound reasons before the Judge of heaven and earth?
There is the further question to face and it is this: Ought a priest (presbyter) to stand as Celebrant at the Holy Table more than once on the Lord’s Day – indeed on any day? Is it right and good in terms of divine order to require a priest to celebrate twice or thrice and further is it good for his own soul? In general the saints have said it is not right or good.
The ancient discipline of the Church, maintained in the Orthodox Churches still, is One Eucharist on the One Lord’s Day for the One people of God in the One holy place.
Is there not something odd about multiple Eucharists at the one Holy Table on the one Lord’s Day for the one parish of the one people of God in the Lord’s House? And is it not a serious deficit of the churches of the Anglican Way that Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer are not public services at least on the Lord’s Day in the Lord’s House?
October 23, 2005
posted by John at 2:08 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Friday, October 21, 2005
The Return of Jezebel
On Touchstone Magazine's Mere Comments Blog (October 14, 2005 ), Dr Russell Moore writes:
A few years ago, when the evangelical book fad The Prayer of Jabez was in full swing, I joked that the feminist revisionists would respond with their own small devotional volume: The Prayer of Jezebel. Well, now it is here.
Fortress Press, the publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has announced the publication of The Jezebel Letters, which "combines top-notch biblical scholarship with a fictionalized first-person account of the biblical character." According to the Fortress press release, the book "transforms the stereotype of the notorious biblical queen into a more historically based portrayal of a powerful, literate royal woman."
How is she "transformed"? Well, in this reading, Jezebel is the protagonist. According to a Hebrew and Old Testament professor at the University of Amsterdam, the book uses "fictional but not fictitious letters and memoirs written by the ancient Queen herself," allowing us to "reverse our "cultural opinion of 'Jezebel' and see her for what she probably was: a regal, wise, politically active wife, mother and queen in Israel." A biblical studies professor at Claremont laments that "biblical narrative castigates Ahab and his Queen Jezebel as depraved idol worshipers who led their country to ruin." In fact, he writes, she was "the urbane and thoughtful Queen of Israel who gives voice to her efforts and those of her family in guiding Israel through one of its most challenging, and least understood, periods."
So I suppose the biblical narrative about Jezebel was not fictional but fictitious? The reclamation of Jezebel has been ongoing for several years in liberal theological academia. I first noticed it at meetings of the American Academy of Religion a couple of years ago, in papers seeking a "feminist reading" of the Jezebel texts.
This rehabilitation actually tells us much about the revisionist project of feminist theology. When confronted with the authority of the word of God regarding a rebellious and idolatrous reign, these theologians would rather have the role model of a "strong woman," whatever the cause. They listen then to whatever archaeological "findings" might show in a positive light. Such has always been the case, so much so that the prophet Elijah wondered if he was alone in not bowing the knee to Jezebel's idols (1 Kings 19:10). But the gods and goddesses of Ahab and Jezebel never answer. All that one hears are the chanting of the cultists around the altar. Sometimes the chanting is on Mount Carmel, and sometimes it is in an academic symposium. But the fire from heaven never comes.
Years ago, I heard a politically-incorrect preacher refer to the goddess-worshiping feminist theologians of some "mainline" Protestant seminaries as "a group of Jezebels." That might have seemed a bit harsh at the time. What what does one say when the feminist theologians call themselves "Jezebels," and mean it as high praise?
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 01:08 PM Touchstone Blog
posted by John at 5:06 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Is the ancient disease of Concupiscence now cured? Is there now “health” within us?
Is Concupiscence assumed or taught in the Rite II parts of the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book? Even in Rite I?
Concupiscence, like chastity, is a word rarely used these days either in general conversation or in theological talk. However, when the Church in the West was much more focused, than it is now, on Jesus Christ as the Lord of all and the Saviour of men from their sin, the word was used often with reference to part of the total moral and spiritual disease and condition from which God in Christ saves his adopted children.
For example, Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were agreed that each and every human being experienced concupiscence as a condition of his soul. That is, he possessed a strong desire, or inclination, to embrace and do evil, that is to act contrary to God’s holy law and commandments. Thus in all provision of teaching, sacraments, means of grace and pastoral care for baptized Christians this strong desire to support self rather than God had seriously to be taken into account, if they were to be led into holiness and sanctification of life.
But is this inclination and desire towards evil sinful in and of itself; or does it become sinful when wrongful action flows from it? While some schools of Roman Catholic theology taught that concupiscence in and of itself is not sinful, most Protestant theologians taught that it is so because it is arises from the “diseased”, sinful, “fallen” nature of man.
Article IX of the Thirty-Nine Articles (England 1571; USA 1801) states:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.This assumes the historicity of Adam and Eve, their possession of an original righteousness, their loss of it, and the passing on by procreation of a human nature that does not possess original righteousness but rather is lacking a natural communion with God. Thus each and every baby that is born into this world is born with a human nature in which because there is no communion with God, there is an inclination to evil, and therefore there is present in his soul a constant battle between this evil inclination and any opposing “pressure” from God’s providence and grace to do what is good and right in His eyes. This inclination against God and towards evil is concupiscence.
In the Confession of Sin within Morning Prayer in the classic Book of Common Prayer (1662; 1928 USA) the acknowledgement is made by repentant sinners that “there is no health in us,” meaning (in the context of the prayer) that there is no power of saving ourselves from the sins of omission and commission just referred to, or from the consequences of those sins. Most significantly, this clause is omitted from the Rite I adaptation of this Prayer in the 1979 Prayer Book.
In fact, the problem within man is so serious (for the classic Anglican Formularies and the New Testament) that it will only be totally solved when the whole man is redeemed at the final resurrection of the dead when each believer is given a body like unto Christ’s glorious body. For even after new birth, spiritual birth from above in regeneration, the diseased nature and the inclination to evil remain. However, the difference after regeneration from before is that there is now present within the soul a new principle, a new nature, to resist and mortify the old nature and to enable the believing child of God to walk with the Lord in holiness and righteousness. Article IX continues:
And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle [Paul] doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
We may assume that those who wrote this Article were well read in Augustine’s teaching on human sinfulness and also were deeply committed to the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 – 7 & Galatians, in the context of the teaching of our Lord (see Matthew 5-7; 19:17; John 2:24-25; Mark 16:16) and of the Old Testament (see Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9).
To recognize the continuing presence of concupiscence in the soul after conversion to Christ is to be realistic in terms of what the analysis and examination of the human mind, heart and will reveals, what the exhortations of the New Testament to holiness imply, why the gift of the indwelling Spirit is given to believers, and what the experience of the saints confirms.
However, if we absorb too much of modern theories for counseling and of psychotherapy, and we accept the view that the weaknesses of man are due to the continuing evolution of the human species, than we shall find that the evaluation we make of concupiscence is different – e.g., that it is natural, strong desire, part of our self-expression and self-development, and is to be carefully encouraged and guided.
From St Paul’s perspective and the whole Biblical perspective, man is both a glorious creature – made in God’s image and predestined to glory -- and also an imperfect, sinful creature to be saved and redeemed by gracious and costly action. It may be regretted that modern Anglican liturgists tend either to downplay or to omit the recognition of the presence of concupiscence in the souls of worshippers in congregations, and thus to compose prayers of confession that are inadequate and dishonest, and to promote forms of absolution, and of prayers and intentions in general, that are also inadequate or even deceptive. Indeed, modern liturgists have often boasted of paying little intention to received doctrines of sin and at the same time have criticized the traditional forms of service in the classic BCP for their heavy doctrine of sin.
It may be noted that to find in the 1979 prayer book concupiscence as strong desire to do evil as belonging to human beings before and after Baptism is like finding a needle in a haystack. It may be there but not by the design of the Commission that produced it. It seems to be absent from their “Outline of Faith.”
With no concupiscence, then there is no need for chastity and all desires of the soul can be seen as potentially good and to be fostered and fulfilled for the self-worth and self-fulfillment of human beings – which begins to sound like the “practical theology” of the ECUSA today.
But, we ask, is it possible to become mature in Christ and sanctified in heart, mind and will without recognizing the depth of sinfulness within human nature, as it is exposed to the searching light of God arising from meditation upon God’s Word written and to the atoning blood of Christ the Saviour in penitence and absolution?
October 21, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 12:41 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, October 20, 2005
A Treasure in Modern Format – with extras!
In 1999 the famous Everyman’s Library published in modern format and in hardback the whole text of THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (1662) in a book of over 500 pages.
This is the classic edition of the Anglican Prayer Book and has been translated into over 150 languages.
Within the covers of this new edition is also an Introduction by Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, the leading authority on Archbishop Cranmer and his biographer.
Also there are in Appendices significant portions of the first edition of the Prayer Book, that of 1549, along with other notable historical Commemorations.
The Prayer Book Society has obtained a limited number of copies of this book. They cannot be bought on the web at www.anglicanmarketplace.com but must be ordered directly by sending a check for $20.00 (plus $2.50 for post) to
The Prayer Book Society (attention Mrs D Remenyi)
100 East Avon Road,
Parkside
PA. 19015-3306.
(1 610 490 0909)
I do not expect the stock to last longer than a week. Please post your order today and if you delay call first to check availability.
posted by John at 2:44 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
The Authority of Scripture & the Lambeth Conference of 1948
---------------- a discussion starter --------------------
Whereas The Articles of Religion are most clear on the authority of Scripture, the Lambeth Conference has been, at best, vague and at worst misleading!
Article VI states that Holy Scripture “containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation.” Then in Article XX it is stated that The Church has “authority in Controversies of Faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Article II speaks of the Word of God, the Son, made flesh.
Here the authority of the Word written and its relation to the Person of Jesus Christ is clear.
Since 1948 it has become common amongst Anglican theologians to speak less of the authority of the Holy Scriptures and more of a “dispersed authority”. The latter is defined by the Lambeth Conference of 1948 in these terms:
“Authority… is distributed among Scripture, Tradition, Creeds, the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the witness of saints, and the consensus fidelium , which is the continuing experience of the Holy Spirit through his faithful people in the Church. It is thus a dispersed rather than a centralized authority, having many elements which combine, interact with, and check each other; these elements together contributing by a process of mutual support, mutual checking, and redressing of errors or exaggerations to the many-sided fullness of the authority which Christ has committed to his Church.”
Such a statement would have been inconceivable, and if conceived driven away as error, by the Reformers of the sixteenth and the standard divines of the seventeenth centuries. Yet it has been used to justify all the innovations of the ECUSA and Anglican Provinces in the West over the last fifty years.
Let us note a few of the problems with it. First of all the impression is given that all the items mentioned, from the Bible to the consensus fidelium, are of equal or roughly equal standing. The Bible is not singled out as having unique authority through Christ Jesus over everything else, although it is first in order. Secondly, it is not clear what is Tradition – of the Patristic Age? Of the Reformation Period? Of all time? Thirdly, it is not clear which Saints – of the Easter, Roman or Anglican Calendars, or of all? Finally, does the consent of the faithful mean the majority votes of Synods or something else?
In terms of how this approach has been used in North America, we may express it thus:
Scripture is in essence a record of religious experience which must be defined, mediated and verified, for what the Bible provides is data and not doctrine. It is unique in that it is first of its kind. What is described in Scripture is defined by the Creeds and in dogma, doctrine and continuing theological writings; it is mediated by the ministry of word and sacrament and it is verified in the witness of the saints and in the consent of the faithful in their democratic synods. Finally (see the 1979 ECUSA and the 1985 Canadian prayer books) “liturgy…is the crucible in which these elements and authority are fused and unified in the fellowship and power of the Holy Spirit” (Lambeth Conf. 1948). Thus the constant and widespread use of the Latin tag – lex orandi, lex credendi [the law of praying is the law of believing] – as a kind of proof that the recent Liturgies are sound.
One can see immediately how the ECUSA has introduced all kinds of innovations in worship, doctrine and discipline and why it consistently claims that it has done so and continues to do so democratically (= consensus fidelium) in local and national synods.
As I pointed out in the 64 page booklet which responded to the Book, To Set Our Hope on Christ, by the Presiding Bishop’s theological team addressed to the whole Anglican Family, the situation in ECUSA has long been that Scripture does not contain doctrine to be believed, confessed and taught, but rather data of religious experience to be collected, sifted, judged and used for a modern purpose. [for my Same-Sex Affection…. Go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928]
The Church is to be always under the authority of the Holy Scripture as the Word of God written, in which is not merely data but doctrine in propositional form to be believed, confessed and taught in the Church and by the Church to the world. Of course the Church itself has a certain authority (defined in the Articles); the Creeds have authority; and Councils/Synods have authority; but only as subordinate to the final authority of the Scriptures. And we must not forget that although the visible Church is “a witness and keep of Holy Writ [a most important vocation & duty], yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessary of Salvation” (Article XX).
The Lambeth Conference has erred often and will continue so to do in matters small and large! As also will all church synods. We all need to study the Articles again to recover our real Anglican approach to the Lordship of Christ and the Authority of the Word written, which is closely tied to the Word made flesh, the same Lord Jesus Christ.
[For a set of 12 major expositions by learned divines of The Articles in pdf and on one CD for $20.00, go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com]
As the Province of Nigeria and its Primate, Dr Akinola, have said, the Anglican Churches need their Formularies to guide them and keep them straight and the Articles are one of the Three classic Formularies!
October 20, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 2:42 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Anglo-Roman BOOK of Divine Worship
THE BOOK OF DIVINE WORSHIP being elements of The Book of Common Prayer revised and adapted according to the Roman Rite for use by Roman Catholics coming from the Anglican Tradition. Approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the USA and confirmed by the Apostolic See (Newman House Press, 2003).
This book is rather large and heavy and has nearly 1000 pages in all. It is intended as a Pew Edition but will not fit into the normal-sized book holder in Pews.
It is presently used in the USA by not more than twenty congregations of converts to Roman Catholicism from the Anglican Way. However, it is important for the future because some Anglican jurisdictions (e.g., the Traditional Anglican Communion led by Archbishop Hepworth of Australia), that are seeking a uniate status with Rome, have indicated that they will be ready to use it.
It contains the Calendar for the Church Year, the Daily Office Lectionary, the Daily Office, the Litany, the Proper (Collects, Prayers over the Gifts & Preface), the holy Eucharist , Holy Baptism, Holy Matrimony, the Burial of the Dead and the Psalter. All of these come in two versions, the traditional and the contemporary and it is this provision that makes the book so large. The Litany alone is in one form, the traditional (even as it is in the 1979 ECUSA Prayer Book).
The literary sources used to compose these rites were The Book of Common Prayer (1928); and “The Book of Common Prayer” (1979) from the Episcopal Church USA, and the English translation of the Missale Romanum (1973 – International Committee on English in the Liturgy). Here it may be observed that the translations of Scripture and ancient texts used in the 1979 Prayer Book and in the Missal of 1973 were much influenced by the theory of dynamic equivalency as well as by the ideology of inclusivism and they do need revision.
The basis for the Daily Office and Litany are Rites One and Two from the 1979 Prayer Book, with some minor additions from the 1928 BCP and from Roman Catholic sources (e.g., additional supplications in the Litany). Likewise, the basis for the Propers are Rites One and Two from the 1979 Prayer with significant additions from the Roman Missal.
With respect to the Eucharist, the provision of Rites One and Two continues but here there is greater dependence (as one would expect) upon the Roman Missal. In Rite One the Canon of the Mass is the traditional Roman Canon in traditional English and in Rite Two the four Eucharistic Prayers of the Canon in contemporary English in the Missal are made available. Several observations may be made. Both Rites retain the opening Acclamation, “Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (the novel formula of the 1979 book) rather than adopting the “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” of the Missal. Both Rites provide the Creed in the first person singular only [its correct form for the Eucharist, cf. Credo….] and in the 1979 Rite One version. It is impossible to use only traditional language if one is using Rite One all the time because certain provisions are only given in contemporary form (e.g., the Easter Vigil Service) and also because the Creed is provided only in the traditional version then it is also impossible to use Rite Two completely in contemporary language.
The two services for Baptism are based on the provisions of the 1928 BC for Rite One and the 1979 Prayer Book for Rite Two but with modifications. And the same principle applies to the two Services for both Holy Matrimony and the Burial of the Dead.
Finally, the Psalter is first in the 1928 BCP version (the Coverdale) and secondly in the 1979 Prayer Book version. The latter is well known for its inclusion of inclusive language and begins, “Happy are they…” whereas the other traditional version begins (as it points to Christ the Man) “Blessed is the Man….”
I would hope that if this Book is to be used for uniate churches (e.g., TAC) that there will be a careful scrutiny of the use of language so that Rite One can have integrity and be only and always in traditional form -- and the same for Rite Two. Further, that the use of texts from the Missal which are now regarded by the Vatican as improper or erroneous translations be modified, and that a version of the Psalter in contemporary English be provided that does not contain the feminist ideology within it (which the ECUSA provided in its 1979 version!). Finally, that the Naming of the Blessed Trinity in Rite Two texts, in the form that this is taken over from the 1979 Book, be examined and adjusted to harmonize better with received Catholic dogma of the Trinity and Person of Christ.
The TAC and like-minded traditional Anglicans who move to Rome will miss the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary of the old Roman (Sarum) use that is printed in the classic BCP, even as they will also miss the use of the Name of the Trinity to denote the weeks after Whitsuntide until the arrival of Advent.
Finally, this BOOK is so large and heavy that I can see uniate Church parishes making their own Missalette of the Rite they use and of possessing few copies of the whole thing.
Peter Toon October 20, 2005
posted by John at 11:27 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Why is All Souls’ more popular than All Saints’ Day?
After death and before the General Resurrection.
November 1 is “All Saints’ Day” which is identified as a “Red Letter Day” in The Book of Common Prayer, and is celebrated in the West to remember all Christian saints, known and unknown, who have gone before us and are now with Christ.
November 2 is “All Souls’ Day” which is not included in The Book of Common Prayer, but is celebrated in the West (by Catholics and by some Anglicans) to commemorate the souls of the faithful, Christian departed.
A strange fact is that in most Anglican parishes in the West more people attend the Eucharist on All Souls’ than on All Saints’ – that is, when and where a church offers both!
Why so? Probably because (in Europe especially) many people, especially widows, remember the loss of loved ones in World War II; and, more generally, this Day is the only Day in the Church Year when public opportunity arises to express devotion in relation to family and friends who have died as Christians. In contrast, there are many Days for remembering those known as Saints. Further, while most folks feel a sense of nearness to departed family members, they do not feel any profound sense of nearness to or fellowship with the Saints of God who live within the mystical Body of Christ and the Church invisible. So it is that the attendance on All Souls’ seems more practical and helpful than attendance on All Saints’ (though being present at the latter is regarded a good thing). [Possibly if we were all more spiritually minded and had a greater sense of belonging to the communion of Saints, then All Saints’ Day would be the more precious to us!]
However, it would appear that very few Anglicans who go to a Mass or Eucharist on All Souls’ Day have any real sense of the Roman doctrine of purgatory, that is of their loved ones being purged of their sins in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead and the glorious life of the age to come in redeemed bodies as saints in glory.
Indeed, the various Collects used by Anglicans on this day are deliberately vague in doctrinal terms. Here is a typical one which does not specifically refer to purging and cleansing of the soul from sin:
“O God, the Maker and Redeemer of all believers: Grant to the souls of the faithful departed all the unsearchable benefits of thy Son’s passion, that in the day of his appearing they may be manifested as thy children; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord…..”
We may assume that all Christians who recite the Creeds faithfully believe in “the intermediate state” between personal death and personal resurrection at the Last Day. However, most agree that the precise nature of this sphere and period of bodiless life for baptized Christians are not clear, except that the departed are in some real sense with Lord Jesus and not separated from him. And the question as to whether or not the prayers of believers on earth and the offering of the Eucharist on their behalf can in some way enrich the experience of the faithful departed is not often raised.
The Anglican Collect for All Saints’ Day is very clear in terms of their being One Body of Christ and thus one mystical communion and fellowship, which exists across and through death into and then within the age to come. Further, this Prayer expresses confidence in God’s provision for this age to come of tremendous joy for those who are in this life his true children.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There have been real saints of God in every generation in all places where the Church has existed. Most of their names are now forgotten by us but they are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life in heaven!
Now let us return to consider the soul of the faithful believer in the intermediate state.
All Christians possess both a sinful human nature and the presence of a new nature, a new creation, wherein the Holy Spirit is pleased to dwell. In the process of sanctification, the old nature is to be put to death, to be mortified, but it never fully dies. While the sins of the believing child of God are forgiven for Christ’s sake, the diseased nature is not removed.
Then most Christians at death have not reached a stage where their love of God and of man has reached true maturity or perfection. They are imperfect in love.
So the question arises: Does the soul as it leaves the body at death experience a total cleansing by the Holy Spirit and an infusion of divine love so that in the intermediate state, it is wholly regenerated and renewed and able to have pure fellowship with God and all the saints? If it does, then the doctrine of purgation and of growth and development in maturity (which presupposes that the souls of the departed enter the intermediate state as they were at the last moment of life on earth) is without any foundation in reality. For Purgatory is based on the assumption that cleansing and renewal – not to mention appropriate punishment -- are still needed in the soul whose body has been given Christian burial.
Now there is no assumption of purgatory anywhere in The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & 1928) and in the Articles of Religion printed in the prayer book we read the following: “The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory… is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” (Articles XXII). Now this was written before the Council of Trent carefully defined the “Romish doctrine of Purgatory” and, possibly, had the Article been written after the Tridentine doctrine was known, it would have been less judgmental, even if it still rejected not only purgatory but the customs and rites associated with it.
In recent centuries it seems that that many Anglicans have believed in the intermediate state, holding that there is only one door out of it and that is into God’s courts, and also holding that prayers for the faithful departed in suitably vague form can do no harm and may do good – even as prayers for believers on earth may do good. A minority have vigorously opposed all forms of prayer for the departed on the basis that Scripture nowhere requires them. And yet others, having adopted the Tridentine doctrine of purgatory, do believe that prayers and masses for the dead will by God’s grace speed the faithful through purging into the blessedness of heaven itself.
Whether we observe only All Saints’ Day. or we observe both All Saints’ and All Souls’ Day, will probably reveal a lot about what we believe and how we feel about the state of souls in the intermediate state between life on earth and life in resurrected bodies of glory in heaven.
Certainly we should all observe All Saints’ Day for that is RED LETTER!
Peter Toon October 19, 2005
posted by John at 9:03 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Anglicanism’s three options, routes & destinies
The Anglican Way is no longer an unified way and looks like it will soon end up in three parts, with a lot of messiness around the parts!
Since the ordination of women entered into the practice of Anglican provinces twenty or more years ago, the Anglican Family has been suffering from increasing internal strains, crises and divisions. These problems and pains have been exacerbated by the multiplication of liturgies and rites, and the setting aside of the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way by provinces in the West (e.g., USA, West Indies, Wales & Ireland). The Formularies served as identifiers and unifiers of Anglicanism. And the internal dysfunctionality has been much increased and polarized in the last few years by major differences over sexual ethics and practice and what the Scriptures and tradition have to say in these matters.
The so-called Instruments of Unity (Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting) are seemingly powerless to do other than make statements and call for actions. They cannot heal the divisions but may serve to make them worse.
What are the three routes being taken?
First of all, there is the route to the Vatican City in Rome. A growing number of Anglican groups such as the Forward in Faith Movement of the UK and the Traditional Anglican Communion are pressing for a uniate status with Rome. They wish to maintain an Anglican identity that is doctrinally at one with Rome and to be under the protection of the Roman See and thus in communion with all parts of the Roman Church. It seems likely that more and more Anglo-Catholics (e.g., the diocese of Fort Worth) will be drawn into this movement. It already has a basic Liturgy approved by the Vatican and used in a dozen or so parishes in the USA and so it seems all set to move forward with many converts in the next five or so years. Will the Vatican receive it?
Secondly, there is the route into progressive liberalism, which is currently the position of the majority of the synods of the Anglican provinces of the West/North. The ecclesial center will be the See of Canterbury but the leader of this attempt to make the Anglican Way conform to the “enlightened” culture of the West will be the Episcopal Church of the USA, followed by the Church in Canada, Churches in the UK & Ireland, the Churches in Australia and New Zealand and so on. Churches in Latin America and in Southern Africa will probable also opt for this route. So this association is and will be a mixed bag but united in efforts to be relevant and contemporary and to avoid at all costs to be traditionalist and old fashioned. And since it will hold the title-deeds to much property and financial trusts, it will be able to continue in existence even where those attending its places of worship are few..
Thirdly there is the evangelical route already being taken by Churches in Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Uganda) and Asia. In terms of numbers this association, which claims to be based upon the Bible and the Formularies of the Anglican Way, is and will be the largest of the Anglican identities. From the West it will have only small numbers of adherents (those who have separated from the progressive liberal provinces) for its vast membership will be African and Asian. Financially, it will be the poorest of the three routes but it will be very evangelistic, ever looking to grow in maturity and numbers. It will develop a center somewhere in a city of Africa to hold its minimal organization.
Around and between these three basic associations and routes, there will be a lot of confusion, pain and mess, individual, family, congregational and corporate. A few provinces (e.g., West Indies) will not be sure which route to take for they are internally divided over the issues. People in the progressively liberal provinces will feel a great pull to stay where they are because of long and deep ties to sacred buildings and local cemeteries and burial plots. Then clergy in these same provinces will think a lot about their retirement plans and the like. Not a few Anglo-Catholics will feel torn between going with their fellow believers to Rome and remaining as Anglicans but in a charismatic or evangelical ethos. Evangelical Episcopalians will hesitate at the prospect of being under an African bishop on a permanent basis. And so on!
In summary. It seems that the centrifugal forces evident in what was the Anglican Communion of Churches are now so strong that no centripetal forces exist to counter them. A falling apart seems inevitable and many cracks are visible now. To predict the result of the demise of the centripetal forces and the triumph of the centrifugal ones is dangerous, but I have suggested that there will be three identifiable pieces of Anglicanism with a lot of little bits around them! My prediction will probably be proved to be wrong. After all, only God the Omniscient One, knows.
Peter Toon October 19, 2005
posted by John at 1:31 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
The elusive option
Aidan Nichols OP continues his reflections on the character and development of Anglo-Catholicism by considering the possibility and practicality are moving towards an Anglican Uniate Church (From Forward in Faith UK's New Directions October 2005)
The question of an Anglican Uniate Church is the question of whether all that heritage – or most of it, or a significant part of it – could be preserved in a union with Rome, not through absorption by the modern Latin-rite church in England or elsewhere, but in union with the Petrine office, whose continued steadfast guardianship of classical Catholic Christian doctrine in faith and morals remains remarkably unshaken among the squalls of the contemporary world.
In a wider context, how might the way to union with such smaller bodies – the way of Uniatism, in a word – be possible? What are its chances of success, and what the pitfalls on its way?
Coming together
There is a need for all Catholic-minded Christians to come together. For the future of Catholicity, the greatest potential rapprochement is in theory that between Rome and Orthodoxy. But the historical and emotional obstacles to this from the Orthodox side are such that in practice more is to be expected from convergences from the side of the Western communions that split off from the Latin church in the course of the modern centuries. Speaking from a Roman Catholic standpoint, this question falls in one sense outside our responsibility to answer.
It is up to bodies like the Polish National Catholic Church emerging from the Union of Utrecht, the Nordic Catholic Church emerging from the Lutheran Church of Norway, the Continuing Churches of the wider Anglicanism, and the free province of St Augustine of Canterbury, which Forward in Faith may or may not succeed in establishing, to decide what it is they ask of Rome, whether by ‘Rome’ we mean the Catholic Church generally or the Holy See. We can, however, take steps to prepare for a response from our own side.
Desire for communion
Firstly, it should hardly need to be said that groups seeking Catholic communion but retaining a distinctive ecclesial life must manifest that desire for communion by a willingness to find in and as the Word of God the doctrine of the Catholic Church in its entirety – everything taught by Peter. If you want the communion of Peter, you must have Peter’s faith. This is a sine qua non, and needs to be recognized as such.
Secondly, if we take the model of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is the only model for Churches united but not absorbed that we have, we need to say that petitioning groups must be able to specify what it is about their distinctive patrimony that they wish to safeguard through having what used to be called a ‘ritual Church’ of their own and in the present Codes of Canon Law is termed a Church sui juris, which I think should be translated ‘by its own right’ rather than ‘with its own law’.
Anglican Catholics need to specify what it is theologically, liturgically, spiritually, that it would be both legitimate and desirable to retain in communion with Rome. This is a particular difficulty for English Anglo-Papalists who are already what one well-known representative of their number described to me as ‘Roman-rite Anglicans.’ The Book of Divine Worship produced for the Anglican Use parishes in the United States is a start here – though it may not be easy to commend it to Forward in Faith UK, whose view of anything connected with the Prayer Book tends to be ‘We can’t go back to that.’
Archbishop John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has called it at least in private a basis for a definitive book. One reason for regarding it as not yet definitive are the criticisms put forward by well-informed orthodox-minded Latin-rite Catholics who point to the desirability of some further fine-tuning of the Cranmerian texts it includes.
Distinctive ethos
At the meeting I attended in Arlington, Texas, the Revd David Moyer, who, controversially, was ordained a suffragan bishop in the Australian Diocese of the Murray by bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion in a ceremony in his own embattled parish church in Philadelphia, spoke of the need for at least one theological college which would cultivate a distinctively Anglican Catholic ethos as well as for a married presbyterate and episcopate.
I doubt myself that Rome would permit a married episcopate, except possibly by way of dispensation for a single sacramental generation, but the theological college would certainly be indispensable. There must be some way of transmitting a tradition with a small ‘t’ within the Tradition with a capital ‘T’. One cannot be forever living from hand to mouth. This is already a problem even now for the Anglican Use parishes of the Pastoral Provision, since despite the word ‘provision’ no provision has been made for a future supply of pastors willing and able to lead their parishes on the basis of the Anglican Use.
Anglican classics
As I see it, such a college would take for its textbooks not only Roman Catholic works of impeccable orthodoxy but also within that framework Anglican ‘classics’, any deficiencies in whose doctrinal understanding would be catered for in advance through contextualization by Catholic works.
All this would have to be presented prudently to the wider Catholic public. It can certainly be pointed out that the Second Vatican Council goes out of its way, in the Decree on Ecumenism, to give a special place to Anglicanism among the ecclesial communities that emerged from the Church crisis of the sixteenth century, and assurances that whatever is valid in the patrimony of Anglican worship, thought and spirituality, could be preserved in Catholic unity have been forthcoming, if in very general terms, from post-Conciliar popes. Places to look would be, for instance, the speeches of Paul VI at the canonization of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales and of John Paul II on his visit to Canterbury Cathedral.
St Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of the variety of religious orders in the Church, liked to cite the psalm which, in its Latin version, describes the Church as circumdata varietate, surrounded by variety. The pains and purgatories of the post-conciliar period have taught us to treat ‘variety’ with some caution, since pluralism comes in two forms, the legitimate and the anarchic. But an Anglican Uniate body, defined with discernment and sensitivity, could I believe join the ranks of the Churches sui juris which give Catholicism an indispensable dimension of its plenary or holistic quality
posted by John at 1:25 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
How to view the ECUSA
A word from yesterday for the would-be orthodox of today.
This reflection arises from study of Article XIX of the Anglican Formulary, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the National Church of England (1571) and later of the Province of PECUSA (USA 1801). After providing the marks or signs of the visible Church of Christ on earth in space and time, the Article speaks of error in the Church on earth. “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.”
First of all, let us note that the ancient patriarchates of East and West are not denied the status of being visible Churches but are rather accused of “having erred.” That is, not everything that they teach, confess and do is erroneous but that they have been in error in significant and important ways. Thus, at worst, these Churches are corrupt branches of the one Church of God, but, branches and jurisdictions nevertheless. And to claim the minimum for them, these Churches still baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost , and worshipped the LORD as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and so the Reformers did not advocate the re-baptizing, only the instructing, of their members.
The Roman Church erred in that it claimed too much for itself and for its Bishop (e.g., as Vicar of Christ) and, further, it made as part of the Faith certain doctrines (e.g., of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Mass as a propitiation) and ceremonies (e.g., denial of the Chalice to laity) which were clearly contrary to the plain sense of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers of the first five centuries or so. However, within Its embrace, and despite its errors, were thousands who were united to Christ in faith and love and who had good hope of life with Christ in heaven. That is, the invisible catholic Church of God was manifested in the existence and life of those national Churches of Europe and elsewhere which were under the control of the Roman See.
Now it is certainly true that some of the rhetoric of the Reformers was such as to suggest that these Churches, under the rule of the Roman Papacy, were totally lost to the true Church of God on earth. In those days both sides, when in controversy, engaged in lively and exaggerated speech in order to make their points. Yet in their more sober and guarded language when they wrote catechisms and confessions of faith, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer and their colleagues were more reserved and careful. (Richard Hooker is extremely careful in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity as is Bishop Jewel before him in his Apology.) The message from the reformed Catholic Church of England about Rome seems to have been – to paraphrase – something like this: “Let Rome throw off her false additions to the Creed and Liturgy, and we will gladly communicate with her; but so long as she retains her errors, we cannot but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins.” (Remember that at this time there was no R C “denomination” in England!)
Of course, we all know that since Vatican II (1962-65), relations between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants have been more open and positive than in earlier times.
This noted we ask: IS THERE ANYTHING to learn from this sixteenth-century situation about the adoption of possible attitudes towards the ECUSA by those who like Cranmer, Jewel and Hooker, are or seek to be Reformed Catholics?
We can probably agree that the ECUSA has erred in matters of faith, ceremony and living, especially since the 1960s. It has definitely encouraged immorality in sexual relations; it allows ceremonies that are wrong – e.g., ordaining and consecrating openly gay men; and it has openly and clearly set aside the received Anglican Formularies of the Faith and substituted novel ones for them (and these are in certain places and ways of doubtful orthodoxy).
But also we can probably agree that, despite all this, it is possible within the ECUSA to hear the Gospel, to receive the Sacraments, to be instructed in sound teaching and to be buried in the true Faith.
The ECUSA has erred and is in error as an institution; yet because it contains hundreds of parishes, it is possible in many of these to encounter the means of grace in such a way as to be placed in union with Christ and be made a member of His Body as a child of God the Father unto eternal life.
Therefore, it would seem that there are reasons to depart and reasons to stay; and as each person is unique and as no two situations are identical, some will believe they are guided to stay and others to depart from ECUSA. The issues are not so clear cut as to make all sincerely-intentioned Christians see things identically.
This said, it would seem prudent that those who depart should give their energy and time to the new jurisdiction they join and not waste their time bemoaning the errors of that which they have left behind!
In conclusion, it would seem that for those who have the conviction and courage to stay and minister within this Church (and be persecuted or deprived perhaps) there is still work to be done, work that can be fruitful for the kingdom of God. Yet those who remain must do so in the knowledge that this Church has erred and persists, often proudly, in its errors. So they will never be free from this pain of being part of an erring Church, and a minority that can do little or nothing in the immediate future about changing the institutional errors and sickness. Indeed to raise hopes that they can if they raise enough money and foreign support is to create false optimism! Yet, happily, they can find great encouragement and help in bearing this burden of error and sickness, while being faithful Minister or members, by taking note of and meditating on the way in which the Remnant of Israel lived and witnessed within the often apostate and erring Israel!
Let us pray one for another, for those who depart and those who stay, and let us use our energy to build up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God which is not confined to any of our jurisdictions but includes them all and more!
Peter Toon October 18, 2005
posted by John at 3:51 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
NEW Altar Book in Production
The Prayer Book Society of the USA
October 14, 2005
Dear fellow Episcopalian/Anglican:
We greet you in the Name of Jesus as a supporter of the Anglican Way of worship, doctrine and discipline and as a believer in biblical/catholic orthodoxy and evangelical faith and practice.
We write to tell you about a major publishing venture in which we are currently engaged and in which you can help as God leads you.
The Priest at the Holy Table requires not a pew edition of The Book of Common Prayer but what is referred to as “An Altar Book.” That is, a large book with large print which contains the service for which the Altar exists, the Holy Communion, together with the Collects, Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days.
For the last fifty years or more traditional parishes have used an Altar Book (based on the BCP, 1928) typeset and published by Oxford University Press of New York City. This is in two colors – text in black and rubrics in red – and it is well bound in leather. Books wear out through use, and many churches have old copies and are looking to obtain a new Altar Book. Second-hand copies are now very rare. We get requests for copies virtually every week.
Here is the good news. The Prayer Book Society has obtained permission from the Oxford University Press to reprint the Oxford edition, in two colors, on first-class paper and in leather binding. And the Society is using the same printer as the University Press employs in order to guarantee first-class quality of product.
Now to the not-so-good news! The minimum print run that this top-class printer will do is 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred); and the cost of producing this number and binding each one and then enclosing it in a suitable wrapping, with delivery to storage, will be about $40,000.00 (forty thousand dollars) in all.
Finally, here is where in your generosity you can help. We intend to place inside each copy, when distributed to churches or to individual persons, a List of those who have made a donation of $100.00 or more to this noble enterprise. We would like to see as many names as possible on this insert (which will be printed on superior paper in an attractive format). May we request that you consider being on this List?
Please see this project as a necessary part of the keeping available, as well as the providing for the next generation, of an important tool in the practice of the Anglican Way and the worship of the Father Almighty. And please give generously.
We expect to sell the Altar Book in time for Christmas at a special price to missions and small churches, and at a reasonable price to larger churches and individual persons. Anyone who makes a donation of $100.00 or more will have the opportunity to buy copies at the same price as missions are charged.
The Board is excited about this project (the largest publishing venture in the history of the Society) and what it offers and means to the cause of traditional and orthodox worship of the Father through the Son and with the Holy Ghost. We believe you will share its excitement and enthusiasm!
May the Lord guide us in the work of typesetting, printing, binding, packing, advertising and distributing so that the product is truly a means of blessing in the churches! Please pray for all involved and give generously.
Yours faithfully in Christ,
David Kennedy
Fr David Kennedy SSC , President
To: The Prayer Book Society, P.O. Box 35220, Philadlephia, PA 19128-0220.
From: …………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………
I give $ ............... to the Prayer Book Society of the USA as a gift towards the cost of producing the Altar Edition of the 1928 BCP.
I would like to order a copy/ copies at the special price (to be announced)
I ask God to make this project into a success for his honor and glory.
Signature……………………………………………Date……………………………
posted by John at 11:45 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, October 17, 2005
Eames & Akinola: The old boys network & the new upstarts
Archbishop Eames of Ireland, and an elder statesman of Anglican Communion affairs, recently gave three lectures on the present state and the future of the Anglican Communion in two liberal Seminaries of the ECUSA. One of these also gave him the D.D. degree. The lectures have been circulated by both the Anglican Communion Office and the Episcopal Church news-service. Their content seems most acceptable to the ECUSA leadership and worrying to more conservative Anglicans.
In one lecture he criticized the recent action of the Synod of the Church in Nigeria when it made commitment to the classic Anglican Formularies (BCP, Ordinal & Articles of Religion) the basis of its common life and of its fellowship with other Anglican Churches. Previously, its fellowship had been based on the See of Canterbury and with all who were in communion with the Archbishop there.
[What many people do not know about the Church of Ireland is that in 2004 it took the same path as the ECUSA did in 1979 and the West Indies did in the 1990s. It made a “Book of Alternative Services” into its formulary, “The Book of Common Prayer,” and it abandoned its edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer (derived from the English edition of 1662). Thus the Irish Church has lost its nature as Reformed Catholic and has become whatever succeeding Synods determine it shall be. Further, it relies on its fellowship with the See of Canterbury to assure its Anglican standing. What it has rejected in terms of Standard it seek to replace by association.]
Rightly, Archbishop Akinola has responded and protested to the Eames criticisms, pointing out that neither he nor his Church were consulted before, or informed of, the attack by Eames. Further, he has justified the commitment of his Church to the classic Anglican Formularies (wherein of course the full authority of Scripture, the full doctrine of Christ as Lord, and the rich nature of Reformed Catholicism is set forth). Well done, Akinola, say thousands around the world.
Questions arising:
- Does Archbishop Akinola realize that the Church of Ireland and Dr Eames have abandoned the classic Formularies and followed the example of ECUSA? This may in part explain the outburst of Eames against the going back to old standards by Nigeria.
- When will the Network and the American Anglican Council commit themselves unreservedly to the received classic Formularies and wholly forsake their present commitment to the false formularies of the ECUSA (those in the 1979 prayer book)?
- Is not Akinola a hero for them?
- Do they share his Faith?
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 12:39 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
The Church of God, where is it? Is it INVISIBLE?
Let us begin with a contrast between the “theoretical doctrine” and the “practical reality.”
The Lord Jesus Christ taught that there is one Church --- “upon this rock I will build my Church”; his apostles taught that there is one Church and they identified this Church through the use of various metaphors or models – e.g., the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and the royal Priesthood; and the ecumenical Creed declares in summary of the biblical teaching that there is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”
What the eyes see in the USA is not one Church, not even one Anglican, one Lutheran, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, and one Orthodox Church. They behold a vast array of denominations, which are distinguished from each other by name, by what they stand for, by their ecclesiastical polity and organization, and so on. Each of them claims either to be the whole of, or to be a part of, the Church of God and some but not all of them are in fellowship with others.
How can we maintain the belief in the One Church of Scripture and Creed, and at the same time live within the massive variety of competitive denominations and congregations in the West and in the world generally?
First of all, we need to realize that this is not in essence a new problem for sensitive souls. In other forms and manifestations, it has in principle been addressed by Christian philosophers and theologians in the past. From the patristic period, St Augustine is the obvious example (remember he had to address the Donatist schism] and at the Reformation of the 16th century, the reality of national churches, not always in communion with each other and not in communion with the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches of the East, raised serious questions for all the leaders about the unity of the Church.
Further, added to this problem of unity there always was the problem of the presence of those who deny the Faith by word and deed and who are members of parishes and national churches. Not all church members were of the elect of God, not even in apostolic times!
In England, these problems were addressed by the divines who met in Westminster Abbey, London, in the 1640s and who produced the Westminster Catechisms and Confession of Faith. In Chapter XXV of the Confession they wrote this “Of the Church”:
1.The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been or are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, our of which three is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. Unto this catholic, visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.
4.This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Church of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will….
In making a distinction between (a) the One true Church of God, known only in its entirety to God and thus invisible to man who belongs to space and time, and (b) the variety of visible national Churches (or later of national Churches and denominations) together making up the One mixed and divided Church of God visible on earth, this Confession stated what was held in common by all Protestants. (Roman Catholics made the same essential distinction between the invisible and visible but stated the relation between the two in terms which effectively identified the visible with the R C Church only- or the R C and Orthodox Churches.)
So we return to the present day and the supermarket of Christian groups in the USA!
I cannot see any other way out of our dilemma today than that of also accepting this distinction between visible and invisible (it is presumed by the Articles of Religion and The Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Way and so is already part of the faith of an Anglican).
How else can one make any sense of the complexity of the situation in the USA in terms of the massive variety of denominations, all claiming to be under Christ the Lord and based upon the revelation recorded in Holy Scripture? Of course, to accept it, does not mean that one uses it to justify the existence of thousands of denominations or to justify starting a new one when we feel that our interests are not being served! On the other hand, to accept it does mean that we shall see brothers and sister in Christ in groups and congregations other than our own, and we shall view them as future neighbors in the heavenly Jerusalem! And this will surely lead us to desire to dream of, to long for, to work for practical unity amongst the professing Christian people of the land, and especially so when they claim to belong to the same tradition (e.g., “Anglican”).
One major way in which the doctrine of the Church as invisible is wrongly used is to think and act as if, as a “born-again believer”, one has a kind of direct individualistic link as a human person to God the Father through Jesus Christ ( a kind of dial-up instant link). Note how the Confession states in (2) that ordinarily there is no salvation outside the belonging to and being a full member of the visible Church. In these days when individual autonomy is assumed as basic to living in the West, there is the real danger of linking this sense of autonomy to a doctrine of the Church as invisible and thereby getting the relation of the individual believer to Christ, to the members of Christ, to the local church and to God the Father, skewed! Salvation is as an individual person into the family of God so that one has brothers and sisters from the word go and on into eternity!
October 17, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 11:04 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Tribute to Caesar Yes – but Today?
A meditation to foster better reflection.
Over the weekend of October 15, 2005, the Gospel heard in many Episcopal parishes will be Matthew 22:15-22. In It are these words of Jesus: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. He said these words as he held a Roman coin in his hand, a coin on which was the image and inscription of the Emperor.
This profound pronouncement came from Jesus’ lips in response to a question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” Whether or not the Jews as a subject people, whose land was occupied by the Roman forces, ought to/should pay taxes to the Roman imperial government was a hot theme in Jewish piety. The Herodian party which benefited most from the occupation insisted that it was good and right to pay taxes; the Pharisees sat on the fence but paid in the end; and the Zealots refused to pay and took the consequences.
Jesus called for a Roman coin and surprisingly his questioners quickly produced one. (The mere possession of which suggested that they accepted the principle of paying taxes to the imperial government!). Then Jesus asked whose likeness and inscription was on the denarius? And they answered, “Caesar’s” for all Roman coins of this period had such on them.
At this point Jesus made his pronouncement: “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Pay your taxes, keep the laws of the land and submit to the government.
Yet this instruction must not stand alone as an absolute for man is God’s creature. So Jesus continued: “ Render to God the things that are God’s.” God’s image and likeness [Genesis 1:27] is stamped upon you, therefore offer to God your whole being and life for he is your Creator, Lord and Judge.
What we see here is that all obedience to human governments and authorities is not isolated and standing alone but is WITHIN the comprehensive submission and obedience to God as the LORD. Thus we are to obey the laws of the land and pay taxes, as part of our obedience of God, for “the powers that be are ordained of God.” Children are to obey parents, wives obey husbands, church members obey their elders, soldiers obey their officers – and so on – within the one submission and obedience to God. Thus we are only to refuse to submit to human authority when it is absolutely clear that the human authority is exceeding its God-ordained role (e.g., when the Caesar required worship of his image, then the Christians said no and became martyrs).
The situation in America is very different from that in Jerusalem in A.D. 30! And thus the temptations are different, and, further, not identical for people of different persuasions and mindsets.
Take, for example, a temptation facing people of a social conservative mindset. Some of them are perhaps in danger of giving too much devotion to “Caesar” (read the Republican Party and Government). That is, they possibly identify too closely the political ideals and programs of the “right” and of its “conservative ideology” with the will and purpose of God. So much so that they see it as a Christian duty not merely to vote responsibly and carefully but to vote only Republican, and they see it as a sin to vote any other way.
And this general commitment is usually linked to a particular (but debatable) reading of American history, of its founding and its constitution. Politics seems to have ceased to be the art of the possible and has become the means of the realization of the foretaste or first-fruits of the kingdom of God on American soil. This close identification of a this-worldly yet high-minded political aim and ideal with the actual kingdom of God and the perfect will of the LORD means that, in effect, too much is rendered to Caesar. And thus what is rendered to God, the Lord, whose image and likeness we bear, is less than it should be, for some devotion is taken away and is given to the “earthly kingdom.” (One well-known southern preacher often says of his evangelism: “We get them saved; we get them baptized; and then we get them signed up to work for the Republican Party.”)
It is part of our required obedience to God not to kill (and thus not to engage in abortion or euthanasia) but it is not necessarily part of our clear obedience of God to support or not support this or that legislation at the state and federal level. Prudential judgment is required all the time for politics is the art of the possible. It is one thing to be submitted to God’s law personally and as a family or congregation of Christ’s flock, and it is yet another thing to be clear as to the best way of helping and causing people in general to submit to this divine law via political, education and social means.
Whether our judgment leads us to vote one way or another, it is the act of voting responsibly that is required of us by God in obedience to the State as appointed by him. No earthly program, however noble, can ever equate with the perfect requirements of the kingdom of Christ. Likewise no political party is worthy of our total devotion and commitment. Why? Because Jesus Christ is Lord.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 3:17 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Reform and be renewed from within? Or Depart to be Reformed & Renewed outside?
A meditation starter from Peter Toon
Pressing questions facing many concerned Episcopalians include: Is it possible or probable that there will be, by divine providence and through internal and external ecclesial pressures, a genuine reform and renewal within the Episcopal Church of the USA during 2006 – 7? Is internal renewal a possibility or a pipe-dream? Is a U-turn by the ECUSA worth working for?
To provide some food for thought as a preparation for answering these questions I offer the following.
The Pilgrim and Puritans of old England left the National Church of England in the seventeenth century in order to set up a reformed and renewed Church in New England. They saw no possibility of achieving their godly aims in the land of their birth but hoped to do so in the land of their adoption. They were schismatics but filled with holy drive and godly ideals. What they began now exists in a variety of forms!
In the countries of Europe that they left behind, there had been, a century or less before, a reform and renewal that had been primarily to establish national and provincial Churches. That is, individual countries, cantons, provinces and cities had thrown off the allegiance to the Bishop of Rome and Roman Catholic worship, doctrine and discipline and had adopted a form of Christian Religion that was generally called “Protestant” (based on the idea of a protest on behalf of the Scriptures and the worship, doctrine and discipline of the Early Church) or Reformed Catholicism. However, there were those in these who were not satisfied with the reforms and they sought to create congregations that were free of any relation to the State or the Monarch. People call them “radical reformers” or “Anabaptists.”
So we see what sociologists call the “church” type [i.e., the National Churches] and the “sect” type [i.e., the nonconformists of varied kinds] of the Christian Religion arising in old Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
Over in the USA, after Independence from Great Britain, there emerged many different forms of the Christian Religion as individual States in the East set themselves free from direct association with one particular form of the Church. The distinction between “church” and “sect”, useful for old Europe is not useful for the vibrant USA scene, and has been replaced by “denomination” in the USA, for there is no established Church and instead much emphasis on the separation of Church and State! In theory also all religious groups are equal.
So with the planting of a vast array of denominations in and across the USA in the 19th & 20th centuries, there is little or no perception that the Church of the One Jesus Christ is truly One Church (except as “invisible” with its members, the elect, known only unto God and joined together in his mind in Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit). So to exit one denomination and create another, to exit one and join another, to try out a variety of denominations week by week, are all real possibilities in the USA and are available every week. This movement in and out and across is, however, easier for laity than clergy for obvious reasons – accreditation, pension plans, health insurance and the like.
Now to the Episcopal Church.
The Protestant Episcopal Church saw one small schism in the 19th century which led to the creation of the Reformed Episcopal Church, which is still around and growing slowly in the 21st century. Since World War II, as pressures from culture and society have mounted, there have been a growing number of secessions from the Episcopal Church – e.g., during the civil rights & Vietnam War period; in 1977 and since then with the advent of women’s ordination and the imposition of the new, liberal prayer book; in the late 1990s over the failure of the leadership of bishops; after 2003 with the acceptance of innovations in sexuality, and so on. These schisms of the last fifty years or so have led to many different expressions of Episcopalian or Anglicanism! And some of these jurisdictions and groups have themselves experienced schism.
It is reasonable to claim that the NORMAL American way of seeking to create the form of Christian religion that is seen as correct or preferred is to start from scratch. That is, to separate from others, to gather people together, to obtain property and to set up what is desired and sought for. And, in doing so to believe and to claim that one is led by heaven and is establishing the real and true form of the body of Christ, the church.
So, given the reality of the power of centrifugal forces within American religion aiding and abetting the making of schism normal and acceptable, and, further, given the fact that the old-line or main-line progressive liberal denominations of the USA (e.g. Congregationalist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian) have never yet shown any capacity for real signs of internal reform and renewal (but have seen thousands of their members exit to create new churches), the odds against reform and renewal in the ECUSA are at best massive! Further, each week there are whole or parts of Episcopal congregations exiting in order to create new congregations, usually under the patronage of some far-away bishop. The stream is flowing and seems not to be drying up.
Only the extreme optimist would think that the ECUSA will reform itself. However, let us not forget that with God the Father all things are possible, said Jesus. Possible but not probable in this case, we may reverently add!
October 13, 2005
posted by John at 3:28 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Do Episcopalians delight more in the Extras then in the Essentials? Is the modern Anglican Mind closed to most things Anglican?
A discussion starter from Peter Toon.
In order to make my points in this short essay, I shall deal with generalities and not supply footnotes to explain nuances, paradoxes and exceptions.
The point I wish to make is that in the USA both those who claim to be orthodox Episcopalians within the ECUSA, and those who claim to be orthodox Anglicans outside the ECUSA, share one common characteristic. It is this. That they appear to be more committed to what may be called additions to or extras of the Anglican Way than that which is the very essence of the Anglican Way. In short, they have closed their minds to what may be called the classic Anglican Mind.
Put another way, they go out of their way to distance themselves from that which historically may be called the key commitments and affirmations of the clergy and people who have been called Anglicans and Episcopalians.
Please note that I am referring not to the progressive liberal elite which runs the “National Church” and many dioceses of the ECUSA, although this group does clearly portray a total rejection of the classic Anglican Mind and received Episcopal Faith. I am referring to those who claim to be “orthodox” within and outside the ECUSA.
Whatever do I mean? Have I gone crazy? Maybe. I am living after all in the progressive state of Washington on the West Coast and I was born and bred in England!
I mean this. Many of those called “Continuing Anglicans” seem at first sight to be truly Anglicans when in reality they are not so. When you look closely you find that they have committed themselves to (a) a path that will end in union with the See of Rome – this is the expressed policy of the TAC & the ACA; (b) a form of Liturgy for the Eucharist that includes the most “Roman” parts of the classic Tridentine Liturgy of the Mass – see the Anglican or American Missals; and (c) a doctrinal commitment to the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which require the veneration of icons.
Let us be clear. Historically, since the late 19th century not a few Anglo-Catholics have inserted into the Anglican BCP service parts of the Tridentine Mass and they have held to the doctrine of the Icons; but, very importantly, they have recognized these additions as extras and belonging not to the classic Anglican Mind as such but to that particular late development of it called the Anglo-Catholic Mind. And they have not made these things a test of fellowship with the Evangelical and Broad-Church Schools of Anglican churchmanship.
Today, in the USA we have the situation where not a few Continuing Anglicans are truly defined by their Additions and Extra for they have made these into essentials, and into a test of fellowship. They define the Anglican Way primarily in terms of what were once seen as the special emphases of a school of thought within Anglicanism, and what they are producing is no longer truly the Anglican Way, but the Canterbury route to Rome.
Let us recall that the essentials and standards of the Anglican Way are set forth in her Formularies (the classic BCP, Ordinal and Articles of Religion) which identify It as Reformed Catholicism, and these are based upon the basic 1,2,3,4 & 5 as taught by the standard divines of the Church of England in the seventeenth century. One Canon of Scripture, with its Two Testaments as God’s Word written, doctrinally summarized in Three Creeds [Apostles’, Nicene & Athanasian] and given form by Four Ecumenical Councils [from Nicea 325 to Chalcedon 451], and Five Centuries and development.
Of course, God was at work after the year 500 but this statement of the 1 to 5 is intended to indicate the basis and the essentials of the Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism, with its Ministry and Liturgy based upon the developments and teaching of the Early Church.
If the Continuing Anglicans reveal a tendency to err in one direction, then the Charismatic/Evangelical Episcopalians inside and outside the ECUSA reveal a tendency in the other direction. They can be described as imitating what may be called generic evangelical [or charismatic/evangelical], American Protestantism. [See e.g., the general program for The Network Congress in Pittsburgh in November 0.] And they certainly give the impression that what they receive from this source is of greater importance than what they receive from within the classic stream of the Anglican Way. This is seen, for example, in how they talk of the Lordship of Christ and the Authority of Scripture (as if these were not most adequately proclaimed and explained in the classic Formularies!). They make it clear that they regard much of the inherited Anglican form of worship as “dead” and “out of touch” and the received expression of doctrine and discipline as being out-of-date and irrelevant.
They delight in using the most modern of Anglican liturgies (produced in the main by progressive liberals) and they adapt them so as to make them like the worship-style of the generic evangelical/charismatic found widely in the USA. Their quarrel with the present ECUSA is primarily focused on one thing – its sexual deviations and innovations – and they are little concerned with the apostasy in doctrine, worship and discipline that had occurred incrementally from the 1970s onwards. In fact, they give the impression of thinking that some of this apostasy is OK if in safe evangelical hands.
For them, to be Anglican is to use the structure/shape of a Liturgy supplied by modern liturgists and to insert into it their own choices, which are in fact the generalities of generic evangelical/charismatic Protestantism. If they can keep the homosexual agenda and lobby at bay, then they are happy. They have no plans or intentions to recover the classic Anglican Way for they enjoy too much what they have now. It is difficult to find the Anglican Mind in their midst!
Thus both the Continuers and the Stay-in-ers major on the extras to the Anglican Way and each group in its own way has lost much if not most of the Anglican Mind by this commitment to extras. Will either side recover it? At a deeper level is there any chance at all of recovering a unified, comprehensive Anglican Way, based on the historic Formularies and received Traditions, in the USA in this generation?
In your charity, do visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com in order to obtain CDs, books and booklets to extend this discussion starter. And do also visit www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 to read more. Thank you.
October 13, 2005
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 10:16 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
An Outline of the Faith (1979) compared with The Articles of Religion (1801): Part 5
5. The Holy Scriptures
One powerful cause of the creation of new liturgies from the 1960s onwards was the presence of new versions or translations of the Bible, The New English Bible and the New International Version, for example. As the decades have gone by, the number of versions has much increased and with this increase there is a greater commitment to the principle of dynamic equivalency in translation. This in turn has allowed for the entry into the translated texts that which are truly modern ideas and principles – e.g. of feminism. Nevertheless, whatever the version, the Bible is still read within the Liturgy, be the church progressive liberal or traditional conservative in its estimate of the Bible.
So it is wholly to be expected that in the Outline there is a section on “The Holy Scriptures.” We are told what are the Holy Scriptures (the books of the Old and New Testaments); what is the Old Testament (books written by the people of the Old Covenant as they were inspired by God); and what is the New Testament (books written by people of the New Covenant as they were inspired by God), In answer to the question why we call the Scriptures the “Word of God” it is stated: “ We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.”
So it is taught that all the books of the Bible are inspired in the sense that their authors/editors were “inspired by the Holy Spirit.” And that they are the Word of God now because of this inspiration and because we find in experience that God still speaks to us through them.
It is not clear as to the extent of the inspiration. Was it of such a kind that what they wrote is truly and really God’s Word written? Or was it minimal and basic, guaranteeing at least that what they wrote is a generally true account of the religious experience and doctrine of people in the Old and New Covenants?
It is not clear also how God speaks to us through the Bible today. Are sentences therein taken as real statements by God to us today? Or is the way God speaks more indirect, a kind of conviction that arises after reflecting upon a passage or book?
And it is not clear what kind of authority the Bible has in the Church in terms of defining the Faith and establishing Morality, for example. We are told that “we understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.” Does this mean that the local Church (the ECUSA?) meeting in a national synod or General Convention can decide what is the true interpretation of Scripture in terms of Faith and Morals? Or does the local Church have to wait for the “mind” of the universal Church?
Turning to the Articles we enter a very different atmosphere and approach with regard to Holy Scripture. Article VI is given the title: “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.” It is asserted that the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is to be required of any man as an article of faith or be thought necessary for salvation. So, as Article XX makes very clear, the Church itself, with all its clergy and members, is clearly and necessarily under the authority of the Scriptures and may not impose anything that is contrary to the Word of God written. And even though the Church is in the divine providence “a witness and keeper” of Holy Scripture, it ought not to decree or require anything contrary to the clear teaching of the same.
In terms of interpretation, one part of Scripture is not to be explained and expounded so that it is contrary to another, for there is a basic harmony to the mind and will of God. And in interpretation, there is the basic dogma of the Church in terms of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, which is used as a kind of paradigm and means of understanding the content of the revelation in the Bible (see Articles I-V).
In summary, it may be said that the passionate concern of the Articles is to claim that the Scriptures are above the Church in authority for they are God’s Word, that the Scriptures are clear in their central message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, and that the Church, which is to preserve the Bible intact through space and time, is not to require anything that is clearly contrary to the Scriptures. In contrast, the Outline does not mention the matter of salvation and seems to suggest that the Church is actually above the Scriptures in her ability to state what they mean.
October 11, 2005
posted by John at 11:16 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
An Outline of the Faith (1979) compared with The Articles of Religion (1801): Part 4
4. What is a divine covenant?
If you ask those who favor the progressive liberal innovations of the Episcopal Church during the latter part of the twentieth century, what they regard as the most important part of the 1979 Prayer Book, at least some, perhaps many, will say, “the Baptismal Covenant.” When witnesses appeared before the Liturgical Commission at General Convention a few years ago asking for official permission for parishes to use services from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, they perceived that the only service that could not ever be used from the 1928 BCP was the Baptismal Service! Why? Because the “Baptismal Covenant” of the 1979 Service is central to the practical theology of the modern Episcopal Church. It presents God and human beings on near equal terms and it commits them all to working for peace and justice.
Therefore, it is most interesting to note that in the Outline two sections are devoted to the theme of covenant, the third and seventh. The definition of covenant is as follows: “A covenant is a relationship initiated by God, to which a body of people responds in faith.”
Here we find the use of two words that do not normally appear in good translations of the Bible – “relationship” and “initiate”. Though an old English word, “relationship” only came into popular use from the 1960s especially to refer to sexual liaisons as well as short-term or temporary comings together of persons or groups of persons. Regrettably, due to changes in culture and morality, the word now is used both of marriage itself and of that personal, eternal union with God created by regeneration by the Spirit of God. The use of relationship encourages the suggestion that what God wishes to put in place with people is possibly only of temporary duration or belongs only to this world of space and time. (It contrasts with the word “relation” which points to a permanent and lasting union.)
The word “initiate” (much used these days as a noun of the sacrament of baptism!) suggests that God takes the lead, that it is his idea and it is what he wishes. However, when the Bible itself speaks of God and his covenant, strong verbs are used, verbs which suggest that God acted decisively to set in place his covenant (e.g., establish, make, create). In other words, the biblical covenant of grace from God is very much one-sided in that God wills it, creates it, and then he invites and causes people to enter into it, which is always and only on his conditions. The covenant is agreed and established (e.g., between The Father and the Son Incarnate) before any baptized believer actually enters into it. And he who enters can do so only in the way God has appointed. There is no contract as it were between a major partner and a junior one. The covenant of grace in its Old or New Testament form is a totally one-sided covenant. And it must be so, if it is to be for the full redemption of those who are called into it.
In the Outline the divine covenants are presented as if they are special contracts and thus, for example, the human side of the New Covenant is said to be “to believe in Christ and keep his commandments.” Yet, while it is true that God commands his people to do exactly this, these duties are not presented in the New Testament as conditions of a contract and they are certainly not the means of earning the gift of God which is eternal life.
Turning now to the Articles, we find a very different approach to man’s relation to God and God’s relation to man. Salvation from God, in terms of the justification of sinners, is presented with great clarity and power in XI to XVI. The eleventh begins: “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works and deservings.” Good works are presented as the fruits of Faith; but, they cannot in any way at all put away our sins or turn away God’s judgment from us for our sins. Nevertheless, good works that flow from Faith are pleasing and acceptable to God.
The Articles say nothing specifically as such about “covenants” although they presuppose the existence of the covenant of grace made with Abraham and the people of Israel, of the Mosaic administration of this covenant, and then of the new covenant brought into existence by Christ’s bloody sacrifice. However, and most importantly, in XVII “Of Predestination and Election” the background to the covenant of grace and redemption is made very clear. And that background is nothing less than the everlasting purposes of God and his decrees. (Of these matters the Outline has nothing to say.)
To summarize. For the Outline, God and humankind are partners, with God taking the initiative, but ready to allow human beings to have their say. For the Articles, the Persons of the Trinity are “Partners” in establishing the covenant of grace and into this human beings are graciously and generously called! And this distinction portrays an important theological difference between Rite II and the Services of the classic BCP.
October 11, 2005
posted by John at 11:13 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
An Outline of the Faith (1979) compared with The Articles of Religion (1801): Part 3
3. Who is Jesus?
Do the Outline and Articles have the same estimate, doctrine and evaluation of Jesus? Or are there differences? Obviously if the claim is that Jesus is really the Saviour of the whole world then who he really is counts, and counts tremendously.
In section six of the Outline, “Jesus is the only Son of God” in the sense that he “is the only perfect image of the Father and shows us the nature of God,” and that nature is love. “By God’s own act, his divine Son received our human nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother”. And “the divine Son became human, so that in him human beings might be adopted as children of God, and be made heirs of God’s kingdom.” By his obedience to God, Jesus “made the offering which we could not make; in him we are freed from the power of sin and reconciled to God.” And “by his resurrection, Jesus overcame death and opened for us the way of eternal life.”
In contrast, Article II (following Article I on the Holy Trinity) describes Jesus as he is presented in the decrees of the ecumenical councils of the Church. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and as such, as the Incarnate Son & Logos (Word), he is One Person with two natures. That is, he possesses the identical, same deity as does the Father and also he possesses the same human nature as his earthly mother, the Virgin Mary. And as this One Person, this Christ who is very God and very Man, he truly suffered, was dead, was buried” in order to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt but also for the actual sins of men.” He then rose from the dead and in his body he ascended into heaven.
Whilst the Articles clearly commit the Church to the dogma of the Trinity set forth by the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon (see Article I & V), it is not clear at all what doctrine of the Trinity the Outline assumes or commends. There is no section on God as Trinity but the last question in section eight on the Creeds asks, “What is the Trinity.” The answer is based upon the innovatory, opening Acclamation of the Eucharist and other Rite Two services. It reads: “The Trinity is one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Now this statement because of its form and its content can be read in a variety of ways, virtually all of which produce a doctrine that is different from the Catholic dogma of Articles I & II & V.
It may be read as stating that God as Trinity means that the One Person of God makes himself known in three essential Ways or Modes of Being – as Father, as Son and as Holy Spirit. This is Modalism or Sabellianism or Unitarianism. It may also be read as stating that God is a Threesome, in the sense that he is the unity of Three beings of equal or similar nature. This is Tritheism. Or it may be read – but this requires a great act of imagination and charity – as a careless summary of the patristic doctrine. This is: God is a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity, and that the Three Persons of the Trinity are one God, in that they all share and possess the one identical Godhead and are thus of identical substance/essence/being as and with each other.
Nowhere in the Outline is Jesus as Son of God said to be homoousios with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that is of the one, same identical divine nature. Further, although in section nine on the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is called “the Third Person of the Trinity”, this is immediately defined as “God at work in the world and in the Church”, whereas the primary reference in Trinitarian discourse is normally to his position within the Trinity, as proceeding from the Father through the Son (see Article V).
If the Nicene Creed is removed from the Rite II texts, then it may be reasonably claimed that they do not possess, clearly teach or affirm week by week the biblical and catholic doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ. Regrettably the translation of this Creed within the same Rite II texts is faulty at various points (e.g. in stating that Jesus was conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit” when the original is that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person himself!) and so the orthodoxy of the Rite II texts is further in question with the use of this Creed. Only on Trinity Sunday with the special Preface and Collect is there any real sense of the presence of Catholic dogma and teaching.
In contrast, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity permeates the text of the Book of Common Prayer (1662/1928) and the Ordinal.
October 11, 2005
posted by John at 11:44 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
An Outline of the Faith (1979) compared with The Articles of Religion (1801): Part 2
2. Human being as a sinner
If both the Articles and Outline are correct in their estimate of human nature then human beings have improved dramatically in terms of their moral and spiritual being in the last two centuries!
The Outline begins with a heading, “Human Nature’”, which contains a description of human beings as part of God’s creation and made in his image (which is defined as being free to make choices and live in harmony with both creation and God). Then it explains that human beings have not used their freedom aright for they have made wrong choices and thereby rebelled against God.
So who can help them? God can! And his first way of helping the human race was by his revealing of himself in nature and history, particularly Israel’s history. In this history (dealt with in section 2, “God the Father”) God revealed himself as “the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.” The universe is good and is “the work of a single loving God who creates, sustains and directs it.” Further, within the created order all people are worthy of respect and honor and all as made in God’s image can respond to the love of God.
What about sin? It is presented as the wrong use of freedom and of making bad choices. There is no permanent “bondage of the will” here to sin and thus “all can respond to the love of God” anywhere at any time. In fact, in the fifth section, ‘Sin and Redemption,” sin is defined as “the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other people and with all creation.” Further, it is claimed that “sin has power over us because we lose out liberty when our relationship with God is distorted
In the Outline, the type of doctrine found in the Rite 2 Services of the 1979 book is summarized. It is a theology which rightly emphasizes that God is the Creator of the universe and what he made was good. At the same time it is a theology which fails to identify clearly the biblical basis of the revealed name of “the Father” (which is not, as suggested in section 2, because he is Creator of all persons, but rather because he is the Father of the only-begotten Son, the eternal Word). Then, it presents a doctrine of human sinfulness which omits any reference to sin as a permanent disease or bias of the soul. That is there is actual sin but not “original sin.”
If we turn to the Articles then we find that they begin not with human nature but with the primary Christian doctrine, God the Holy Trinity, the One God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Creator of the visible and invisible worlds. Then they speak of the Incarnation of the Son, so that he becomes One Person, with a divine and a human nature, and as such he lives, dies as a sacrifice for sin and is raised from the dead.
We may regret that the Articles do not provide any statements of man made in the image of God. In the sixteenth century this doctrine was assumed by Catholics and Protestants as a given, as was also the doctrine that this image is now deface and corrupted in all of us. But the Articles do deal fully with human sin which they describe in that tradition of biblical theology that is usually called Augustinian. And here the difference between the 1979 doctrine and the Reformed Catholic is great. Article IX is entitled “Of Original or Birth-Sin” and Article X “Of Free Will.” Here each of us is declared to have from birth a human nature that is not perfect for it already is spiritually deformed and has a bias towards evil. This human nature will only be fully sanctified and redeemed with the resurrection of the body at the last Day. In this life God provides regeneration, new birth by the Holy Spirit from above, which introduces into the soul a new principle, a new nature, which by grace mortifies the old nature and enables the born-again believer to live in the freedom of Christ. Without the divine act of regeneration, each person remains in bondage to sin for the human will is not free to choose to do that true good which is acceptable to God, the Holy One.
In the Articles, the doctrine of the sinfulness of man is stated in order to present the doctrine of God’s salvation provided through the saving work of Jesus Christ as the Mediator (see especially Articles XI to XV on the doctrine of Justification by Faith through Grace). At the center of the Book of Common Prayer (1662/1928) service of Holy Communion is the presentation of Salvation from the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit, in which salvation man is justified by faith and is sent forth to produce good works in faithfulness to the glory of God. In contrast, the Rite II services lack the depth and clarity of the Reformed Catholic presentation of justification by faith.
October 11, 2005
posted by John at 10:05 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Monday, October 10, 2005
An Outline of the Faith (1979) compared with The Articles of Religion (1801): Part 1
1. Origins of each
Each major Church or denomination normally has a Confession of Faith wherein what it officially believes, teaches and confesses is presented. Of these the most used in recent times is The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a major book in terms of its size. Further, it can only be describes as being traditional in its teaching and attractive in its format.
The Catechism printed in the ECUSA Prayer Book of 1979 (pp.844ff.) and known as “An Outline of the Faith” was created in an exceptionally novel way. The committee given the task of producing it were told to follow the principle of “the rule of praying is the rule of believing” [ lex orandi lex credendi], which was then a popular slogan, and to examine carefully the Texts in the 1979 Prayer Book, which address God as “You” and are usually called “the Rite Two” texts, in order to find in them what is the Faith of the Episcopal Church. Texts taken over with editing from the 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and placed in the 1979 Book, and which address God as “Thou,” were not to be used.
The ECUSA wished to have a truly modern confession of Faith based on the creative work of their liturgists. Earlier it had rejected the draft of a Catechism on traditional Anglican lines produced by an official committee, chaired by Bishop Stanley Atkins of Eau Claire.
Thus “An Outline of the Faith” is unique as an Anglican Confession of Faith for it is not that Faith which is believed, taught and confessed on the basis of the content of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Rather, it is based on the presumption that modern American liturgists, who create new forms of liturgy in a hurry and in the atmosphere of the 1960s, place within these Services the truth of the Christian Faith (even when it is different from the official teaching of the past in both the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion). This approach to creating a Confession of Faith presupposes a strong doctrine of authority of the General Convention and autonomy by the ECUSA in approving first the Liturgy and then the Confession, and a weak doctrine of relations with the other Provinces of the Anglican Family of Churches and with Anglican and Catholic tradition.
In the various editions (e.g., 1662, 1928) of the classic Book of Common Prayer [BCP], there is printed along with the BCP itself, the Ordinal (Ordination Services) and the Articles of Religion. These Three have always been the Formularies and Standards of the Anglican Way. Also within the BCP itself there is a short Catechism, based on the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, and associated with Confirmation.
The Articles of Religion were first officially approved in 1571 in the Church of England, after the BCP had been in use for twenty years or so. However, they were first written at the time when the BCP itself was also being created. They were certainly not based on the principle of “the law of praying is the law of believing” but on that of confessing and stating what the Christian Faith, based on the Bible, is all about, and how a National Church is to confess that Faith.
When the Articles were adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church [PECUSA] in 1801 they were edited so that their content was not related to a monarchy but to a new republic. However, their teaching on the content of the Faith and what is essential and what is secondary in a National Church or Province remained fully in place. These Articles remained as the Confession of Faith of the PECUSA and then ECUSA until 1979 when they were relegated to the status of a historical document without any doctrinal authority at all.
Since the longish 1979 Catechism is deliberately unlike the short original Catechism of the BCP, and since it effectively serves the same place now as the Articles of Religion once did in terms of being a Formulary of the Episcopal Church, our contrast will be -- in subsequent short essays -- between the 1979 Catechism and the 1571 (England) and 1801 (USA) Articles. We shall discover that they present two very different accounts of the Christian Religion and Christian Church. (And we need to hold in mind that the ECUSA has actually continued its progressive journey since 1979 and that its next “Outline” due by 2010 will probably be much more radical than that of 1979!) A final comment -- If we were to contrast the longish 1979 Catechism with the shortish & 1928BCP Catechism we would come to the same results, but with less detail of major points.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon October 10, 2005
posted by John at 4:57 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Who is prepared to challenge the modern Episcopal DUO? : What Episcopalians believe, teach and confess and how it matters
Mission statements have been popular for many types of organization for several decades. There is however often a big gap between that which is promised in the statement and that which is delivered on the ground!
In old-line or main-line churches and denominations there is often also a vast difference between the original statements of Faith of these churches, which are often still in place in a legal sense, and what we may call the practical theology which guides the agenda and work of the denomination at national and local levels. Take the large Lutheran Church known as the ELCA for example. While the Catechisms and Confessions of Faith from Lutheran Germany in the sixteenth century are still in place, their doctrine has little practical relevance and is little found in the life of this Church today. Instead, what tends to dominate is what may be termed a practical theology which is progressive and which embraces much of the human rights agenda of modern society. Lip service only seems to be paid to the Catechisms of Luther, the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord.
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is in full fellowship with the ELCA. Yet, unlike the ELCA, it has not kept its original sixteenth-century statements, standards, and formularies of Faith. It set them aside and effectively abandoned them in 1979 when it adopted a new Prayer Book, wherein is a new set of services for ordination and a new Outline of Faith. (These three effectively replaced the traditional Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal & Thirty-Nine Articles.)
The new doctrine of the new standards of 1979 may be described as “vaguely liberal catholic with a strong ecumenical flavor” and it contrasts with the distinctive Reformed Catholicism of the traditional Anglican formularies. Even so, the agenda and activity of the ECUSA is guided only minimally by the new standards of the 1979 formularies; rather, like the ELCA but in much more pronounced way, the general guide is an aggressive, progressive practical theology. This rejoices to absorb much of the secular themes of rights and liberties, mental health and personal happiness, social justice and peace of western society. It sees God as revealing divine meaning and purpose in the movements of society and in human experience, and it makes biblical norms subservient to these modern insights.
Both the leadership of the ELCA and the ECUSA, but more so in the latter than the former, tend to conflate “God is Love” with “all love is of God,” which assertion and belief effectively deny the very basis of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God, at the same time as opening the door wide to modern developments and innovations in sexuality. (Of course, there are congregations in both ECUSA and ELCA -- again more in the latter than former -- which seek to preserve some of their heritage; but, in each case they represent a minority and seem to have no major voice in the councils of the denomination.)
Bearing in mind that much of the life of the ECUSA is guided by an unwritten but generally accepted, aggressive, progressive, practical theology, it is nevertheless still useful to note the differences between the Faith as officially confessed before 1979 and after 1979. In other words, it is useful in order to get perspective by contrasting the “Confession of Faith” known as “The Thirty-Nine Articles” adopted by the [P]ECUSA in 1801 and “The Outline of Faith” adopted as its replacement in 1979. It may be observed and claimed that it would have been much more difficult for the modern, aggressive, progressive, practical theology to dominate the ECUSA since the 1970s if the new Prayer Book, Ordinal and Outline of Faith had not been in place. The reason for saying this is simple. The modern practical theology is so radically different to the theology of Reformed Catholicism in the traditional Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Articles that laity would have been much more conscious of the massive changes that were occurring. In contrast, the “vague liberal catholic theology with an ecumenical flavor” of the 1979 standards presents an easier context in which to live by a new, progressive practical theology of human rights, universal peace and justice, and self-fulfillment!
What does seem as clear as the distinction between day and night is that there can be no renewal of the ECUSA in true godliness and no recovery of genuine evangelical and catholic Faith, while the 1979 standards are in place and while the progressive practical theology effectively guides the leadership at national, diocesan and parish levels. BUT who is prepared to challenge this DUO?
I intend to offer several short studies contrasting the doctrines of the pre-1979 Confession of Faith with those of the post-1979 Confession.
October 10, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 4:55 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Councils and Conventions may err and have erred.
That missing Article of Religion dropped by the PECUSA and recovered (but only as historical text) in the ECUSA
When the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted The Articles of Religion in 1801 as a Formulary (to stand alongside the American editions of The Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal of 1789 & 1792), it did not adopt them exactly as they are found in The Book of Common Prayer (1662) of the Church of England.
For example, Article XXI “Of the Authority of General Councils” of the original Articles is not printed in the American 1801 edition. But these words of explanation are provided: “The Twenty-first…is omitted because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.” Thus those who used the various printings of the 1789 edition of BCP after 1801 and then of the various printings of the 1892 & 1928 editions never really knew what was in Article XXI, as it had existed in the Church of England from 1571.
In 1979 the Episcopal Church of the USA (having dropped “Protestant” from its title) rejected The Articles as a Formulary of the Church (as it also rejected the classic BCP & Ordinal). Yet, it decided to print them as a historical document in very small print at the back of its new Formulary, the Prayer Book of 1979. And here, since it was an historical document without any authority, the text of the original Article XXI from the English BCP was printed in full:
“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary for salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
Why had the Convention of the PECUSA rejected this Article in 1801? Basically because it referred to Christian Princes/Kings, who in the sixteenth century were the only ones, apart from the Pope, who were seen as having authority to call together a church council. The USA was a republic and in 1801 supremely conscious of being so!
However, with hindsight we can see that the essence of this Article is truly a word of wisdom to national churches as well as to provincial churches, including both the PECUSA & ECUSA, not to mention the C of E. If General Councils may err and have erred (the Reformers were thinking primarily of the Councils called by the Pope during the period from the seventh ecumenical council held in Nicea in the eighth century through to the sixteenth century at Trent) then how much more may and have local church synods and conventions. And they have erred and may err because, like the Medieval Church they set themselves above the Word of God written, that is, above its doctrinal and moral norms and contrary to its principles of worship and prayer.
And local general conventions and synods have probably erred more in the last fifty years than at any other period since the lade middle ages! The liberated ECUSA (no longer the PECUSA with its Reformed Catholicism from the ecclesia anglicana) decided to have new formularies – new services, new doctrine, new catechism, new orders of Ministry, new morality, new language for God and man, new canons, new relations with other Anglican provinces – by the exercise of its democratic procedures. Yet in most of its innovations it has erred and it continues to err, and of this going astray from the Word of God written not a few of its leaders are very proud! Further, and most regrettably, some who do not favor its most recent errors (e.g., in homosexuality) seem to enjoy living with its older errors (e.g., in marriage norms and rules and in the doctrinal content of liturgy) and also think themselves to be worthy of the name “orthodox”.
Lord have mercy upon us.
Christ have mercy upon us.
Lord have mercy upon us.
October 9, 2005
posted by John at 3:49 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
The Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Roman Catholic Mass and the Anglican Eucharist & their internal variations
In the Orthodox Church there are four Eucharistic Liturgies used. The most common is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the liturgy used on all Sundays except those which fall during the Great Lent, and all holy days on which a eucharistic liturgy is served except for the eves of Pascha, Christmas and Theophany, Holy Thursday, and the feastday of St. Basil the Great (January 1). The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, used on the Sundays of Great Lent, Holy Thursday, the Eves of Pascha, Christmas, and Theophany, and the Feast of St. Basil the Great. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts which is actually an extended Vespers service at which Holy Communion which was consecrated on the previous Sunday is distributed. The Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts is used during weekdays of Great Lent when the full celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy is prohibited. The Liturgy of St. James, is served only in certain places on the feast day of St. James the "Brother of the Lord" and first Bishop of Jerusalem.
The differences between the Liturgy of St Chrysostom and St Basil are (from the perspective of doctrine, structure and content) minimal; and the very rarely used Liturgy of St James is similar to both. Further, what the Orthodox Churches decree and permit has remained the same for centuries and there is no sign of change in 2005.
Not too long ago the Roman Catholic Church had one basic structure and content of the Mass (so-called Tridentine form) and also allowed other ancient Rites (e.g., that of Milan and those of the Orthodox tradition [see above] in the “Eastern” churches under the Roman See).
Likewise not too long ago the Anglican family of Churches had one basic structure and content of the Eucharist (from the classic BCP of 1662 ) and with this were minimal variations of style, content and ceremonial, as required by local culture or by churchmanship.
Since Vatican II in the mid-1960s, the Roman Catholic Church has multiplied its offering of Liturgies for the Mass in its own Sacramentary. Now there are four basic ones and at least another eight possibilities.
Also since the 1960s, the Anglican Churches (primarily of the West/North) have multiplied their offering of Texts for the Eucharist so that there have been hundreds authorized by Synods in the last forty years or so. Of these many have been discarded for there is a continual stream of new ones being produced.
It is said that that which binds the modern RC and Anglican varied Rites together is that they each have a common structure with common elements. In the case of Rome, there is also a reasonable claim of a minimal common doctrine as well; but, in the case of the massive Anglican variety, it is most difficult to find within the usual common structure (the sandwich of the Ministry of the Word, the Peace, and the Ministry of the Sacrament) a common doctrine of The Holy Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ & the Nature of the Sacrament. This is highly regrettable for common structure/shape cannot be a substitute for common doctrine. (Even with the Creed, Commandments and Lord’s Prayer different translations or paraphrases are used!)
Thus it is that serious-minded Christians ask:
Why is it that some modern Christians require so much variety in that which is the central Service to God and for man of the Christian Church? What did Roman Catholics and Anglicans lack in terms of sacramental worship and grace before the modern variety was thrust upon them by their liturgists, synods and hierarchy? Would it not be wise to reduce the variety dramatically in the Anglican Way [as also in the R C Church] and return to the text of the classic BCP with perhaps the use of a sound, contemporary English version of the BCP Rite as an alternative? Are not two enough and are not Two more than sufficient to be one means of uniting the Anglican Family as it tears itself apart through controversy and distrust?
October 10, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
posted by John at 3:44 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Friday, October 07, 2005
Lift up that Base-Ball Cap from covering your eyes! THE CLOSING OF THE ANGLICAN MIND TO ALL THINGS ANGLICAN
I often wear a base-ball cap – in summer to keep the sun’s light and heat off my head (with its small bald patch) and in winter to keep my brains warm so that I can continue to engage in rational thought. It strikes me that too many Episcopalians and Anglicans from all parts of the doctrinal and ritualist spectrum in North America are like people wearing caps that are pulled down right over their eyes, for they cannot see the specific things that are Anglican in Anglicanism. They appear to be blind to that which were for centuries the basics of the Anglican Way. And the blindness is widespread, of the right as of the left, and of evangelicals as well as anglo-catholics, and of conservatives as well as liberals.
Before I say more, here is a true story as told originally by Bishop FitzSimmons Allison. In the 1970s when he was a professor at Virginia Seminary he was asked by a colleague at the University of the South to collect signatures from fellow professors in favor of printing The Thirty-Nine Articles in the new Prayer Book of the ECUSA (approved by General Convention in 1976 & 1979). He managed to collect thirteen signatures out of the twenty-three professors there, and his friend at Sewanee could only manage one signature and that was of a Lutheran member of the Faculty at Sewanee. Let it be clear – those who signed were not saying that they agreed to or liked this Formulary of the Anglican Way, but only that it be included in an appendix! Here we see in the 1970s the closing of the Anglican mind to essential Anglican things in Faculties set up to foster and propagate this mind.
The same attitude was widely present in the 1970s in the ECUSA towards the other two Formularies of the Anglican Way – the classic Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal – and both were discarded by the ECUSA in 1976/79 in favor of a novel prayer book in which are provided novel services for ordinations. Happily, the Articles did get into the new prayer book, but only as a historical document and only in a very small print size so that few can read it without a magnifying glass.
No wonder that the Articles (approved by the Church of England in 1571 and the Episcopal Church of the USA in 1801) are read and examined in 2005 by very few clergy and laity. What they contain is not known by the majority and yet various stories are passed on about their contents which are at best inadequate and at worst erroneous. Anglo-Catholics express hatred of them because of what they are supposed to say negatively about Roman doctrine and Evangelicals think that they are irrelevant because they are not primarily about mission and evangelism and because they are written in a traditional form of English.
May I suggest that especially those who claim to be the “orthodox” remnant in the ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada ought to pull up their caps from covering their eyes, so that they are able to begin to see the foundations of the Anglican Way and embrace them for what they have been and are. May I also suggest that they need to make the effort to open their minds to “things Anglican,” and to this end consider reading carefully and meditatively the Three classic Formularies of the Anglican Way, and actually using the Book of Common Prayer a little for worship!
To my fellow Evangelicals I say: There is nothing wrong and everything right to be concerned about mission and evangelism, church growth and church planting, as well as to be wholly committed to the Lordship of Jesus and the Authority of Scripture, BUT NOT AT THE COST OF closing the mind to things Anglican! For as Christians we have to belong to a given jurisdiction and to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and thus to a fullness of ecclesial life, worship, doctrine, and discipline. The Formularies point to this fullness and that is why we cannot ignore them!
Peter Toon October 7, 2005
posted by John at 4:25 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Recognizing the disease and looking for the cure
A call to self-examination by all Episcopalians
It is generally agreed that of all Anglican Provinces the Episcopal Church USA has advanced the most in the incorporation of innovations into its constitution, canons, formularies, worship, doctrine, discipline, practice and common life. And it is generally agreed that many of these innovations represent a major change of what was the case and situation previously.
From the perspective of the historic, classical and biblical Anglican Way, the ECUSA as an institution, along with many of its dioceses and parishes, is apostate, in that it has knowingly and deliberately departed from the Faith and Morality, the Worship and Order, that it was committed to, previous to the late 1960s. Within its membership are those, regrettably but a minority, who protest at this apostasy and who desire this Church to engage in a spiritual and moral U-turn.
When a whole Church is in apostasy, it is infected with a particular contagious disease that has moral and spiritual dimensions. And all the members, clergy and laity, have this disease whether they approve or disapprove of the latest innovations in apostasy. Now the signs of the disease may be prominent or hidden but the disease is there affecting all, for all belong to the One Body and have much in common (not least being the health schemes and the pension plans). And like the diseases of original and actual sin, all those who have this disease of apostasy are guilty before God. In fact no member of the ECUSA is without this disease and so all partake of the guilt it brings.
There is much about apostasy in the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic descriptions and denunciations, as the covenant people are called to forsake their evil ways and to engage in repentance and faith. And there is not a little in the New Testament in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles about apostasy (which was relatively common even in the apostolic age!), calling the people of the new covenant to return to their first love and then mature in this pure faith.
Apostasy includes such terrible sins as rebellion against God, his revelation and his laws, pride instead of humility, untruths instead of truth, immorality instead of morality, affirmation of sinful man instead of the magnifying of the Lord our God, the love of this world and its ways instead of the love of Christ and his kingdom of glory, and so on.
The ECUSA has systematically, democratically and knowingly set aside much of its holy inheritance in terms of dogma, doctrine, teaching, worship, pastoral care, and godly discipline, as it has sought to be relevant to the modern world and to reflect the concerns, priorities and values of the secularized society in which it exists. It has attempted to be in this world and for this world by being of this world, looking for peace and justice, understood in modern terms.
Every time people in the pew or the priest in the chancel pick up the primary prayer book of this church they set forth and share in this apostasy. As a starter, they participate in the act of piracy of the General Convention in stealing a title for this book, and they participate in its adoption of a lie in calling the prayer book they use, “The Book of Common Prayer,” for it is not truly such at all. It is in the style and form of “A Book of Alternative Services” and is not a genuine continuation of the American editions of the authentic Book of Common Prayer. Further, and alarmingly, they participate in the rejection of the receive doctrinal and worship standards of the Anglican Way (the Articles, the classic BCP and Ordinal) as they adopt the innovatory doctrine of the 1979 formulary.
Then, within the pages of the 1979 book, and more so in its companion, Enriching our Worship (1991) they use forms of words that are deliberate changes in the way in which God is known and addressed, and all in order to make radical feminists happy with the type of language used of and for Deity. In using the Psalter they effectively remove Jesus from their prayers for he is “the Man” of Psalm 1 who has been made into the androgynous “they” for Episcopalians. In using Acclamations to begin the Eucharist, they dumb down the proclamation of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity, and in using virtually any of the options for the Eucharistic Prayer, they negate the doctrine of justification by faith through grace as well as other prominent doctrines of the Work of Christ set forth in The Articles of Religion (1801) of the ECUSA. And when they use the Outline of Faith in the Prayer Book with its “liberal catholic theology” they proclaim a rejection of the doctrine set forth in the historic, classical and received Formularies of the Anglican Way.
Then, almost each time there is a wedding in the parish and where one or both of the parties is a divorcee they accept that there has been a major departure from the rules for marriage of both the Scriptures and the Anglican Way. Each time they call a Minister who is divorced and remarried or married to a divorcee they share in the apostasy. Further, each time they attend an ordination or sit under the ministry of a female bishop, or even female presbyter, they accept that the Episcopal Church has created a new Ordinal and new Ministry which is a major departure from the norm of the Anglican Way as set forth in The Ordinal of 1792.
Thus it is not only the rejection of the received holy tradition of worship, doctrine and discipline, it is also the adoption of new doctrine, forms of worship and morality. Further, there is a pernicious but seemingly attractive ethos and a style that marks the apostasy. This is exhibited, for example, in the often-heard remark to those with problems of conscience: “Concentrate only on the sexual aberrations of 2004 and do not raise other matters going back to the 1960s. They can be dealt with later. One thing at a time” Here a supposedly political strategy for success is being offered as a way of not facing the depth and length of the apostasy, which is being effectively reduced to the adoption of homosexual innovations! So those who oppose the sexual innovations continue to live within the very apostasy of which the sexual innovations are but the latest manifestation and fruit. And they justify themselves in the same way that secular politicians do so!
Another strategy to avoid dealing with the depth of the apostasy is to reduce the Anglican Way to a kind of generic, basic Christian profession – e.g., to the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures (and avoid reference to the larger compass of the Formularies). This generalized kind of statement, which has no specific reference to worship, Ministry or dogma, allows people in practice to avoid facing the question as to whether the Prayer Book they use and the ceremonial, ritual practices they allow and follow do actually stand up to the test of the Lordship of Christ In fact they tend to assume that everything is really OK with the ECUSA apart from its sexual innovations and a few other odd things here and there. Further, a version of the Bible is often used by them (based on the theory of dynamic equivalency) which actually serves the purpose of dulling and minimizing the actual authority of the sacred Text!
And, regrettably, we need to be clear that leaving the ECUSA and setting up a new congregation is not in itself a cure of the disease. The disease has to be diagnosed and treated until it is under control and finally healed. Perhaps too many who are only partly healed on exiting the ECUSA are setting up churches and unconsciously building into their new life aspects of the apostasy of the ECUSA! So this disease is not cured and will grow again.
Whether we are inside or outside of the ECUSA we need HEALING of our diseases, both individually and corporate, by the God of our Salvation and the Healer of our souls and bodies. This is a most painful and demanding task and experience.
LORD, have mercy upon us all.
Peter Toon October 6, 2005
posted by John at 2:46 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Why is the historic Ordinal bound into the classical Prayer Book as a Formulary?
A discussion starter
Few Anglicans ever read the services used for the ordaining of deacons and priests and the consecrating of bishops. Apparently, they do not see any direct relevance of these services to their attempts to live as Christians in the modern world. Maybe they do not even know where to find these services!
Well, inside the covers of the pew editions of The Book of Common Prayer (1662/1928/1962) there is the Psalter and also three basic texts – 1. that which is really and truly the Prayer Book, containing many services; 2. that which is the Book of Ordination Services or Ordinal, and 3. that which is the Confession of Faith, known as The Articles of Religion. The three together constitute the Formularies of the Anglican Way and are listed as such in the Constitution and Canons of Anglican Churches around the world. They provide form and shape, content and meaning, to the Churches known as Anglican, which profess the Christian Faith as Reformed Catholicism.
But why should the Ordinal, “The Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priest and Deacons,” be printed inside the covers of “The Book of Common Prayer” and why be a Formulary of the Church? The answer in simple terms is this: because the ordained Ministry is by Christ’s will and appointment an indispensable part of the shape and content of the Church of God, and thus this Ministry has to be defined, set apart and put in place within the [province of the Anglican] Church in an orderly and decent manner.
In the USA edition of The Thirty-Nine Articles, included within the 1928 edition of The Book of Common Prayer the following is found:
XXXVI Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it anything that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
The wording here of course is similar to, but not identical with, that in the English version of The Articles of Religion. The English version refers to the setting forth by the Crown and Parliament not by a General Convention or Synod of the Church in a newly independent nation.
The Preface to the Ordinal makes the claim that the Threefold Ministry may be traced back to the apostolic age and has been in place in the Church over the centuries. It insists that all ordinations are to be performed in a reverent and godly manner and that each candidate for holy orders is to be known to be “a person who is a man of virtuous conversation [= daily living] and without crime.” Then the content of each of the three services requires that candidates be properly called, examined and ordained. The charges to the deacon, priest and bishop give a most important picture of the vocation and work of the Threefold Ministry in the Church.
Most regrettably and foolishly, the Episcopal Church in 1976/79 set aside The Articles and the Ordinal, as well as The Book of Common Prayer (1928), as Formularies and put in their place one Formulary, the innovatory Prayer Book of 1979, in which are(a) an “Outline of the Faith” to replace the Articles, and (b) “Episcopal Services” for ordinations to replace the Ordinal [together with a Psalter in inclusive language to make traditional use of the Psalter as the prayer of Christ in his Body impossible].
What are some of the innovations in the present Ordinal of the ECUSA?
The Christian Faith which is presupposed as that which the clergy are to teach and defend is the doctrine [= a type of 1960s liberal Catholicism] summarized in the Outline of Faith in the same Prayer Book wherein are the ordination services. Thus there is a question as to whether those ordained by this Ordinal are ordained into the historic Catholic Faith or whether they are ordained to teach and defend a revised form of Anglican Faith.- The Threefold Ministry that is presupposed by the Ordinal of 1979 is a Ministry which is composed of both sexes, female and male. And thus there is a question as to whether a new kind of Ministry began in 1979 which cannot be traced back further than the 1970s and is a Ministry which is different in character and nature to that presupposed and described in the Preface to the classic Anglican Ordinal. Certainly those ordained are legally ministers of the ECUSA, but are they more than this, ministers of the Catholic Church, in the historical succession of both Faith and Order?
- The shape or structure of the services is based not upon Reformed Catholicism (as is the classic Ordinal) but on a reconstruction of what some scholars believe were the services of ordination before the reign of Constantine the Great and before the supposed “hellenization” of the teaching of the Church. Does this search for novelty suggest the desire to begin in the 1970s a new form of Ministry that sets aside the crucial developments of dogma and order in the major part of the patristic age and of the reforming movement of the sixteenth century?
It would seem that for doctrinal and pastoral reasons, and in order to deal with cases of conscience amongst clergy and laity, there are very good reasons to recover the classic Ordinal for immediate use (and if those to use it are unhappy with addressing God and ministers as “Thou” then the whole thing can be rendered into a decent contemporary English for the relief of their concerns and they can address God as “You”!). I guess that the American Anglican Council, the Network, the AMiA, Anglicans United and the FinFNA are all thinking seriously about these matters for they want surely to know that the Ministry they support is truly a Catholic and Apostolic one.
October 6, 2005 Peter Toon
posted by John at 11:44 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Do the Articles of Religion & The Book of Common Prayer belong to the same Religion? Can the Articles be effectively ignored?
THINKING ALOUD, not speaking the last word! And expecting some tough responses!
In terms of historical sequence, The Book of Common Prayer with The Ordinal existed and were fully approved and in use before The Articles of Religion were officially accepted by Queen Elizabeth I until 1571. So one could say that Reformed Catholicism as the Religion of the Church of England and the Anglican Way did exist and can exist without the Articles as its Confession of Faith. And anglo-catholic missionary societies took this position when they established churches abroad in the late 19th century and early 20th, for they listed in the constitutions only two Formularies, the BCP and the Ordinal, and did not mention the Articles.
However, if one does a careful study of the explicit and implicit doctrine of the BCP of 1662 and then of the official national editions of the same BCP in Canada (1962) and the USA (1789 & 1928) one will certainly find exactly the same positive doctrine as is found in the Articles concerning the identity of God as the Holy Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, human sin and salvation, justification by faith, the two dominical Sacraments and so on. What is obviously not so explicit in the BCP as in the Articles is the rejection of medieval Roman doctrine and practice. However, in the BCP there is no trace of the medieval Roman or the Tridentine dogma/doctrine concerning the Eucharist or salvation in Christ that is rejected by the Articles. And did not Gregory Dix (of The Shape of the Liturgy fame) claim that the BCP Order for Holy Communion was a near perfect embodiment of the doctrine of justification by faith in a Service?
The ways in which those who have been called anglo-catholics and who reject the Articles as a Formulary (and confine them to the status of a historical document from the 16th century) have been able to remain in the Anglican Way are several – e.g., by omitting the Articles from the Constitution and local editions of the BCP; by using the modern R C Missal (as many in FinF of England do) and justifying their rejection of the Articles and use of the Missal on the basis of a future union with the Roman See [what shall be, they say, justifies what is]; by adding to the BCP from the Tridentine Missal those sections which contain the doctrine specifically rejected by the Articles, and producing the Anglican Missal[s] as the Altar Book (as anglo-catholics in the Continuing Churches of the USA and in a few parishes of the ECUSA do); and by expounding the Articles in such a way as to permit Catholic practice today when the plain sense appears to ordinary folks to forbid it (we recall that Newman tried to do this and realized it was really an impossible task!).
It may be recalled that one of the reasons why anglo-catholics in the ECUSA were excited about the 1979 Prayer Book was that it seemed to give them what they had been asking for in terms of “catholic services” (howbeit, as they later came to realize, injected with a liberal theology and allowing female ordination!) and that it relegated the Articles to an appendix printed in small type and called a historical document.
The Formulary of the ECUSA is right now the 1979 prayer book, with its Catechism and its Ordination services. This is indeed a “liberal Catholic” Formulary in terms of its theology and as such it is neither in conformity to the Reformed Catholic doctrine of the Articles nor the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Anglican/American Missal used by anglo-catholics in the ECUSA before and after 1979 and in the Continuing Churches from 1977. This “liberal theology” has progressed rapidly (see, e.g., the official Enriching our Worship and will be even more advanced in the next “Prayer Book” of the ECUSA due this decade).
But back to the Articles and the classic BCP.
The Church of Nigeria, the largest Church in the Anglican Family, has recently nailed its flag to the mast in terms of commitment to both the BCP & Articles. Other African provinces are in agreement. On the other side of things, the FinF in the UK seems to be clearly resolved to come under the pastoral care of the Bishop of Rome, as also does the Traditional Anglican Communion and various Continuing jurisdictions.
This leaves the possibility of a reduced Anglican Family, which if (and it is a big if) it can shed its extreme liberal wings in the West/North is all set to be able to unite on the basis of the Formularies once again, a doctrinal unity with comprehensiveness of ritual, music and local expressions.
However, uniting on the basis of the Formularies means uniting on a minimum of Two and a maximum of THREE, if the few provinces that have not the Articles in their Constitutions are to have a true place. Not to have the Articles may be taken to mean that they are high-church or mildly anglo-catholic in doctrine and practice and do not want in any way to state they are opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, especially in its post Vatican II form.
There seems to be a space and opportunity in the world today for the kind of dynamic, biblically-based Reformed Catholicism that is the Anglican Way – with its Two or Three Formularies! There is also a larger place for a renewed Roman Catholicism in the world, especially where it holds Bible and Missal with Breviary together (and which anglo-catholics of the Anglican Way have joined)! But there seems to be little or no future for the progressive liberalism of the ECUSA General Convention and leadership!
(For 12 major expositions of the Articles on one CD in Adobe for $20.00 please visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928. These include both high church and low church books by well-known leaders in the Anglican Way.)
Peter Toon, October 5, 2005 thomascranmer2000@yahoo.com
posted by John at 10:18 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571) – how boring!
Very few Anglicans/Episcopalians today actually look at, and even fewer actually read and study, the Confession of Faith of the Anglican Way! This means that few clergy and laity know what it is for the Church of England and the provinces of the Anglican Communion to be known as Reformed Catholic in their Christian religion. Together with the classic Book of Common Prayer and the Ordination Services (Ordinal), the Articles constitute the Formularies of the Anglican Way. (All three Formularies are bound together in the English BCP of 1662, the American BCP of 1928 and the Canadian BCP of 1962. In English Canon Law the Articles are always listed first of the three.)
The Articles of Religion were adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in 1801 and then were bound together with The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal (editions of 1789, 1892 and 1928). So the American Church had the same Formularies as the Church of England from its origins in the 1780s to the late 1970s.
The Church of England has retained these Formularies to this day (2005) but the Episcopal Church rejected them as worship and doctrine standards by majority votes in General Convention in 1976 and then again in 1979. Since then the Articles have been treated as a museum piece without any authority in America. They have been effectively replaced by the radically liberal “Outline of the Faith” printed inside the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church. In contrast, in 2005 the large Anglican Church of Nigeria reaffirmed its commitment to the BCP, Ordinal and Articles and stated that it would only be in fellowship with Churches of the same doctrine (and thus not in communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA).
Let me begin my reflections on the Articles by referring to a famous 19th century bishop, John Charles Ryle. Years ago I made a study of his life and writings as the first Bishop of Liverpool (the diocese where I was ordained in 1973) and then I published several books and articles about him.
Ryle was very much an English Churchman, a committed and loyal member of the Church of England, and he defined his churchmanship, as did all Evangelicals in his day, in terms of his commitment to the doctrine of the Articles of Religion (which are printed at the back of every official copy of the BCP). For him, as for others, The Book of Common Prayer was a most excellent Liturgy, but it was not seen as the confession of faith of the Church. The Confession of Faith was the Articles of Religion and the Prayer Book was the Liturgy wherein the doctrines of the Faith were to be found in the form of prayer and collect, canticle and versicle, rubric and exhortation, preface and addresses, and the shape and structure of the services. And the doctrine of the Ministry, stated in the Articles, was set out in large format in the three services for the making of deacons, ordering of priests and consecrating of bishops (the Ordinal).
Certainly the Articles are a sixteenth century statement of Faith but they may be seen as providing a major signpost and guide through the controversies, debates and divisions of the period of the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. They may also be seen as pointing the way into a Reformed Catholic expression of Christianity that is based on the Scriptures and learns from history and tradition. Further, they may be seen as setting boundaries for this Reformed Catholic Faith, making clear when and where stepping over the line leads into error and heresy, immorality and wickedness.
The Articles are boring to those who are not enthusiastic to know what is the basis and content of Reformed Catholic Faith. Yet this is not surprising for we all know that many important documents are boring, unless one has an interest in their contents – for example, wills and testaments, marriage settlements, constitutions and canons, are boring for most people but extremely important to others who have a personal interest in knowing what is written therein!
A quick survey of the Articles reveals that they contain what may be called the patristic and catholic dogma of God the Holy Trinity, a Trinity of Persons in the One Godhead, and of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, the One Person with Two Natures, Divine and Human. Also they contain what may be called the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation – e.g., the authority of Scripture, the saving and redeeming work of Christ Jesus, the nature of sin, justification by faith issuing in works of love, and the dominical Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Without the Articles of Religion, the Anglican Way is a Way that is not clearly defined and thus a Way in which it is possible to get lost! However, with the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer functioning, as it were, hand in hand, together with the reading and meditating upon the Bible, there is in existence the authentic Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism.
What these two Formularies joined to the Ordinal present to us – as summarized for ordinary folks in the late 16th century – is a simple 1,2,3,4 & 5, which “scheme” was used as the basis for the reforms of the 16th century. The Anglican Way is based upon ONE Canon of Scripture with TWO Testaments, whose doctrinal message is summarized in THREE Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian); and is found in more detail in the decrees and canons of FOUR ecumenical councils [Nicea (325), Constantinople (381) , Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451)] and by the general developments (e.g., Liturgy, threefold Ministry, Church Year, Canon Law and so on) of the first FIVE centuries.
The 1,2,3,4 & 5 are a basis not the whole structure, but without a foundation there is no structure.
So to return to where we began.
The Articles may be boring to many but to those who are committed to the Anglican Way they are exciting and necessary.
Read them!
If the Liturgical Commission of the ECUSA had taken them seriously, they would have produced a much more biblically based and reformed catholic Liturgy for the new Prayer Book of 1979. Why, for example, did not this Commission produce a dynamic equivalent to the services of the classic Prayer Book in contemporary language instead of creating something very different in style, content and doctrine in the Rite II material?
So read the Articles and read the classic BCP and Ordinal along with them! And be pleasantly surprised – even by delight and joy.
October 4, 2005.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 8:32 AM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Orthodox – where are they?
O that all the “ orthodox” were truly Orthodox,
Even as all the “progressives” are really Liberal.
Even as all the “progressives” are really Liberal.
Since the 1960s the progressives within the Episcopal Church have clearly demonstrated their principles, which may generally be called liberal, even radically liberal.
Progressives have gradually adjusted the received doctrines of God, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of sin, of salvation, of the Last Things, of holiness, of morality and of sacraments in order to make them acceptable to contemporary social and cultural norms and values. And further they have adopted theories of translation from one language to another, of exegesis and interpretation of ancient texts, and of how the Deity reveals will and purpose, which make this large-scale task of changing the content of the Faith (while retaining much of its language) possible and even seem necessary and justified.
So the way God is named and addressed has changed and is changing – He is now also She or It and is always You. The way God is conceived has changed and is changing – Deity is now [a] Being that contains within itself (as a child in the womb) the cosmos and so there is a dynamic relation of interfacing between God and cosmos and cosmos and God. Jesus Christ was the human person whose whole being was in tune with Deity and whose Spirit lives on to bless and heal, to comfort and save. The Trinity is a model of fellowship and co-operation for human beings to follow. Women and men are in the evolutionary process but yet are unique in the cosmos; they are to be treated with dignity and respect and afforded all the rights that they desire and require for their happiness and self-esteem. The Church is the community of those who affirm one another and who see God present in their experience and as the One who accepts them just as they are. Talk of the Last Things is a way of encouraging right living and confidence in Deity as the Source of being and fulfillment and working hard for a better world. And so on.
In this progressivism and liberalism, it is required that the insights and developments of society and culture (which are seen as coming from God as Being) be adopted by the Church and adapted for its growth in maturity and understanding. So full rights for all types and kinds of people are absolutely required as being “divine law” ; and everything that stands in the way of this implementation (e.g., from received Prayer Book, Ordinal, Confession of faith, Canon Law, Tradition and stubborn traditionalists) must be removed (by the democratic process where at all possible). In this process, the acceptance of same-sex partnerships as blessed of God and holy before Him/Her/It is merely the most recent of the examples of the march of progressive liberalism.
The God who encloses the cosmos within its Being has yet more to reveal to those who pay attention and do homage. The ECUSA is not yet at the end of its liberal road. God in Experience has much to show and reveal.
The march of progressive liberalism since the 1960s has not occurred without resistance, often great resistance using millions of dollars. But most of the resisters eventually gave up and either left the Church (notice the tremendous drop in membership from the mid 1960s to the year 1980!) or they stayed on after the arrival of the new Prayer Book in 1979 and in so doing usually adjusted what they would accept and define as “orthodox” to what seemed possible in a situation where liberalism held sway. Thus we have arrived at the situation in 2005 when the working definition of “orthodox,” used both by informed commentators and also by those “conservatives” who use the name “orthodox” of themselves, is something like this: “those who accept the Bible, the Creeds, and the 1979 prayer book and also who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman.” [There are a few congregations left in the ECUSA which have maintained the use of the classic Prayer Book in the edition of 1928. But even this tiny minority has been affected by the general ethos of the ECUSA for it is impossible not to share in some way in the general family likeness!]
What the march of liberalism means (for those with a historical overview) is that the “orthodox” of the ECUSA of 2005 are like the liberals of the late 1960s, for they accept serial monogamy even as they reject same-sex marriage, and they accept divorced and remarried clergy [male and female] even as they reject clergy living in same-sex unions. Further, they are like the liberals of 1980 for they accept the 1979 Prayer Book as THE “Book of Common Prayer” and THE Standard of Faith of the ECUSA. In so doing they accept the use of inclusive language for human beings and agree to translations of the Bible (e.g. the Psalter in the 1979 Prayer Book) which incorporate this inclusivism, and further they accept the “reduced” or “dumbed-down” doctrines of God, Christ and salvation written into the Rite II texts and the Catechism of this Book. Finally, they accept that the classic Anglican Formularies (the classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles, which define the Anglican Way) have no place or authority in the ECUSA for they are merely and only historical documents.
In short, the “Orthodox” is a relative term and the “Orthodox” of 2005 in the ECUSA are less liberal in practice than are the “Progressives” who run the Church. However, since the same-sex issue affects people at various levels of their being, from their guts to their ratiocination, it seems to be (and practically speaking is) the great issue, even the final issue and the basis of massive division, that makes the two sides to seem to be as different as chalk is from cheese. Yet in truth they use the same Prayer Book and its rites, they use the same modern versions of the Bible (all incorporating dynamic equivalency and inclusivism), they talk of personal relationships with Jesus who accepts us “just as I am” , and they belong to the same Institution with its many valued aspects (medical benefits, pensions and so on). The division is really between conservative progressives and liberal progressives! Finding genuine “Orthodox” in the ECUSA is like finding a needle in a haystack.
When will the “Orthodox” of ECUSA realize their true identity and seek really to become Orthodox and return to the fullness of the Anglican Way with its worship, doctrine and discipline, its heritage, style and ethos?
Leaving the ECUSA does not make anyone “Orthodox” for she or he departs as an Episcopalian! He and she must leave behind its formularies and ethos and seek to restore for themselves the classic Formularies, heritage and ethos of the Anglican Way. This is a painful and difficult vocation and many who exit seek to avoid it, thinking that ECUSA without its radical sexual innovations is really OK and so outside the ECUSA they carry on much as before, but with greater liberty – as for example appears to be the case with congregations in the AMiA and those individual congregations which have been “adopted” temporarily by foreign bishops !
Where there is a will there is a way! With God all things are possible – even to unify American Anglicans in truth with unity and unity in truth!
O that the “Orthodox” would really become Orthodox and that the Anglican Way of Reformed Catholicism would prosper again on American soil.
Peter Toon October 4, 2005
posted by John at 3:19 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
Finding Common Ground for the Distressed Anglican Way
A proposal to create discussion and prayerful investigation
Anglicans worldwide are finding that the so-called “Instruments of Unity” are not apparently much good at unifying. In the twenty-first century that have been seen to lack authority and efficacy to create spiritual, centripetal forces to overcome the powerful spiritual, centrifugal forces which presently are tearing the Anglican family apart.
Fine words and sentiments, even wise pronouncements and claims of bonds of affection from Lambeth Palace, the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and Bishops here and there (and from the last Lambeth Conference of 1998) do no seem to be having any positive effect towards unifying dysfunctional, even warring, family members in truth and love. It is clear that the “Instruments of Unity” are obviously not going to be the sole or even primary means of making the divided Anglican family into a genuine Communion of [autonomous] Churches. To those who think that they can and will be, the words of the psalmist speak to us: “Put not your trust in princes….”
What united Anglicans fifty years ago (and for centuries before then), and allowed there to be “bonds of affection”, was a deep sense of having something in common, something that was more than a shared history, heritage and hope. That something in common existed in the center, as it were, of the vital common heritage of devotion and piety, of church planting and growth, of the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops, and the creation of dioceses and provinces. It was a shared Liturgy, a profound yet simple Liturgy for daily prayer, Sunday worship, and for baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals and services of ordination.
It was Common Prayer, a set of texts/rites for the worship of the Church, and found in The Book of Common Prayer, first published as the expression of Reformed Catholicism for the Church of England in 1549. This Prayer Book easily fitted into the coat pocket of the man and the handbag of the woman, and its primary content was biblical citations and passages, woven together in a structured manner for the glory of God in worship and prayer.
The use of this Liturgy distinguished the Anglican from the Presbyterian, the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic and provided, when used with the Bible, a means of living before God in Christ Jesus in grace and holiness for 356 days a year for congregations, families and individual persons.
Naturally, its primary editions are in English, a fine yet understandable English from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as may be seen in its most used edition, that of 1662, from the reign of Charles II. It is this edition which has been translated into over 150 languages since then, and it is this edition which the large Anglican Church of Nigeria has very recently in 2005 declared to be its standard for worship and doctrine, and also the means it will use for deciding with whom it is in Eucharistic communion! It is this edition which has also been gently edited in such English-speaking countries as Canada, South Africa and the USA to become the Prayer Book of the Anglican Churches in these lands (e.g., 1928 edition in the USA).
What has happened to this Liturgy? Why it is no longer the real basis of Anglican unity in truth?
For an answer we have to look back to the period after World War II, and to note the powerful cultural winds that blew most strongly in the 1960s and early 1970s and deeply affected the practice of Christianity in the West. These gale-force winds not only profoundly changed the R.C. Church; but, they also deeply disturbed and changed the Anglican Communion of Churches, especially in the West/North.
For example, the Lord our God, who had been addressed as “Thou art” for as long as English had been spoken, now became as one of us and was addressed as “You are”! New theories of translation led to the publication of new versions of the Bible and with these were produced new forms of worship. Soon, alongside the true Anglican Liturgy there appeared experimental forms of service, soon collected into “Books of Alterative Services.” And, such was the power of the cultural typhoon in the USA that the Name of the received Liturgy was actually – in an act of piracy by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1976 – transferred to the new “Book of Varied and Alternative Services.” This was a clever move by progressive liberals for it took the Anglican Liturgy out of the official life of this Church.
With the arrival of new Bible translations/paraphrases and new forms of service, together with the arrival of new Morality, new forms of Ministry, new Dress-Codes, new Music, new roles for Bishops and new Architecture, the use of the Anglican Liturgy (with its tremendous heritage of music and art, devotion and piety) was declared by bishops and leaders to be out of date, irrelevant and too complicated for the Church in the modern era. Congregations were told it had to be replaced by exciting new forms to meet the needs of a new era, epoch and opportunity. How else could the young be recruited?
So the unity of the Anglican Way (a unity with comprehensiveness and local particularities), which had existed worldwide through one Liturgy was now in the West (but happily not in Africa and Asia) lost, even as that Liturgy was either banned or beaten down by many sincere but ill-informed clergy. And to fill the vacuum, the emphasis on “the Instruments of Unity” began in earnest. A family, which no longer had any common activity, speech and sentiments, and whose leaders extolled its great variety when meeting with its One LORD had to be kept together! And the way that emerged was an attempt at a weak form of hierarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury could not be the Pope; the Lambeth Conference could not be an ecumenical council; the Anglican Consultative Council could not be a kind of Vatican Congregations, and the Primates’ Meeting could not be the Meeting of Cardinals with the Pope, but at least they could, as a minimal hierarchy, possibly hold the dysfunctional family together – especially if helped from time to time by Commissions chaired by an Irish Archbishop!
But the Instruments are not fulfilling the confidence placed in them! Yet they are here to stay, at least for a decade and more. So I am not suggesting that Anglicans abandon the Instruments of Unity; but, that they look to them with realism and not as the major means of salvation and unity in truth for the Anglican Family. The Instruments can surely help but only if there is a greater force for unity present and at work.
Therefore, what I suggest is that Anglicans at the grass roots dare to do what their leaders in the West would not have them do. I recommend that serious thought and diligent prayer be given to the possibility of the restoration of the One Liturgy as the basis [the standard Formulary] of the Anglican Way. After all, most of the African Provinces do not need any convincing for they are basically there already!
And as the Episcopal Church of the USA has been a cause of much of the present dysfunctional life of the Anglican family, perhaps the USA is the place from which to launch’ and then take to its practical outworking, this suggestion.
However, for this proposal for One Liturgy to have any opportunity to work I think that the way in which The Book of Common Prayer (1662) is now normally available (as a compact, small hardbound book in Roman type) has to be changed. That is, changed not in the actual content of the Liturgy but in the layout of the pages, the font, the type, and the binding.
Before Vatican II made possible the arrival of the Roman Mass in the vernacular, there were various Missals in which the Tridentine Latin text was on one side and a dignified translation into English, or French, or German or whatever on the other side. With this model in mind, I suggest that as a major means for the unifying of the Anglican Way, in the West as a starter, that there be a conscious recovery of the Anglican Liturgy in a new format which preserves the text of the 1662 edition on one side of the page and (to take account of what has happened to addressing God since the 1960s in the West/North) on the other side there be a parallel text in contemporary English, where God is addressed as “You”. In this arrangement, the classic text would be the standard of doctrine (Formulary) but either text could be used for public worship. Further, the accompanying ceremonial, music and prayers for local persons and needs would be determined locally for the aim is uniformity in formulary but comprehensiveness in use.
[Where there are differences between the 1662 edition and say the 1928 USA edition then options could be built in for the use of the latter where that was desired; however, in order to have a universal standard, the 1662 edition would need to be seen as the primary edition and that by which the Anglican Way is first identified and defined.]
To make sense of this One Anglican Liturgy, the use of any other types of liturgy would truly have to return (as was intended when alternative services were first produced in the 1960s) to being seen as occasional alternatives to the use of the standard Anglican Liturgy and not as the primary liturgy itself. Further, they would be subject to the doctrine contained in the Formulary.
If the pioneer printing of this edition of 1662 with parallel texts does not contain the text of the Epistle and Gospel for each Sunday and Holy Day but simply states what are the passages to be read (and suggests the appropriate Versions to be used), then the book itself will not have too many pages. There will be need to bear in mind in the contemporary English part the possibility of canticles and versicles being chanted or sung and this will call for special care and expertise in preparation. Likewise the contemporary version of the Psalter will pose problems for chanting and will probably not be done initially as part of the pioneer edition of the parallel texts.
Thus it would appear that what needs to be done is for there to be the preparation by a small team of this edition of parallel texts based on the BCP 1662, then for this to be widely circulated in order for there to be opportunity for people all over the West, but especially in North America, to see what it looks like and feels like, and what are the possibilities of its use. Waiting for an international meeting to agree to all this and to appoint a committee to get on with it is not realistic. A start has to be made and if the product has worth it will gain acceptance and from the pioneer edition will develop a further edition which will then truly compete for its true position as the Anglican Liturgy by causing its competitors of recent vintage to step down from their high places. During this process, probably the weight of the Nigerian and Ugandan and other Churches will be added to the restoration of the One Anglican Liturgy as both the way of worship and the Formulary.
Of course ECUSA will not (unless a mighty wind from heaven blows through it) have any interest in this proposal, but surely those who see themselves as “the orthodox” within that Church, along with the Anglican Mission in America and other bodies of Anglicans outside of the ECUSA or at least not in harmony with its leadership, will see the restoration of the classic Anglican model of One Liturgy which is also One Formulary as at least a possible way forward as a way towards unity in truth both in North America and in the whole world. How can anyone who is truly Anglican, that is Reformed Catholic Christian in mind and heart, be opposed to this proposal if he or she desires to see the revival and unity of the Anglican Way?
(Please note that the Prayer Book Society of the USA has prepared a book of parallel texts for the Daily Office, the Order for Holy Communion, the Litany and the Collects, with the title, Worshipping in the Anglican Way [from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1 800 727 1928]. This book is based on the BCP1928 not the 1662 and is not part of the above proposal, but is an experimental means of leading people through a contemporary text to the classic text.)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
posted by John at 3:16 PM CDT permalink Links to this post 0 comments
